Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[Хahar 🤔]

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.

Well, Turner was not really from anywhere: he represented an Ottawa constituency for a while and worked in Toronto for a while as an adult, but he was born in England and grew up in both Vancouver and Ottawa and entered the House of Commons for a Montreal constituency and represented a Vancouver constituency as Liberal Party leader. It is sort of a stretch to describe Turner as an Ontarian and it would be silly to say that his Ontarianness mattered in the way that it has mattered that nearly every other Liberal Party leader has been from Quebec. The most relevant thing to say would be that the Liberal Party has been led by a Quebecker at 14 of the last 17 general elections.

I agree that Champagne obviously wants to be prime minister and he could be a convenient fall guy when he loses the election and his seat. Maybe that will be the way things go just because nobody else wants it.

[Jingizu]

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.

Why would…how would this be controversial? 

[Hatman 🍁]

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.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

Yeah , I could see Carney taking over after the Liberals are defeated though. While he’s not from Quebec , I could easily see the liberals try to get him to take Trudeau’s seat(as I believe he’s resign from his seat as well after a major defeat) as it’s far safer than an GTA seat.
 

[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.

[Benjamin Frank]

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.

She was probably Trudeau's biggest defender with the Jody Wilson Raybould situation. Foreign Affairs wasn't necessarily all that important to the Liberals at the time she was appointed either. There had been five ministers, I think, prior to her, and the position was more or less a secondary position to international trade on that side, and to immigration, refugees and citizenship for the diaspora communities. However, Foreign Affairs is regarded as a prestigious cabinet position.

For what it's worth (I think much less importantly) she had also come into Parliament in 2015 highly regarded (by Liberals anyway) after running for mayor of Montreal and as co-author of the 2015 Liberal Party platform.

[Benjamin Frank]

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.

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

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?

There is a scene in Yes, Minister where Hacker is speaking to the local party executive in his riding, and he's asked why he cares so much about being a cabinet minister because a backbench 'constituency M.P' can be more active in the riding, and he replies that he has a lot of 'influence' being in cabinet. When asked what his 'influence' does for the riding, he's forced to reply 'it doesn't work like that!.'

The biggest issue facing the world by far is global warming, and, while Canada is not a leader due to our powerful fossil fuel sector, we are one of the leaders of the world in keeping our committment to helping 'developing nations' and we are a leader in areas of research and development of new energy technologies as well as research into climate change mitigation.

If Canada is pressured to have a larger military, we should spend all the extra money on the equivalent of a national guard used to deal with the increasing number of emergencies. I think it's actually a far bigger embarrassment for Canada to not have any national guard with bases across the country, than having a military that is very focussed but small.

China tries to treat every nation in the world badly, and Modi is more concerned with national politics which includes attacking the non Hindu diaspora. India is a dirt poor nation, that, as long as it's going to be more concerned with populist (Hindu) nationalism rather than the economy, isn't important in the world.

[MaxQue]

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.

She was imcompetent as Heritage minister and a laughingstock here in Quebec.
She did, however, saw that the Quebec Liberal campaign was collasping in 2021 and proposed ideas to fix, took over (from utterly useless David Lametti) and stopped the Liberals from losing multiple seats in Quebec in that election. She was then rewarded with the position of Foreign Affairs minister, where she does a way better job (my center-left Quebec Nationalist family actually think she is doing a good job, which is rare praise from them about a Liberal politician).

[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.

[Benjamin Frank]

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.

[Hatman 🍁]

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.

She was imcompetent as Heritage minister and a laughingstock here in Quebec.
She did, however, saw that the Quebec Liberal campaign was collasping in 2021 and proposed ideas to fix, took over (from utterly useless David Lametti) and stopped the Liberals from losing multiple seats in Quebec in that election. She was then rewarded with the position of Foreign Affairs minister, where she does a way better job (my center-left Quebec Nationalist family actually think she is doing a good job, which is rare praise from them about a Liberal politician).

In addition to what others have said, there is the elephant in the room here, that she is quite attractive (at least for a politician). Don't discount good looks when it comes to popularity, it certainly helped Trudeau in 2015.

[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.

[Jingizu]

Hmm, EarlAW is posting today in this very thread! I’ve heard the Liberal POV, now what does the NDP POV consist of? Totally scrapping the military and leaving NATO to join BRI(I)C(C)S? 

[Benjamin Frank]

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.

1.I don't have any opinion on whether there will be more wars or not. I can certainly see China trying to engage military as its economy and society is going to be in decline for a while and this would be the last chance for Xi et al. Part of the purpose for TPP was to get the Asian nations in the area working together better after historical emnities, and it was the U.S which didn't join TPP. If China does try to act beligerantly, it's primarly the job of the nations in that area to defend themselves, and there are a lot of wealthy nations in that area. There used to be a SEATO although that was not all the nations concerned now.

2.In regards to Biden and Canada, a lot of this is domestic politics and not all of it is new. Going back to Mulroney there was an inner G5 which left out both Canada and Japan, for instance. In regards to trade and Canada having to fight to get preferred treatment from the U.S, this isn't new either. The softwood lumber dispute has been going on since seemingly the stone age and for instance, with Obama's stimulus package, completed infrastructure was ripped out because it was found to have been made with concrete made in Canada.

A historical perspective suggests much of this is due to both U.S domestic politics and has been going on before the U.S ever complained publicly anyway that Canada wasn't spending enough on defence. Canada has not reached 2% of GDP on the military since Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, which is 40-50 years now. 2% was the target even then and Canada was one of the few NATO nations to meet it at that time. There is no evidence though that meeting that 2% target was a reason that President Ford got Canada into the G7 (which only France was really opposed to anyway.)

3.In regards to Poilievre, this is an example we see of his more mature caution at times which doesn't belie but seems to coexist with his more aggressive partisan politics. In one of the debates, when expected to say "I will immediately increase spending to 2% of GDP to meet the demands of our allies" he instead said "this isn't something that can be done overnight."

Poilievre hasn't said too much about his economic views, but he seems to be a fan of 'Reaganomics' thowing out the old lines that cutting regulations and taxes are the best way to grow the economy. So, if say $20 billion became available from cutting Liberal spending initiatives (and, for instance, Poilievre has promised to not cut the child care funding) and that $20 billion didn't go directly to reducing the deficit, I wouldn't be surprised if maybe between 50% went to tax cuts and maybe 25% at most to the military, and 25% to Conservative domestic spending priorities (police, courts, prisons, especially.)

Obviously I'm purely speculating on those numbers, but the percentages are consistent with what Prime Minister Chretien promised the surpluses would go to (50% for spending, 25% for tax cuts and 25% for debt payment - Finance Minister Martin outsmarted Chretien by intentionally low balling the surplus projections in the budger, which meant more money went directly to paying down the debt.)

So, I would not expect significant changes from a first term Poilievre government anyway. I think they too would be more interested in domestic politics, and, like the Liberals, would look at foreign policy for increasing trade and investment (although Poilievre has also sounded skeptical of trading with some nations) and for domestic diaspora political purposes.

[Benjamin Frank]

For some context on Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and the situation he inherited, Canada's relatively high defence spending up until at least some time during the Pierre Trudeau government was a consequence of the Cold War and U.N post World War II.

For the U.N, Future Prime Minister Lester Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize for inventing the idea of U.N peacekeepers so Canada likely felt an obligation to put a lot into that. As part of the Cold War, Canada had a relatively large number of troops stationed in Europe.

Pierre Trudeau was initially anyway very Trumpian: Canada First. Trudeau and his foreign policy advisor, Ivan Head, didn't even care about multilaterialism and multilateral institutions which had been the hallmark of Liberal post World War II foreign policy of both St. Laurent and Pearson.

Trudeau believed that Canadian foreign policy should solely serve the interests of Canada, and he further believed that multilateral organizations like the U.N had become paralyzed by bureaucratic inertia. Due to Trudeau's dislike of colonialism, he didn't care for the Commonwealth initially either, which was much more important then than now. Finally, although Trudeau didn't want Canada to leave NATO, which the U.S probably wouldn't have allowed anyway, and he did seem to have some interest in NORAD, Trudeau wanted to pull all Canadian troops out of Europe.

Trudeau came to appreciate the Commonwealth and actually played a positive leading role brokering disputes, while ending up reducing the troops in Europe by half. After losing in 1979, Trudeau expressed regret with that half measure, and the 1968 legal liberalizations that although hailed at the time he felt were also half measures (although Trudeau himself was something of a Catholic social conservative, which maybe questions how much further he actually wanted to go at the time.)

When reelected in 1980, along with patriating the Constitution, Trudeau was primarily concerned with two foreign policy initiatives: policies leading to nuclear disarmament, and his 'North-South' initiative of wealthy nations (North) helping poorer nations (South.)

Trudeau still believed that existing multilaterial institutions were ineffectual, so he used the institutions to try to set up new (time limited) instituions to address these issues. Many Canadians at the time believed that Trudeau's primary interest in these initiatives was to use the government of Canada (taxpayers) to finance his round the world trips.

[Upper Canada Tory]

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.

Firstly, USMCA and EV subsidies have nothing to with defence spending, but are related to trade. Regardless of defence spending, Canada is the USA's closest trading partner and does more trade with the USA than Australia does.

Second of all, the main reason Canada was excluded from AUKUS isn't because of a lack of defence spending, but because Canada is insufficiently active in the Indo-Pacific region (which, sadly, has historically been the case) and does not really have a consistent Indo-Pacific foreign policy strategy. Canada has historically been more active in the Euro-Atlantic region and NATO. As we can see with the Ukraine situation, Canada is one of Ukraine's top funders/suppliers. Canada's contribution to the American alliance has historically mainly been in Europe.

The number that a country spends as a percentage of GDP or in terms of absolute dollar value is less important than the country's contributions to the alliance, and the main issue is that Canada doesn't really sufficiently contribute to American geopolitical objectives in the Indo-Pacific. Similarly, Australia does contribute to American geopolitical objectives in the Indo-Pacific, but not really in Europe, so that's why Australia is included in most Indo-Pacific alliances (AUKUS, QUAD).

However, you do bring up an important point - Trudeau has failed us on Indo-Pacific fp and we need to improve our record on that soon to continue to be taken as a serious US ally, so that's an important fp conversation to have.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

On another note, the Liberals' partial reversal (really, hiatus) of the carbon tax has been quite something to watch.

Some context for non-Canadians: They recently announced that the carbon tax will be temporarily removed on home heating oil. This is a pretty uncommon form of home heating in Canada, mostly used in rural Atlantic Canada, which happens to elect a good number of Liberals. Voting intentions have sharply shifted out east, with Conservatives now consistently polling ahead of the Liberals. This is in a part of the world that gave Trudeau a clean sweep in 2015, and has generally been the most Liberal-friendly region of Canada for the best part of forty years. The announcement on the carbon tax comes with the backdrop of falling poll numbers, and the literal backdrop of the Liberal Atlantic caucus standing behind Trudeau as he announced the reversal. They're not being coy about the electoral calculus here, it's pretty obvious, and it makes sense considering how strategically important the four eastern provinces are to the Liberals.

The carbon tax has been sold as a tax-and-rebate package. Curiously, despite reversing the tax, they're not reversing the corresponding rebates - actually, they're increasing it for rural residents. The purpose of the rebate is to offset the tax. Cutting the tax while increasing the rebate basically amounts to a handout. Then consider the fact that this sweet deal expires in 2026, after the next scheduled election. Could it be justified as a way to help Atlantic Canadians prepare for the hike by investing in cleaner heating sources? Sure, but why implement that hiatus only for one region of the country, and not the others? The timing is also curious, because leaving the hike until after the next election is a pretty transparent move. It's also a hard thing to campaign on. They're basically telling voters "you don't like the carbon tax, I don't want to lose. I'll cut the tax, you vote for me, I get re-elected, and re-implement the same exact tax". Bold.

It's a sign of a government in "save the furniture" mode, because I really don't think they thought this through. The idea was always that even though the carbon tax necessarily raise the cost of fuel, the rebates offset those costs. Conservatives have been arguing that the carbon tax is worsening Canada's affordability crisis, and the Liberals have, until last week, rejected that argument. But the very premise of cutting the carbon tax on home heating is affordability. And here I thought the carbon tax didn't make life more unaffordable? If the carbon tax isn't excessively unaffordable, then it doesn't make sense to cut it to help with affordability. And if cutting the carbon tax does help with affordability, then the tax actually WAS unaffordable. You can't simultaneously argue that the carbon tax isn't unaffordable, and also cut it to help with affordability. That just doesn't track. If this is an admission that the carbon tax was indeed making home heating excessively costly for Atlantic Canadians, well, you're basically making the Conservative argument. Poilievre's argument is "carbon tax is too expensive, we'll cut it." Trudeau's argument now is "carbon tax isn't too expensive and is good for the environment, but we'll cut it anyway". One argument is much stronger than the other.

It gets weirder. Gudie Hutchings, a Liberal MP from Newfoundland and the Minister responsible for Atlantic Canadian economic development, had this to say.

Yep, when pressed on why her government was only selectively cutting the carbon tax, she basically said "because the Atlantic provinces voted for us". Or more accurately, "maybe we'd listen to westerners if they voted for us". Of course, all parties play to their base at the expense of their opponents, but that's the quiet part, you're not supposed to say it out loud. It's also a really bizarre electoral argument. If westerners want to see a cut in the carbon tax, they should vote for the party that campaigns on raising it, so that party can then go ahead and do the opposite of what they promised? Um, Miss Hutchings, why wouldn't they then just vote for the party that campaigns against the carbon tax in the first place? This applies to Atlantic Canadians too, just differently. I'm sure many out east who use oil for home heating appreciate this move. But come 2025, they'll have two options - a party that promises to eliminate the tax, versus a party that promised to raise it, went back on it, and promises to raise it again once they're re-elected. Again, that's a really odd position to put yourself in.

[SnowLabrador]

I have confidence Trudeau will win. The campaign has barely even started yet; once Canadians see how much like Trump Poilievre is, they'll reject him. Please, Canada, don't screw it up - you're a much better nation than we are.

[Holmes]

I have confidence Trudeau will win. The campaign has barely even started yet; once Canadians see how much like Trump Poilievre is, they'll reject him. Please, Canada, don't screw it up - you're a much better nation than we are.

Quite a few "Trump-like" premiers have been elected provincially. It won't matter if the Canadian electorate is ready to move on from Trudeau.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I have confidence Trudeau will win. The campaign has barely even started yet; once Canadians see how much like Trump Poilievre is, they'll reject him. Please, Canada, don't screw it up - you're a much better nation than we are.

Quite a few "Trump-like" premiers have been elected provincially. It won't matter if the Canadian electorate is ready to move on from Trudeau.

Polievre also leads in the category of “who do you trust more to deal with trump”

[Neo-Malthusian Misanthrope]

I have confidence Trudeau will win. The campaign has barely even started yet; once Canadians see how much like Trump Poilievre is, they'll reject him. Please, Canada, don't screw it up - you're a much better nation than we are.

Well that settles it, Trudeau is going to lose.

As for the carbon tax, I figured the only way the current government could justify cutting it was by spinning it as "we're going to keep taxing large emitters but not individuals and families" but instead they seem to be just shrugging their shoulders and not really justifying their decision at all except in the flimsiest of ways. I do have a bit of sympathy for the idea that it's because the Atlantic provinces provide a disproportionatly large part of the Liberal caucus though - they're there to speak up on topics that effect their constituents in the way that borderline-nonexistent western Liberal MPs can't. You'd want a federal government to at least try and consider the whole country more but this is hardly a new thing.

[Upper Canada Tory]

On another note, the Liberals' partial reversal (really, hiatus) of the carbon tax has been quite something to watch.

Some context for non-Canadians: They recently announced that the carbon tax will be temporarily removed on home heating oil. This is a pretty uncommon form of home heating in Canada, mostly used in rural Atlantic Canada, which happens to elect a good number of Liberals. Voting intentions have sharply shifted out east, with Conservatives now consistently polling ahead of the Liberals. This is in a part of the world that gave Trudeau a clean sweep in 2015, and has generally been the most Liberal-friendly region of Canada for the best part of forty years. The announcement on the carbon tax comes with the backdrop of falling poll numbers, and the literal backdrop of the Liberal Atlantic caucus standing behind Trudeau as he announced the reversal. They're not being coy about the electoral calculus here, it's pretty obvious, and it makes sense considering how strategically important the four eastern provinces are to the Liberals.

The carbon tax has been sold as a tax-and-rebate package. Curiously, despite reversing the tax, they're not reversing the corresponding rebates - actually, they're increasing it for rural residents. The purpose of the rebate is to offset the tax. Cutting the tax while increasing the rebate basically amounts to a handout. Then consider the fact that this sweet deal expires in 2026, after the next scheduled election. Could it be justified as a way to help Atlantic Canadians prepare for the hike by investing in cleaner heating sources? Sure, but why implement that hiatus only for one region of the country, and not the others? The timing is also curious, because leaving the hike until after the next election is a pretty transparent move. It's also a hard thing to campaign on. They're basically telling voters "you don't like the carbon tax, I don't want to lose. I'll cut the tax, you vote for me, I get re-elected, and re-implement the same exact tax". Bold.

It's a sign of a government in "save the furniture" mode, because I really don't think they thought this through. The idea was always that even though the carbon tax necessarily raise the cost of fuel, the rebates offset those costs. Conservatives have been arguing that the carbon tax is worsening Canada's affordability crisis, and the Liberals have, until last week, rejected that argument. But the very premise of cutting the carbon tax on home heating is affordability. And here I thought the carbon tax didn't make life more unaffordable? If the carbon tax isn't excessively unaffordable, then it doesn't make sense to cut it to help with affordability. And if cutting the carbon tax does help with affordability, then the tax actually WAS unaffordable. You can't simultaneously argue that the carbon tax isn't unaffordable, and also cut it to help with affordability. That just doesn't track. If this is an admission that the carbon tax was indeed making home heating excessively costly for Atlantic Canadians, well, you're basically making the Conservative argument. Poilievre's argument is "carbon tax is too expensive, we'll cut it." Trudeau's argument now is "carbon tax isn't too expensive and is good for the environment, but we'll cut it anyway". One argument is much stronger than the other.

It gets weirder. Gudie Hutchings, a Liberal MP from Newfoundland and the Minister responsible for Atlantic Canadian economic development, had this to say.

Yep, when pressed on why her government was only selectively cutting the carbon tax, she basically said "because the Atlantic provinces voted for us". Or more accurately, "maybe we'd listen to westerners if they voted for us". Of course, all parties play to their base at the expense of their opponents, but that's the quiet part, you're not supposed to say it out loud. It's also a really bizarre electoral argument. If westerners want to see a cut in the carbon tax, they should vote for the party that campaigns on raising it, so that party can then go ahead and do the opposite of what they promised? Um, Miss Hutchings, why wouldn't they then just vote for the party that campaigns against the carbon tax in the first place? This applies to Atlantic Canadians too, just differently. I'm sure many out east who use oil for home heating appreciate this move. But come 2025, they'll have two options - a party that promises to eliminate the tax, versus a party that promised to raise it, went back on it, and promises to raise it again once they're re-elected. Again, that's a really odd position to put yourself in.

I guess this part is just an admission from the Liberals that they're trying to avoid losing Liberal voters in the Atlantic provinces. I guess it also doesn't help that MP Ken McDonald broke ranks with the Liberals on this issue and some Atlantic Premiers are expressing their frustration with Ottawa over carbon pricing.

I think the Liberals realize it has an impact on affordability, regardless of the rebates - they just hoped people wouldn't notice, but with the inflation levels in the last two and a half years plus the absurdly high cost of living in general, it's become too difficult to ignore it.

Also, this statement comes off as very condescending, in typical Liberal fashion. They essentially just admitted they don't listen to constituencies in Canada that don't vote for them. That's one heck of a thing to admit.

[Benjamin Frank]

If anybody cares, I've been having all sorts of computer problems.

I said a couple months or so ago that Trudeau should apologize for not focusing on issues the public considered of primary importance and should do three things:

1.Promise to suspend planned increases in the carbon tax until inflation had returned to normal levels.

2.Promise to reduce the deficit to 'small' levels.

3.Reduce immigration and such to population increases that are sustainable.

I think they've acted on all three of these but without the apology the public hasn't really paid attention, especially on the $15 billion reduction in spending. I'm not sure what they've done with reducing the population increases, but I think they've made a couple moves in that direction, and they've made a complete hash of the carbon tax changes.

[Benjamin Frank]

In terms of commitments, interesting the difference, especially on some of the right (more the right wing establishment) between Canada meeting the global warming target, and Canada meeting the NATO target, and I acknowledge I've argued on opposite sides here myself, but I don't regard the two as equally serious.

Those on the right (not all but nearly all on the right and some not on the right) argue that what Canada does on global warming is irrelevent, that Canada contributes only 1.6% to worldwide GHG emissions (which still makes Canada the 9th highest emitting nation in the world.)

On the military, and to be sure Pierre Poilievre doesn't and I don't hear Conservative members and supporters either speaking of the NATO 2% committment, but many right wing organizations like the MacDonald-Laurier Inistitute (or, as I call them, the MacDonald-MacDonald Institute), as I mentioned previously, will turn any discussion on foreign issues into Canada needing to increase military spending to 2% of GDP.

To be sure, this includes others like the Globe and Mail and Andrew Coyne and, I believe, the Center Ice Canadians (whatever they've renamed themselves as a political party) who think Canada needs to meet both its carbon reduction target AND its military spending target.

However, As I also mentioned here previously, interestingly, the increase in Canada's defence spending required to get to 2% would be about 1.6% of the U.S entire military spending. So, to some/many on the right, 1.6% of GHG emissions is irrelevent, but a 1.6% increase of the U.S military budget by Canada is essential for NATO. From what I've read from the MacDonald- MacDonald Institute and from what other people have said here, it's not even that Canada has anything specific to increase military spending on, just that Canada must show it's 'serious.'

Well, if that's so important, getting GHG emissions down, is far more serious.

From a partisan political perspective, this would be, of course, a far stronger argument to make if Poilievre and the Conservatives were making noise on Canada increasing its military spending to 2% of GDP, and I certainly don't think this interesting numerical comparison (interesting to me anyway) is a reason the Conservatives haven't made noise, but for anybody outside of Canada hoping Canada will significantly increase its military spending under a Conservative government, the decline in military spending started under the Harper Conservatives despite all his noise in favor of the military (see the Canadian government celebration of the War of 1812 in 2012) and his government trying to turn Rememberance Day into a celebration of the military, and while I don't think Poilievre would decrease spending even further, I don't think he'll make moves to seriously increase it either.

Outside of politics, Harper's interest were in Canadian history: military history, the Franklin Expedition and fairly obscure hockey history. I'd probably like him outside of poltics.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

3.Reduce immigration and such to population increases that are sustainable.

I think they've acted on all three of these

They haven't acted on reducing immigration. Their announcement was to cap immigration rates once it reaches 500k/year. That's not reducing, that's increasing until it reaches a hard cap. There's also been no word on limiting or reducing international student applications, who have been a big part of the conversation re: immigration. Particularly here in southern Ontario, this has been probably the single driving factor in now-popular calls to reduce immigration. Marc Miller did announce that the feds would "step in" to crack down on fake diploma mills. Diploma mills are basically an industry in the GTA that profits from selling fake college programs to naive Indian teenagers who end up coming here to do low-skilled labour. That's progress, but undercut by the fact that Marc Miller also suggested that one of the government's motives with the international student program is cheap labour.