Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[Open Source Intelligence]

The past few pages are great Rorschach tests. I feel confident that if the parties were reversed the only person I am 100% would be writing the exact same posts past the initial discussion of this occurred are Anarchy in the CCCP. Anyone want to bet money Frank would be writing the same posts if it was a Conservative House Leadership doing the exact same faux pas? The logic would be the exact same and therefore should hold, but I doubt it, he'd probably tear into them that this shows an underlying flaw in their character and would be a Freudian slip showing the Tories are too comfortable with these elements and should not be in power. I doubt Wernher Von Braun would ever be raised. Exemplifies everything wrong with modern Western democracy. There's no principles or morals that are universally held at all times by partisans, you adjust what you state and believe based on the needs of the moment, truth be damned.

The rewriting history motion raised in the House to remove the praise AND the video...such nonsense.

[Open Source Intelligence]

I genuinely do not believe Trudeau or any other member of Cabinet was at fault for this, unless there's any evidence to the contrary it feels like an extremely cut-and-dry situation of Rota and/or Rota's staff being extremely incompetent, inviting a constituent without doing any due diligence.

You don't think Freeland emerges worse out of this?

She takes a personal hit because talk about Ukrainian Nazis draws attention to her grandfather who was a Ukrainian Nazi, sure. But most reasonable people can understand that being the granddaughter of a Nazi, doesn't make one a Nazi. Either way, I was just saying I personally don't think anyone in cabinet was responsible for Hunka's invitation, Freeland or otherwise.

She literally did her thesis on Ukraine and WW2 so her giving him a standing ovation makes it all the more suspicious

At any rate, I think there are far more tangible and relevant things to criticize Freeland on.

David Herle and Scott Reid on Curse of Politics have routinely criticized her on public-facing economic management, or lack thereof.

Crazy how she's gone from "Justin Trudeau's Natural Successor as Prime Minister" to whatever she is now.

Something happened in the federal Liberal Party leadership and its MP's post-2021 election, and it still has not come out what. They went forever on coming back to work and creating a government and since they still can't find their groove. The only thing I can think of is there were loud grumblings about Trudeau as leader with them not improving/not getting a majority, and since that was resolved quietly he remains in power some Liberals are resigned to getting thrashed/losing jobs next election and lost their mojo. This is just a theory and other than what I listen to and read on Canadian politics, I have no insider insight. But what are some other plausible reasons?

You'd think Poilievre becoming Opposition Leader would get them on the ball but the government seems constrained by the broader economy they have no intention or will to do anything. Fixing housing is a tough job, but it's one that should once you take actions to do it you can then point to easily quantifiable numbers like "we have more housing starts, prices are down in these areas", etc. Instead of what are they doing now on it? The Ukrainian Nazi salute get rid of the histrionics of it and it was a genuine mistake, if you had an enthusiastic government doing its job and paying attention to details, that never occurs because some staffer would've been assigned to dig into it and Google searching "First Ukrainian Division" would have raised "hey, we need to stop this now". The whole Chinese political influence thing and the Johnston Report. Their defense for why it didn't reach Trudeau's attention was it sat on Bill Blair's desk for 6 months. There's one of 2 possible explanations for that and only 2. The first is Blair was running defense for Trudeau so Trudeau could escape blame for something he did not want to do. The second is Bill Blair was completely absentee incompetent at his job. Blair in the latest Cabinet reshuffle got promoted. Which sends the wrong signal if you believe in good governance if the real reason is #1, and also does not say anything about good governance if the real reason is #2. The whole thing with India how do you do that without ally support? On another forum a known Canadian colonel has stated the whole thing was to expose (and therefore destroy) RAW intelligence networks in all of the Five Eyes countries, but to do so without publicizing evidence and making yourself appear alone on the world stage? For a person so concerned with public image as Justin Trudeau is?

In 2073 when they do Historical Prime Minister rankings, I don't think he'll turn out well.

[Open Source Intelligence]

I note that a recent poll had Bieber miles behind the Tory leader in the "best PM" ratings - and maybe even worse, was nearly caught by the useless Singh

Is it now a real possibility he doesn't even stay around until the next GE?

I think it's always been a possibility: it is a time-honored tradition in Canada to quit right before a certain defeat and leave some other schmuck holding the bag. The problem is that for a long time the obvious successor was Freeland, but she now seems so discredited that it's hard for me to imagine that she could actually win a leadership contest. I'm unsure whom that leaves as an option.

Well being the Liberals, from history we know their only options are an Ontarian or a Quebecer that is fluent in English and French. Last leader the Liberal Party had from a riding not in either province was Mac King representing Prince Albert. The party with a couple exceptions does not exist west of Thunder Bay and I don't see them picking anyone from the Atlantic provinces. Francois-Philippe Champagne seems a competent politician actually worth ten cents, but he also seems the type that would get destroyed by Pierre Poilievre in a general election campaign, and then all the guys that really want to run the party would bury him afterward so he could take the blame and not Trudeau. But maybe it's what you do to become Prime Minister for 5 months.

[Open Source Intelligence]

Moving this discussion so more Canadians can see and maybe comment:

Yes, and I would be happy if Western Europe had taken NATO seriously over the last thirty years so that there wouldn’t need to be more than a tripwire force from the U.S. present but sadly that wasn’t the case.

I read yesterday this in the Ottawa Playbook from Politico.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/ottawa-playbook/2023/10/23/from-rosedale-to-the-rock-00122950

THE SOUND OF SILENCE — The Canadian Armed Forces are struggling mightily to recruit, train and retain personnel. The pandemic worsened a pre-existing problem. It’s gotten so bad that the military doesn’t have enough people to offer most visiting dignitaries in Ottawa a gun salute.

A scaled-down list of ceremonial offerings was detailed in a tasking order circulated by Chief of the Defense Staff Gen. WAYNE EYRE in August.

“The CAF has been hampered by numerous deficiencies that have impacted the composition and readiness of the CAF, and which have been compounded by the global pandemic,” read the order, obtained by POLITICO.

He ordered ceremonial military honors to be scaled down to a “sustainable level” until 2025.

— There’s that R-word: The word of the moment in federal budgetary circles is restraint. Same goes for a resource-thin military forced to reckon with a lack of people.

The Department of National Defence has been trying to solve the problem for more than a year. A directive published by Eyre and Deputy Minister BILL MATTHEWS on Oct. 6, 2022 laid out the scope of the challenge — and the need to rebuild.

“These strains continue to imperil the force size available for operations and have resulted in a significant loss of experience and expertise within the CAF, creating a requirement to recover and rebuild (reconstitute) the organization,” read that directive.

In the aftermath of the Russia-Ukraine War, there's going to be a serious reckoning in NATO when it comes to procurement and replacement of equipment, throw on top of it recruiting of new personnel to replace everyone retiring. Organizationally the Europeans need to figure out what they're doing. If it's through NATO (American leadership) or through EU (not American leadership, so largely French), I don't care, just pick one and go
with it. I'm all for American Presidents telling our allies to live up to their treaty commitments toward ensuring American defense, just as we live up to our treaty commitments toward ensuring European and Canadian defense. In NATO there's us, France, Turkey, Poland, Sweden, and the UK. There's a lot of other countries. In late 2021, they held a huge NATO joint naval exercise and the Belgians were kicked out of it because the crew of their frigate Leopold I was deemed undertrained.

Ouch.    Has it occurred to the Canadian Liberals that protecting Canada’s vast, increasingly geopolitically important, northern reaches might be a good idea? Or are they just going to let those nefarious Americans sail through their waters unchallenged? Much less what the Russians might get up to?

The Canadians have one base in their Arctic reaches at Alert in far northern Nunavut. It's largely just signals intelligence.

You saw it when an American airplane shot down the suspected Chinese spy balloon on Canadian soil. Canada's defense is calling the U.S.

Again, ouch.  

You’d think that Canadian National Pride would have resulted in some changes by now.

They don't care. Trudeau already stated they cannot live up to NATO commitments. Which, fine, but you lose the right to have your word taken seriously on foreign affairs. It's easier for Trudeau to just rely on the Americans instead of Canada living up to their word and spending more money. But it puts them in a pickle when they negotiate with the Americans or other countries on issues of global importance when the inevitable "what are you bringing to the table?" is asked. China and India during Trudeau's reign as Prime Minister have very publicly treated Canada as completely unimportant irrelevant in global affairs, and this is a G7 member. It would never get stated publicly, but all signals are Biden does not think much of the Canadians either. His administration formally asked Trudeau during his convoy crisis if he needed American help to take care of Canada's problem on the Ambassador Bridge, which...wow.

How the world has changed the last 4 years where leaders of first world countries officially gave up on more interconnected economic activity getting rid of the world divide and would democratize other countries, there's going to be winners and losers. Unless countries such as Canada and Germany as the most obvious European example have a serious reckoning on their place in geopolitical affairs, they're going to be losers.

I forgot Turkey in my earlier post. They're a real military inside NATO.

I am not at all surprised at Belgium’s failure that you mentioned: they’re kinda known for that.

I…agree with you on this. What do the other Canadian political parties say on this subject?

You’d think Fidel Castro’s illegitimate Canadian son would know the value of a strong military  

Curious about certain posters’ reactions in particular.

The one major defense improvement Trudeau agreed to that was new was committing funds to the necessary upgrading of NORAD, a joint American-Canadian organization. He also agreed to this immediately before calling an election, telling you he did not want the government to have to defend the decision or debate in Parliament.

[Open Source Intelligence]

In addition to Champagne, I've heard Mark Carney and Melanie Joly as possible successors. I can't see Carney taking over a sinking ship though.

I'm lost at why Joly's career has advanced at much as it has. Wasn't she embarrassed on a French news show as Heritage Minister, and in the aftermath of that she went from "Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario" direct to "Minister of Foreign Affairs" a few months before the Russians invaded Ukraine. If you want to say "she deserves this", fine, tell me why.

[Open Source Intelligence]

My reaction is what I wrote earlier: there isn't enough money to do everything and to claim otherwise is a lie.

"There isn't enough money to do everything and to claim otherwise is a lie."

Is this the philosophy of how the Liberal Party of Canada has governed during Trudeau's time in power? Talking everything.

Has Canada formally notified other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that they are unable to live up to the commitments they made when they signed the treaty, and have the other members of NATO taken up the notice, making a decision on how to treat that and whether it affects the details of Canada's membership? Canadians investing 2% as they agreed to do in a treaty is them investing in every other NATO member's defense, not just their own. That's the whole purpose in fact of NATO and collective defense organizations.

If it's the opinion of the Canadian government that the burden is too taxing and should be altered, they can offer up an amendment to the treaty. They have done no such thing.

In terms of 'influence' in the world being based on military spending, what does 'influence' get Canada? That sounds to me like the usual B.S from the foreign policy establishment "we must have a large military to have influence.' What does this influence get us? Why should I care?

Paul Wells wrote about this 6 weeks ago.

http://paulwells.substack.com/p/grounded

[Justin Trudeau tweet following attending the G20 Conference]:

The @G20org Leaders' Summit has started. During today's working sessions, we spoke about climate change, gender equality, global health, inclusive growth, and more. I pushed for greater ambition in those areas - and I advocated for continued support for Ukraine.

One can imagine the other world leaders’ glee whenever this guy shows up. “Oh, it’s Justin Trudeau, here to push for greater ambition!” Shall we peer into their briefing binders? Let’s look at Canada’s performance on every single issue Trudeau mentions, in order.

On climate change, Canada ranks 58th of 63 jurisdictions in the global Climate Change Performance Index. The country page for Canada uses the words “very low” three times in the first two sentences.

On gender equality, the World Economic Forum (!) ranks Canada 30th behind a bunch of other G-20 members.

On global health, this article in Britain’s BMJ journal calls Canada “a high income country that frames itself as a global health leader yet became one of the most prominent hoarders of the limited global covid-19 vaccine supply.”

On inclusive growth, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has a composite indicator called the Inclusive Growth Index. Canada’s value is 64.1, just behind the United States (!) and Australia, further behind most of Europe, stomped by Norway at 76.9%.

On support for Ukraine, the German Kiel Institute think tank ranks Canada fifth in the world, and third as a share of GDP, for financial support; and 8th in the world, or 21st as a share of GDP, for military support.

Almost all of these results are easy enough to understand. A small number are quite honourable. But none reads to me as any kind of license to wander around, administering lessons to other countries. I just finished reading John Williams’ luminous 1965 novel about university life, Stoner. A minor character in the book mocks the lectures and his fellow students, and eventually stands unmasked as a poser who hasn’t done even the basic reading in his discipline. I found the character strangely familiar. You’d think that after nearly a decade in power, after the fiascos of the UN Security Council bid, the first India trip, the collegiate attempt to impress a schoolgirl with fake trees, the prime minister would have figured out that fewer and fewer people, at home or abroad, are persuaded by his talk.

Then goes on into domestic politics.

[Open Source Intelligence]

My reaction is what I wrote earlier: there isn't enough money to do everything and to claim otherwise is a lie.

"There isn't enough money to do everything and to claim otherwise is a lie."

Is this the philosophy of how the Liberal Party of Canada has governed during Trudeau's time in power? Talking everything.

Has Canada formally notified other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that they are unable to live up to the commitments they made when they signed the treaty, and have the other members of NATO taken up the notice, making a decision on how to treat that and whether it affects the details of Canada's membership? Canadians investing 2% as they agreed to do in a treaty is them investing in every other NATO member's defense, not just their own. That's the whole purpose in fact of NATO and collective defense organizations.

If it's the opinion of the Canadian government that the burden is too taxing and should be altered, they can offer up an amendment to the treaty. They have done no such thing.

In terms of 'influence' in the world being based on military spending, what does 'influence' get Canada? That sounds to me like the usual B.S from the foreign policy establishment "we must have a large military to have influence.' What does this influence get us? Why should I care?

Paul Wells wrote about this 6 weeks ago.

http://paulwells.substack.com/p/grounded

[Justin Trudeau tweet following attending the G20 Conference]:

The @G20org Leaders' Summit has started. During today's working sessions, we spoke about climate change, gender equality, global health, inclusive growth, and more. I pushed for greater ambition in those areas - and I advocated for continued support for Ukraine.

One can imagine the other world leaders’ glee whenever this guy shows up. “Oh, it’s Justin Trudeau, here to push for greater ambition!” Shall we peer into their briefing binders? Let’s look at Canada’s performance on every single issue Trudeau mentions, in order.

On climate change, Canada ranks 58th of 63 jurisdictions in the global Climate Change Performance Index. The country page for Canada uses the words “very low” three times in the first two sentences.

On gender equality, the World Economic Forum (!) ranks Canada 30th behind a bunch of other G-20 members.

On global health, this article in Britain’s BMJ journal calls Canada “a high income country that frames itself as a global health leader yet became one of the most prominent hoarders of the limited global covid-19 vaccine supply.”

On inclusive growth, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has a composite indicator called the Inclusive Growth Index. Canada’s value is 64.1, just behind the United States (!) and Australia, further behind most of Europe, stomped by Norway at 76.9%.

On support for Ukraine, the German Kiel Institute think tank ranks Canada fifth in the world, and third as a share of GDP, for financial support; and 8th in the world, or 21st as a share of GDP, for military support.

Almost all of these results are easy enough to understand. A small number are quite honourable. But none reads to me as any kind of license to wander around, administering lessons to other countries. I just finished reading John Williams’ luminous 1965 novel about university life, Stoner. A minor character in the book mocks the lectures and his fellow students, and eventually stands unmasked as a poser who hasn’t done even the basic reading in his discipline. I found the character strangely familiar. You’d think that after nearly a decade in power, after the fiascos of the UN Security Council bid, the first India trip, the collegiate attempt to impress a schoolgirl with fake trees, the prime minister would have figured out that fewer and fewer people, at home or abroad, are persuaded by his talk.

Then goes on into domestic politics.

There is no specific commitment from Canada or any other nation on reaching 2%. There is a target.

Paul Wells is generally one of the better columnists, but he also wants the government to increase military spending (and probably other spending as well), cut taxes and balance the budget. The best thing about Paul Wells is that he admits that he's lying in arguing that any government can achieve all of these things.

The entire federal budget is $500 billion Canadian, the U.S defense budget is somewhere around $800 billion. If the only way to have 'influence' is to spend money on defense, the United States is the boss of the world.

The foreign policy establishment has publicly argued that defense spending is somehow unique and should not be subject to the same restraints and bean counting of every other department. If the foreign policy establishment was less arrogant, more Canadians might buy into their B.S.

This is not to say that I don't favor military spending in a number of areas, whether dealing with disasters, NORAD or protecting trade but this is the sort of nonsense I hear from them:

1.Russia has invaded Ukraine so Canada needs to increase its military spending.
2.Russia has invaded Ukraine and is losing, so Canada needs to increase its military spending.  ?

I think even the press that repeats everything the foreign policy establishment says (including the CBC) couldn't explain that. So...

3.Russia has invaded Ukraine and is losing, so Putin will be like a wounded bear, so Canada needs to increase its military spending.

4.Russia has invaded Ukraine and its uncertain what's going to happen, so in a more uncertain world Canada needs to increase its military spending.

Anytime the mainstream media reports on foreign affairs from a Canadian perspective, no matter what's going on, you can be sure Canadians will be told that Canada needs to increase its military spending.

There's a very large difference between "we're increasing military spending to the moon" and "our military is in such a financial and personnel depression that we have cut back ceremonial events drastically".

I'm just looking at the next 10 years, I'm pretty pessimistic on the world and where it's going and I think we're all going to be doing a lot more fighting. Real fighting, not us staying at home and sending the Ukrainians a tank, and not necessarily vs. Russia. The glass got broke and now all this change that got bottled up post-end of Cold War you can see it getting released. Ukraine (which dates back to 2014, not 2022), Israel and the Palestinians are back at it, Gaza will likely get decreased in size by fact as the Israels create a buffer (kind of a Russian viewpoint actually), Azerbaijan/Armenia got "resolved" in the Azeris' favor and no one from the First World much cared, the Serbian portion of Kosovo are openly considering joining Serbia which will drive some reaction, a lot of coups occurred in West Africa after a decently-long lull, China's been saber-rattling forever and while it probably won't be Taiwan, I can see some naval-only skirmish occurring to set a negotiating benchmark, Turkey I think are an interesting actor to watch, they currently control some Syrian territory...and they are a NATO member. Meanwhile other states not openly looking for a fight are very obviously making maneuvers trying to solidify who their friends are (not all toward the West either). This is natural if you look at history. States rise and fall very very gradually over time. But this does not get reflected until a spark occurs. To quote Lenin "there are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen".  Russia-Ukraine put Europe in the middle of a hot war unexpectedly and the military apparatuses of these countries and their procurement (replacement) programs were completely unprepared for it. This has been admitted by top military brass and it's still not resolved yet. If another hot war occurred in Europe (another Russian front or Kosovo again), military equipment procurement is not really there outside the U.S., although even our military procurement has had severe flaws exposed. http://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/why-america-is-out-of-ammunition

You can see the U.S. reaction to Canada's place pre Russia-Ukraine War when they were not considered for the AUKUS alliance early in Biden's presidency. So while you guys are always going to be our friend barring something unforeseen, it's clear we weigh our friendship with Australia right now more than you guys. And this does matter in real stuff. Trudeau's administration had to spend months trying to make sure Biden's electric vehicles subsidies did not negatively impact Ontario-based union auto jobs. If you guys were more AUKUS-level friend maybe the argument over what qualified and did not qualify under the USMCA would've been taken care of ahead of time, never becoming something that required heavy hitters from both administrations you've never heard of to negotiate to not threaten a good-sized segment of the Ontario economy.

So what's the Canadian plan, especially since whether the Liberals win or lose the next election Trudeau is probably not Prime Minister much longer. With changes in power on the horizon it's time to discuss these things.

[Open Source Intelligence]

https://paulwells.substack.com/p/hollow-crown

[Open Source Intelligence]

For conservatives, I think at least in Canada where right nowadays has a libertarian streak they get upset as see it as people who want to control them thus get testy.  When in reality progressives just want a better and fairer society...

That's giant eye of the beholder stuff and always will be. Define "better and fairer" in a way that gets universal approval among progressives, let alone your entire country.

[Open Source Intelligence]

1 in 7 NDP voters would vote for Trump if in US.  

Who are these people? I know one, personally - my step grandmother in law. She's a Serbian immigrant. Thinks the NDP are the party of the working people, but likes Trumps anti-war stance. I get the impression this is not an uncommon view among Eastern Europeans.

I also think it's completely understated to not stated at all in modern political analysis that Trump is not really a conservative as a conservative was defined 20 to 30 years ago. I personally don't consider the Republican Party a conservative organization any longer even though it definitely has conservative elements inside it (no different than the Democratic Party until the 1980s).

It's not surprising to me that in a country whose political setup is not overwhelmingly binary you see seemingly strange coalitions being made of who supports who in a binary one, and it should give pause to people that think if the Liberals and NDP merge they would automatically win every election going forward.

[Open Source Intelligence]

https://twitter.com/rachaiello/status/1775909023004443060?t=SDnSjAGzLxXqtNPEifIj...
Notably all three are in areas that on paper the Tories would be looking at for gains under current polling or similar. Their retirement,  especially Angus's, further complicates the NDP position. It is also another sign that the NDPs federal policies are becoming more Urban+First Nation and less labor.

Should they be renamed to the Vancouver and Arctic Party?

[Open Source Intelligence]

Any guesses at seats?

[Open Source Intelligence]

It would be nice to hear some interesting and creative policy debates & new ideas, rather than the same tired repetitive talking points that I've heard for years at this point. But I don't think that will happen anytime soon, so I guess I will post less frequently on Atlas or take a break from Atlas altogether until something interesting happens in politics.

I listen to The Curse of Politics from David Herle because there's no American equivalent political podcast I can find in spite of the hundreds that exist that actually discusses issues and policy as it relates to politics.