photo #8944215

PIERRE POLLIVIER Mark Carney stood in front of the world’s most powerful elites at Davos and declared that the rules based international order is dead. He said the old system was a lie that everyone participated in to avoid trouble. Then he said Canada is taking the sign out of the window.That alone should stop people cold.Because if the rules are dead, the next question is obvious. Who decides what replaces them?Carney’s answer was not Parliament. It was not voters. It was not provinces. It was coalitions, variable geometry, strategic autonomy, and executive driven alignment with global partners. In plain language, that means decisions made outside democratic institutions, justified as necessary because the world is dangerous and unstable.He spoke openly about bypassing weakened multilateral bodies, building issue by issue coalitions, fast tracking massive investments, and redefining sovereignty as resilience rather than consent. He framed this as honesty. But honesty without accountability is not democracy. It is managerial power.This was not a speech about defending Canadian self government. It was a speech about managing Canada inside a new global order where voters are a risk variable, not the source of authority.He praised values based realism, but never explained who defines those values or how citizens can reject them. He spoke of strength at home, but described it as centralized investment, coordinated planning, and executive discretion. He spoke of truth, but delivered the message at Davos, not in the House of Commons.If the old order was sustained by ritual compliance, then Canadians should ask whether a new ritual is being introduced. One where we are told the world is too dangerous for debate, too complex for consent, and too urgent for limits.Every government claims crisis. Every overreach begins with necessity. The real question is not whether the world is changing. It is whether Canadians still get to decide how we change with it.If sovereignty now means resilience, who controls the systems that define resilience?If values justify power, who gets to say no?If the rules are gone, what replaces the protections that restrained government itself?Taking the sign out of the window sounds brave. But tearing down the guardrails without asking the people is not courage. It is control dressed up as realism.Canadians should not be asking whether this sounds smart. They should be asking whether they consent.