The 'Great Reset' reads like a globalist plot with some plot holes

Pierre Poilievre recently alertedthe nationto what he thinksJustin Trudeau is up to.

Last week, the presumptive finance minister in Erin O'Toole's "government-in-waiting" warned that "global financial elites" are attempting to "re-engineer economies and societies" in order to "empower the elitesat the expense of the people." Canadians, he said, "must fight back against global elites" and "their power grab." He invited those who sharehis concerns to sign a petition calling on the government to "protect our freedom" and "end plans to impose the 'Great Reset'."

That certainly does sound like afrightening scenario. But there are some holes in the plot.

The item that so alarmedthe Conservative frontbencherwas a clip that circulated online last week of the prime minister speaking at a United Nations conference in September. "This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset," Justin Trudeau told the conference. "This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts, to re-imagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequalityand climate change."

Poilievre linked Trudeau's comments to a call for a "great reset"made in June by Klaus Schwab, the executive director of the World Economic Forum, an independent organization best known for hosting a high-minded gabfest in Davos, Switzerland each year. (Trudeau has been to that summit twice the same number of times Stephen Harper attended when he was prime minister.)

Scary stories

In doing so, the prominent Conservative MP brushed up against conspiracy theorists who imagine that powerful, shadowyfigures are plotting world domination and tyranny.

Poilievreemphasized the words "reset," "opportunity," "chance" and "re-imagine" in Trudeau's comments. But hispetitioncuts offTrudeau's second sentence before the prime minister'sreference to the "global challenges of extreme poverty, inequalityand climate change."

Set aside the spooky stories about "global elites" and "freedom," and Trudeau's words simply point toa reality-based debate aboutthe post-pandemic world about which issuesgovernments should focus on and how they should address them.

Beyondquestions about Poilievre's beliefs and behaviour, there are others thatcouldusefully shape the Canadian political debate. Do Conservatives believe the Liberal government's stated priorities are not the sorts of things the federal government should worry about? Or do they simply believe the Liberals are bound to take the wrong approach to those problems? If so, what would they do instead?

Crisis and opportunity

Justin Trudeau is hardly the first prime minister to see a moment that calls forsweeping change. Stephen Harper, for instance, went to the World Economic Forum in 2012 and vowed that, in the wake of the Great Recession, his government would implement "major transformations to position Canada for growth over the next generation."

ButPoilievrewasn't the only oneexpressing alarmlast week.

Though he refrained from saying anything about "global elites," Conservative leader Erin O'Toole followed Poilievre's campaign with a video of his own. In it, hecitedthatsame clip of Trudeau, but instead cast the prime minister's comments as insensitive and his plans as risky.

"It's hard to believe that anyone would look at the carnage caused by COVID-19 and see an opportunity," O'Toole lamented.

A reporterasked O'Toole onWednesday whether he believed in the "great reset"theory."I don't follow social media," he replied a response that's hard to square with the fact that O'Toole's own Twitter account recently promoted the creation of a separate Twitter account for his dog.

Trudeau's governmentdid leave itself open to the charge that it was, at the very least, getting ahead of itself. Back in the summer, Liberals began to talk aloud about the post-pandemic economic recoveryand the "generational opportunity" that would be created by the need to rebuild. They were not alone in thinking such things, but as the second wave began to emerge, theyshifted their messaging to signal that they remain focusedon the immediate threat.

In the midst of a global emergency, talk of"opportunity" can seemjarring.Harper was widely lampooned for saying that the stock market crash in 2008 offered some "great buying opportunities" even thoughhe turned out to be basically correct.But there has been widespread discussion, beyond the halls of power in Ottawa, about how countries and governments should plan to emerge from this once-in-centurycrisis.

Thepandemicwill leave behindsignificant economic damage everywhere damage that governments might help to repair through policy and public spending. At the same time, the pandemic has both exposed and highlighted an array of pre-existing problems, from economic, gender and racial inequalities to shortcomings incare for the elderly.

And even as public and government attention is consumed by the immediate threat of COVID-19, the equally profound threat of climate change continues to bear down on the planet.

In theory, when the pandemic begins to recede, all of those concerns might be addressed together tostimulate economic growth while buildinga more equitable and sustainable economy. This is why the idea of "building back better" has caught on among progressive leaders, like Trudeau and American president-elect Joe Biden,and withBritish Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a populist conservative whose example O'Toole has acknowledged studying.

Trudeau's broad agenda on this front was laid out in September's throne speechnew spending on child care, further efforts to expand pharmacare, investments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to a cleaner economy, enhanced training for workers, measures to combat systemic racism and new standards for long-term care.

In response, O'Toole warned obliquely that the Liberal government was preparing to conduct "social experiments."

'Everything is not OK'

At the most basic level, O'Toole and Poilievre might be trying to set up a simple conflict between risk and certainty,as opposed to a contest of differentapproaches to the same basic problems. But, as noted, Trudeau isn't the only leader saying that society might be improved somewhat; O'Toole himself said much the same thing in a speech three weeks ago.

"Everything is not OK," the Conservative leader said at an event hosted by the Canadian Club of Toronto.Instead of building back "better," O'Toole said, Conservatives would aim to build back "stronger."

So perhaps the next election willbe about your choice of adjectives.

O'Toolealso worried aloud aboutstagnant wages and workers who lackbenefits and pensions. He said Conservatives need to take inequality "seriously." He praised capitalism whilearguingthat"free markets alone won't solve our problems" and "we need policies that build solidarity, not just wealth."

It's not hard to imaginePoilievreexpressing alarmif Trudeau hadsaid similar things about the existing economic system.

"We must change," O'Toole said, even though "powerful forces continue to defend the status quo." (O'Toole and Poilievre might also want to compare notes about what exactly the "global elite" is up to these days.)

O'Toole didn't say much about how he would address any of these concerns. He didn't mention child care or systemic racism. He criticizedwhat he calledthe Trudeau government's driveto implement "green energy" policies, but he didn't explain how he would reduce Canada's emissions.

To be fair, the Liberals haven't said much yetabout how exactly they plan to tackle those problems either. They have yet to explain how many of the throne speech's promises would be implemented.

For now, this is a phoney war between one partythat says the federal government should tryto do a bunch of things (but hasn't said how)and another partythat says that trying to do a bunch of thingssounds scary (even as it concedesthat somethings do need to change).

At some point, it might be nice to talk aboutreal things.