Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - November 8, 2025, Winnipeg, Manitoba THINK TANK A7 SATURDAY NOVEMBER 8, 2025 Ideas, Issues, Insights A budget that doesn’t quite hit the mark W ILL the real Mark Carney please stand up? Is the prime minister a bold economic transformer, or a technocratic economic tinker- er? That’s the question many Canadians are asking in the wake of his Liberal government’s version of a “big, beautiful budget.” It was definitely “big” — on spending, deficits and debt — and it was obviously a “budget.” Two in fact, with sepa- rate capital and operating budgets presented. But beauty is very much in the eye of the be- holder. On this measure, beautiful in confronting Canada’s economic challenges, the jury is still out. Flogged as a “bold” budget, a “generational” budget and at one point even a “sacrifice” budget, the final product reflected this mixed messaging with a confused, complicated narrative of what it is trying to accomplish. A post-budget poll by Abacus posed this question: “In your view, what was the main purpose of the budget?” The highest percentage — 27 per cent — chose this answer: “It’s unclear what the main purpose of the budget is.” This 500-page bound book turned out to be “tome”-deaf. That’s a problem for a government seeking sustained public support to transform Canada’s economy in what the prime minister repeatedly, and correctly, calls a “hinge moment.” It means the budget failed to match the rhetoric surround- ing it. More critically, it failed to match Canadi- ans’ anxieties about the moment we are in and expectations the government would act boldly to meet that moment. Budgets don’t just generate market reactions; they generate emotional reactions too, sometimes angry, sometimes positive, often disappointed. The collective exhale after this one was a giant “meh,” as in, “That’s it?” Sure, there was much to be angry or happy or disappointed about in this budget. Conservatives are angry about the massive $78-billion deficit, but happy with more defence spending. New Democrats are happy about the increased spend- ing it contains, but angry about the cuts to the public service. Business is disappointed in more spending and higher deficits, but happy to have more investment tax incentives. But in Ottawa political terms, this was any- thing but a “meh” budget. It is, in fact, a defining budget. Not so much for the 10 years ahead, but for the 10 years past. Carney has decisively closed the door on the demand side path of Justin Trudeau’s social program expansionism, climate change evangelism and public service escalation. Instead, there is a clear supply side shift towards spending more on the economy and defence with a deliberate reduction in the size of the federal public service. One example suffices. Having already elimi- nated the consumer carbon charge in the spring, the Carney Budget wound down Trudeau’s signature program to plant two billion trees. This is as symbolic a demarcation from the Liberal past as you can get. Costing $3.2 billion, it would have generated just 12 megatonnes in carbon reductions 25 years from now in 2050, amount- ing to only a two per cent reduction from today’s emissions levels. But Canadians already knew Carney was dif- ferent enough from Justin Trudeau to vote him in as prime minister in April. That curiosity has been satisfied. Now they’re curious about where we are going and how are we going to get there. The budget can only offer a partial answer to these questions. That’s because the real answer is up to the private sector, and whether they re- spond positively to the dim sum array of financial tax incentives and investment fiddling holding centre stage in the capital portion of the budget. Right now, their answer is “we’re not sure.” Initial reactions were that it was neither transfor- mational nor bold enough to confidently unlock new business investment. In short, the budget was “good” but not “good enough” for Canada’s economic circumstances. What is bold in the budget is the bet Carney is making that spending $140 billion more now, and accepting bigger public debt levels as a result, will unleash $1 trillion in reciprocal investments from the private sector over the next five years. How risky this bet is can be seen in a government report two days after the budget showing that $9 billion of expected investment through new, clean energy and technology tax incentives already in place simply did not materialize. The reason: policy and economic uncertainty that makes investment money skittish. The prime minister is trying to rectify this across the economy. For good reason. Canada has a notably risk-averse private sector. With Carney, it now has a risk-accepting public sector. These need to align if the country is to achieve the “Canada Strong” emblazoned on the budget cover. Economic uncertainty is with us as long as U.S. President Donald Trump exists. Policy certainty requires clear, long-term direction, significant public money and better government execution. But will they get that from this budget and this Liberal government? There’s an old saying in politics: You campaign in poetry, but you govern in prose. Mark Carney’s Budget Day metamorphosis from campaign transformer to government tinkerer shows he resembles that remark. David McLaughlin is a former clerk of the executive council and cabinet secretary in the Manitoba government. Advocating violence no way to respond to court verdict THE Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that one-year mandatory minimum jail sentences for possession of and accessing child pornogra- phy (child sexual abuse and exploitation material) are unconstitutional. In response to this ruling, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew appears to be calling for the extraju- dicial killing of convicted offenders, and encour- aging vigilante justice saying, “Not only should (you) go to prison for a long time, they should bury you under the prison. You shouldn’t get pro- tective custody. They should put you into general population, if you know what I mean.” Not only do these comments advocate further violence in prisons — threatening the life and safety of those working and incarcerated in these institutions — these comments are an affront to the administration of justice and rule of law. Mandatory minimum sentences are a blunt le- gal tool that can prevent a judge from doing their job, which includes considering the individual circumstances of a case in arriving at a fit and proportionate sentence. Not only can mandatory minimums constrain a judge’s consideration of the circumstances of the accused, they can also limit deliberation about the harms to a victim or community in the specific circumstances of an offence. In the Supreme Court ruling that Kinew called “disgusting,” the only issue before the court was the constitutionality of the impugned mandatory minimum sentences. The specific sen- tences that had been imposed on the individuals before the court were not an issue on appeal. In analyzing the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences in this case, the whole of the Supreme Court recognized that child sexual abuse and exploitation material is “a scourge that is profoundly wrongful and harmful towards children.” A majority of the court acknowledged that while these offences “often warrant the imposition of severe penalties,’’ they can also “be committed in different ways, under different circumstances and by different offenders.” When a court is asked to consider whether a mandatory minimum sentence is constitutional, the court considers what a fit and proportionate sentence would be in the case in question, but also considers hypothetical situations that are reasonably foreseeable. Because of the wide range of circumstances in which a crime can oc- cur, a wider range of scenarios is considered and then compared with the mandatory minimum. This is why, in this case, the court considered a scenario where an 18-year-old receives (and keeps), from a friend of the same age, a “sext” that friend received from his girlfriend, who is 17 years old. Without diminishing the harm and the need to denounce this conduct, the court found that in this scenario, where a young person without a criminal record receives an unsolic- ited explicit image from a friend, a minimum sentence of one year’s imprisonment would be grossly disproportionate. In a constitutional challenge to a mandatory minimum sentence, consideration of a range of scenarios protects the rule of law because it is the nature of the law, not just the circumstances of the specific accused, that is in issue. While the mandatory minimum sentences in question were determined to be unconstitutional, the principle that courts should impose tougher punishments for sexual crimes against children is still the law. Parliament has repeatedly increased sentenc- es for sexual offences against children, with successive legislative changes (in 1987, 2005 and 2015) that have steadily increased the maximum sentences for these kinds of offences. And Su- preme Court rulings have repeatedly respected and upheld these legislative choices. Recently, in a 2020 decision that originated in Manitoba (R. v. Friesen), a unanimous Supreme Court said that courts should be giving higher sentences for sexual crimes against children and that longer sentences (for example, 10 years or more) shouldn’t be unusual. It is possible, as the Supreme Court has done in the decision currently under attack, to emphasize the immense harm of sexual violence against children while also acknowledging that minimum sentences are unconstitutional. Every day, sentencing judges grapple with a myriad of competing interests in arriving at a just sentence. Mandatory minimums remove their judicial discretion and can lead to unjust sentences. This contributes to the mass incar- ceration of racialized individuals (especially Indigenous peoples), women, those dealing with disabling mental health issues and the poor. Sentencing is a highly individualized process, and debate about outcomes in judicial decisions is expected. In a healthy democracy, the “dialogue” between our judicial and legislative branches of government is characterized by mutual respect and tethered to the actual decisions rendered by courts and laws passed by the legislature. Instead of contributing to a thoughtful dialogue about the competing interests at play in sentenc- ing, Kinew is advocating for violence in incredi- bly dehumanizing terms — in ways unbecoming of a political leader. Allison Fenske is a practising lawyer, clinical counsel at the University of Manitoba’s Faculty of Law and director of the University of Mani- toba Community Law Centre, which includes a prison law clinic that provides legal services to incarcerated individuals across Manitoba. Agriculture both Canada’s past and future EVERY fall, EMILI — a Manitoba-based non- profit for which I’m managing director — hosts our Agriculture Enlightened conference. This year’s event on Oct. 23 drew business leaders, producers, civil servants, technologists and investors from across North America. Some came from as far as Ghana and Mongolia. Such interest in part stems from the echoes of Canada’s historical reputation as an agri- cultural powerhouse. Canada ranks ninth in the world for agrifood exports, with buyers in virtually every nation on Earth. Our public research institutions are recognized as global leaders in agrifood science. Our agtech eco- system is inventing cutting-edge tools with enormous potential. And our producers are beacons of upholding high environmental and food quality standards. But a converging set of global challenges are forcing all nations to reassess how they feed their citizens. It’s here that our nation — and Manitoba itself — have key insights and capaci- ties to share with the rest of the world. Amid a fragmenting geopolitical environ- ment and sudden rupture in relations with our southern neighbour, the headlines these days declare Canada a nation adrift. But that wasn’t the story told at Agriculture Enlightened this year. Rather, participants heard all about how Canada still has a vital role to play in making the world a safer, more prosperous and more sustainable place — and agriculture is at the heart of it. When it comes to authorizing the use of in- field spray drones and other emerging tools, it’s clear that regulations must catch up to where new industry capabilities are at. Although, giv- en the pace of technological development, it’s unrealistic to expect this to happen in linear fashion. Instead, Erika Carrasco, a partner with MLT Aikins, told the Agriculture Enlightened audi- ence that governments must embrace a more dynamic and flexible approach when working with strategically vital sectors. For a success- ful real-life example, Carrasco pointed to what Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador have done to resolve bespoke issues around commer- cial space activity, enabling the construction of the Atlantic Spaceport Complex, owned and op- erated by private sector company NordSpace. Canada must also do a better job at val- ue-added processing. In essence, shifting from the production and export of raw commodities to producing complex ingredients and finished products. Keynote speaker Mirjana Prica, head of Food Innovation Australia, an industry-backed nonprofit that catalyzes business growth across the agrifood value chain in that country, predicted this is best driven by small and me- dium enterprises. Compared to multinational corporations, such enterprises are more agile at reacting to complex global changes current- ly unfolding that will profoundly impact future food demand by 2050. These include the paradox of a growing glob- al population — projected to reach 9.7 billion by mid-century — alongside aging societies. As are rising health and environmental concerns, larger middle classes in the developing world and consumers are aligning their purchasing power with their ethical values. Finally, all of this is happening at a time when the global economy is under strain and trade relations are being tested. For one, the assumption that China’s authoritarian tenden- cies would be moderated by its inclusion into the international trading order two decades ago has proven false. Beijing is now undeniably leveraging its economic clout to achieve its foreign policy goals. “You can always run away from China,” said Gary Mar, president and CEO of the Canada West Foundation in a chat onstage with Bram Strain, head of the Business Council of Mani- toba, “but you are also always going to run into China.” The answer — one recognized by the Carney government — is to diversify trade, especially in agriculture, making Canada less vulnerable to the whims of both China and America. This requires governments working with businesses and market analysts to identify opportunities, then reassess policies and build infrastructure to make it happen. “If you can’t move things, you can’t sell them,” added Mar. All of this inherently requires the willing- ness to make bold decisions and a higher risk tolerance within the public and private sector alike. Initiating this paradigm shift in thinking can often be the most difficult aspect of innova- tion — far more so than overcoming hardware or software challenges. If Canada is to capitalize on its agricultural assets in the interests of our country in the 21st century, there’s really no other choice. And given our province’s history of agricultural ex- cellence, history of innovation and the promise of new technologies, I see every reason why the next generation of Canada’s most important industry should start here. Jacqueline Keena is managing director at Enterprise Machine Intelligence Learning Initiative, and a professional agrologist with degrees in agribusiness and public policy. DAVID MCLAUGHLIN JACQUELINE KEENA ALLISON FENSKE THE CANADIAN PRESS FILES Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne shakes hands with Prime Minister Mark Carney after delivering his budget speech in the House of Commons Tuesday. ;