I'm getting tired of the waffling. Like the author, I want to see Canada's hard nose. Carney, will he show up for this? More than elbows up platitudes, it's time for fists.
Just what thingys should the government do? What provocations should Canada commit?
Sounding tough is, well, just talking. Be specific about what should be done and what YOU are willing to sacrifice. Are you willing for your kids to not have jobs and to lose their house and then have to move in with you? Just what are you willing to sacrifice?
Personally, I have no answers for those questions but I am not the one who has argued for the fight.
Mad comment. Sure you have noticed that it is the United States and not Canada that has become ugly, aggressive and confrontational.
Given the tenor of our past discussions, I get where you are coming from. You want to ensure that Alberta does not have to give anything up in order to defend Canadian sovereignty.
I'm telling you that this is a non-starter. At some point, we are ALL going to have to sacrifice to maintain our sovereignty in the face of increased US hostility.
Let me tell you WHY I oppose using Alberta's oil as a bargaining chip.
First off, I don't think it would work just as a general trade policy with the US but I might be wrong. I am not wrong, however, about the use of this product as a weapon.
The various US refineries that now buy Alberta oil are built to refine heavy crude and they would have trouble refining other grades. But .... Perhaps you have heard that Venezuela is now rapidly bringing their industry back on line. Oronoco grade oil from Venezuela is very competitive with Canadian Select. They are not the same but are kinda, possibly, maybe substitutable and, if you don't think the US will have a reason to use the Venezuelan product you are dreaming.
All those pipelines that carry Canadian oil to US refineries? They can be reversed. Right now, Canadian crude reaches the Gulf coast so the pipes can be reversed to pump to the north and Oronoco grade crude from Venezuela can be pumped from the Gulf to the refineries. It would take some noticeable time and great cost but the US would do it.
Oh, and Canadian oil would be shut out of the US forever. You and many others say that "We'll never forget" the actions of the US. Well, you can bet that the US will not forget either.
Now, the second reason and the PRIMARY REASON that I oppose using Alberta's oil as a bargaining chip. Central Canada has used the resources of the West as the center's own since Confederation and the use has always, always, always been specifically to provide benefit to the center. Not to the West.
Why is it that so many folks want to use our oil as a bargaining chip but they don't suggest that Ontario's auto industry, both manufacturing and parts sectors, be used as bargaining chips? Why don't they suggest that BC and Quebec's lumber and pulp exports be used as bargaining chips. Why don't they suggest that Quebec simply cut off electricity exports to the US?
My point is that if you are going to go down this road use those bargaining chips first. THEN BUT ONLY THEN come to Alberta and we can discuss using oil. Not before you use the other chips; only after.
I understand your point. However, I also want the export tax on electricity. Secondly, the goal is to impose instant retaliatory pain on the US. We will have overseas oil markets for some time. And as always, if you'd just put it on the train, you could ship it anywhere for a fraction of the price of building a pipeline.....which is problematic since the province you want to build it through is currently on fire. Long term, oil is on the way out. Trump's idiotic war is the greatest thing to ever happen to green energy.
The confrontation with the US is existential for Canada and must be viewed that way when considering what we, individually, are prepared to do. Will we be like the bulk of the US population? Too comfortable and lazy to actively resist dictatorship ? Or will we fight like Ukraine and Iran?
No sacrifices will be made that cost a single Liberal vote or cost a boomer a single dollar. Which really means we won't sacrifice anything. It's all vague pointless talk. And another excuse for unlimited government spending and zero accountability. Turns out the Covid era was the perfect ecosystem for our perpetual government to operate. And with blustering bullshitter Trump in office, it's pandemic style panic forever!
I know it's not all of people over 60 who are asking for this, or are all dupes to this government and its propaganda. But poll after poll indicates it's that demographic who are - vast majority - behaving and reacting to current events in a certain way that very much favours Mark Carney and the Liberals. In return that is the favoured demographic for government policy. Hence no sacrifices that will cost that generation anything they will notice.
This is what I was getting at. We've already established a pattern of nothingness; it will take very bold and unfamiliar moves to snap us out of our sleepwalk. To respond to the question, what am I specifically willing to give up? I would have to say collect the taxes and build or buy the shit as outlined in the article. Fast. That's a start.
What happens when 350 million wealthy people decide to boycott the production of 40 million?
What do you do then, Glen?
I am thrilled you folks are insulated from the consequences of your policy preferences; there remains yet a pile of folks whose livelihoods are dependent on access to the U.S. market.
I wonder if the majority of those 350 million even notice or care where their stuff comes from.
Even so, a plan to pivot to other new markets that's clearly laid out and implemented would be a welcome baby step. I see the bind we're in; nothing can change quickly, but the difference is between kicking it down the road or tackling it.
The solution to the problem is not trade diversification; it is the implementation of fair trade practices.
1) Supply Management hurts Canadians.
2) Protection of favoured industries hurts Canadians.
3) Interprovincial trade barriers hurt Canadians.
These three policy decisions are within our purview to repair; that we choose not to bother is the proverbial can being kicked, not trade diversification from a wealthy and willing trade partner that represents the greatest market in the history of mankind .
I'm with you all the way. 1, 2, and 3 mean we are still too comfortable in certain areas of making money that are politically established and politically entwined. Like the gordian knot, I guess I'm on the team that wants to take a sword to it rather than unravel it, or even take the time to find the ends. That's the fist I'm talking about. It punches on both sides of the border.
Having a brother married to an American and with his wonderful family living in the USA makes it impossible for me to just start hating on them. Somehow, the Canada-US trade can still exist underneath and entirely separate from how you or I or anyone may feel good hating on the neighbours.
Fingers crossed we're still as sovereign a decade from now?
I have no animosity toward Americans. I have always found them to be friendly, informed, and able.
That is precisely why I discount the efficacy of trade diversification efforts. We should be trying to capture more trade with the Americans, not less.
Sovereignty is up to us, Glen; if we dislike being referred to as the 51st State, perhaps we should stop acting like the 51st State.
Yes, his kids should come home. I have no issue with American tourists coming here....it's nice that they're supporting our economy. I wish more Canadians would stop supporting theirs.
It would show that Mark Carney is serious about a permanent rupture with the USA if he brought his kids back to Canada. He could also divest of any American securities that he owned.
Another idea would be to offer a temporary reduction in capital gains tax for Canadians who own real estate in the USA. This would encourage Canadian snowbirds to move back to Canada during the winter.
That also begs the question of how much parents are responsible for the actions of their kids.....
I think a lot of Snowbirds have already spoken with their for sale signs, the insane cost of health insurance, and the inability to get property insurance.
Diana Carney gave an interview several years ago in which she said she was happy her children were planning to study at Ivy League universities. She has degrees from the University of Pennsylvania & Oxford. Mark has a degree from Harvard. One of his daughters, Cleo, is studying there now. It is obvious that the Carney's encouraged their children to study at some of the best universities in North America.
I agree that it is more expensive to maintain a property in the USA. A cut in the capital gains tax on sales of US real estate would encourage more Canadians to sell their properties in the USA.
Agreed. I don't actually care if US booze gets back on the shelf..especially the stuff we already paid for. It can sit there and "age".....I am in favour on an energy export tax, and could not care less which premiers' toes are stepped on.
There are already all sorts of excess tariffs on the auto sector through steel and aluminium. I expect they will get worse, and Canada's entire auto sector is currently under threat. It's almost like you're in favour of consequences for anyone but you instead of trying to share them equally....
"... the annexation of Canada and turning it into the 51st state has been, and remains, the official and explicit policy of the United States of America."
I was about to make the point that you guys are jumping the shark with this one, but then I decided to keep reading to make sure I wasn't being premature in my judgement.
But then I read "Again, let’s make things plain: this is the current, explicit policy of the United States of America toward Canada."
But you're right that there's no point in making trade agreements with an administration that makes such statements, but don't confuse the reason why - as you said "The United States, and Trump specifically, are simply too incoherent to work with in good faith." The point that Trump makes claims like this is an issue, but the bigger issue behind it is that he can't be trusted. And that comes simply from the CUSMA issues and the Gordie Howe Bridge deal. And there's simply no point in making a deal wth someone you can't trust. It's as pointless as arguing with a fool.
So, making the jump that simply because an incoherent president says we should be the 51st state makes it official policy, is just about as clueless. Frankly, it's more like clickbait.
Not making any deal, just like ignoring (more or less) the jibes about the 51st state says we don't take Trump seriously. And neither should anyone else, including (and especially) Americans.
The rest of your post about us doing the right thing (about defence and other trade sticking points that would be good for us) - without making it a bargaining chip - is spot on though.
It reminds me of an op-ed by Andrew Coyne back in the late 80s when he was writing for The Financial Post - and before the Free Trade Agreement. He made the point that we should be declaring free trade unilaterally - because it would be good for us.
You don't do the right thing because of someone else - you do it because it's who you are.
Have you heard of the Monroe Doctrine. When a President continually says something and is supported by his administration it is the country’s doctrine.
When a president is so far outside of the usual bounds of normalcy as to be incoherent and he is surrounded by sycophants, then I suggest that what you might normally assume to be true is not.
I like what Bill Maher (a noted Democrat) said on this recently.
I'm paraphrasing:
"Ten years into the age of Trump, if you are still hung up on the zany things he says to distract you, that's on you. His personality quirks are NOT going to change to better suit your feelings. Concentrate instead on the things he actually DOES.".
The Monroe Doctrine was ridiculous when it was promulgated: President Monroe had no ability to stop Britain or the other great powers from projecting power into the Western Hemisphere, as was amply demonstrated when Britain cleaned America's clock in the War of 1812. Further, the doctrine didn't change the status of any European colonies in the Western hemisphere until those countries decided to change it. It was the bark of a small, yappy dog trying to act tough. Now it's trotted out by US administrations whenever they want to throw their weight around, and even *then* it's come with mixed success. America didn't succeed in ejecting the Castro regime from Cuba, nor did it successfully overthrow the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and South American nations (notwithstanding the recent abduction of the head of Venezuela) have generally told America to get bent.
There's a lesson here: the Monroe Doctrine is nonsense, and the US actually has little capacity to implement it. That's not going to stop an imperialistic US president from trying, and they can do a lot of damage. Mostly, though, the response needs to be an eyeroll and "Sure, Donny."
Britain was all for the Monroe Doctrine...it left their colonies as is and kept European Powers out of the America's.
And I thought the War of 1812 was more of a draw.....Britain did good to begin with mostly because of incompetent US leadership.....but Jackson cleaned Britain's clock at New Orleans and then a mighty storm and stubborn US resistance in the battle before Fort McHenry held the British fleet at bay.........and the burning of Washington didn't win British support back home....
The Strategy considers neighboring countries - Canada would be included there - as being part of a US sphere of influence. That means, however, that the US would want to have economic and security influence in Canada.
I concede that those are the words, but regardless, the interpretation as voiced by the administration and President is consistent with my, and others, extrapolation
And a simple search reveals only one (1) mention of Canada:
We must encourage Europe, Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and other prominent nations in adopting trade policies that help rebalance China’s economy toward household consumption, because Southeast Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East cannot alone absorb China’s enormous excess capacity.
There is no mention of "51", "annex" or North America, "western" only comes up in fairly bland generalities of what the US expects from its western hemisphere neighbours.
But maybe you read a different document that what is posted on the White House site?
(edit) I see that the Dept. of War has a different document on its site , but while there are three mentions of Canada, they are all in context of working with Canada and there are still none of the other words I mention above.
If this annexation premise is right and I guess I allow for the theoretical possibility it might be although I really don’t think it is - (I am much more aligned with William Watson’s piece in the Post a few weeks ago premised on the notion that Trump too shall pass) – then it’s truly over for us. There is NOTHING that we can do about it. The notion of “retaliation” in such circumstances is hilarious as that would be nothing more than a suicide mission. Yes, by all means, let’s impose tariffs!! Great plan that is, if you are trying to make everyone’s life more expensive than it already is. Let’s cut off their energy. An even better idea!! Imagine the situation when the USA retaliates to THAT in the first week of December.
Look, if this premise of a malevolent USA bent on our destruction is right, then we are not just dealing with a stereotypical school-yard bully. The better analogy is that John Gotti, Sammy the Bull Gravano and numerous other Gambino Group underlings have moved in and are patrolling the neighborhood collecting mafia protection money. Not only are there far more of them, they are far more powerful/armed than you, they are more ruthless than you, they can easily withstand every tactic (economic and “physical”) you use to try and hurt them and they can respond with a ferocity you could never match in a million years. Furthermore, unlike when the Gambino Group actually ran New York and there were police and courts occasionally getting in their way (before eventually breaking them entirely), there simply are no police or courts in this analogy. It is the wild west to mix metaphors and we are TOTALLY outgunned. People think we can retaliate against that!?
Thankfully, Trump will actually be gone in January, 2029, hence the Watson column. So how about we finally try and get our own act together rather than focusing on Trump and fantasizing about taking actions that would only hasten our ruin whether or not the USA is as malevolent as suggested herein? “Control what you can” is a pretty good way to go about life in my experience. The list of things we can control is pretty damn long and has gone largely unattended for 18 plus months. Also, even if the premise of this piece is right, we are not hurting ourselves by focusing inward. And if the premise is wrong, we will be in a FAR better position once Trump does exit (and even before) than if we embark on suicidal retaliatory measures.
While I don't necessarily give Trump credit for rational thought, it is near certain that a currently annexed Canada would deliver about 30 million voters to the Democratic Party. Even Trump shouldn't be that stupid.
Personally I’m far more concerned about China and its tentacles extending further into Canada than a lame duck confused old doofus like Trump who will be gone sooner than later.
Trump is the figurehead. The GOP and Federalist Society are the cancer, and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. And without a Democratic supermajority in the Senate, November means nothing.
Yes, we are on completely different pages. I believe what they say is irrelevant. What they do matters. They marched in step to confirm Todd Blanche. Peter Thiel owns JD Vance. Nothing changes when Trump is gone......you don't establish a dictatorship with a plan to give it up.
Are they producing and moving massive amounts of drugs through our country?
Are they operating clandestine police stations in Canada?
Are they messing with our housing market with money laundering?
If the US tried anything like that, you would scream bloody murder. But it is China, and you can't wait to participate in their brutal regime. Slavery! Yes! Sex trafficking! Can't wait!
News for you: European descendents will be treated no better than the Uyghers.
Yes, they are interfering in our politics, especially in Alberta.
Yes, they are pumping far more drugs...and guns into Canada than go the other way.
Chinese police stations are inexcusable.
Are you suggesting that no US corporations aren't involved in our housing market for all sorts of reasons? If China is doing it, so is the US.
Your paranoia is your issue. I trust China as much as I trust the US...not at all. In 20 years, European immigrants will be a minority in North America.
The biggest participant in sex trafficking I've heard anything about lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
The Federalist Society? You mean the organization dedicated to conservative judicial principles whose members appointed to the bench have consistently been among the most effective checks on Trump's abuses?
If there's a problem with the Federalist Society, it's that it became a magnet for ambitious and unprincipled people like Ted Cruz , Josh Hawley, and Aileen Cannon who saw it as a route to power. However, the Federalist Society's commitment to its principles is one of the reasons that the judiciary appears to be the last functional branc of the US federal government.
You mean the 3 members of Trump's court who all lied about Roe to get confirmed, with massive amounts of dark money behind them? The same Court that effectively made Trump a dictator by saying he is immune from criminal responsibility for his actions as president? SCOTUS is an arm of the GOP.
Wait a minute. Was Trudeau an astute politician or an idiot? You have to choose a narrative before you can definitely decide what the 51st state comment meant. If Trump was mocking an idiot - Trudeau or Carney - that is different than threatening invasion.
We are at a greater risk of becoming a Chinese vassal state, though, because of our politicians' fascination with Chinese wealth and desperate need for Chinese intervention to keep them in power.
The Line had an excellent article by Anne Sofie Allarp that brought out a lot more nuance to the Greenland saga. Trump didn't threaten Greenland, the Panama Canal and Canada randomly.
Why does distance matter? We are willingly entering the New World Order which is centered on China. If we aren't willing to respect our own sovereignty, why should any country?
“Take your head out of the ground, please.” Try to be civil, please. This isn’t X.
And please let’s remember all of the security threats and all that meant and still does re Chinese infiltration, spying, threats to the Chinese communities and individuals here in Canada.
Trade with China ok, but I was disgusted by Carney’s over fast near kow towing embrace with China.
But he is a Liberal, they just cannot help themselves.
I actually hoped that Carney would be better than this.
One of your best dispatches yet. In summary, don’t give away anything that does not benefit Canada, do things that benefit us even if it means buying from America, and accept that it will never again be ‘the way it was’ and act accordingly in our own best interest even if it hurts.
Hard-baking anti-Americanism into Canadianism (for lack of any other meaningful umbrella term) I think is shooting one's self in the head ands calling the act one of 'sovereignty'. I think the rationalization for this level of antipathy is based on so many people having no clue what an actual threat to real sovereignty looks like in action (I'm almost sure a Memorandum of Understanding with a slave owning, expansionist, terror-supporting, hostage taking, drug dealing, cartel-managing, militarized, totalitarian state and making a 'strategic partnership' to better align our security services with its goals rather than US cannot possibly be anything other than improving Canada's 'sovereignty'... now, how best to load this gun pointed at our national head? Let's ask the Chinese to help and the Liberals to interpret the instructions.).
Because Canada is so integrated with the US in most ways that influence day-to-day living of every citizen throughout the land, pretending we are a separate agency that can obtain independence is delusional. That delusion rises in importance when we confuse 'sovereignty' with 'independence'.
We cannot be independent of the US. The real world makes this impossible. But we can be sovereign as a long as we promote our side of the integration to better serve our national differences that should inform the Canadian identity. Anti-Americanism hurts this goal by making it more difficult to obtain, especially by reaching out to the dominant enemy of the US and offering it legitimacy through favoured trade and other ways of 'friendship'. This increases the threat of necessary and rational US retaliation for its own national security interests. That's a reasonable result.
Calling anti-Americanism 'patriotic' and pursuing various means to promoting this as a national policy I think is a guaranteed path to the loss of Canadian sovereignty (if not the actual political disintegration of the country... pretty much the opposite in my vocabulary of what patriotism in the real world means).
“First, it is worth starting this conversation by noting that the annexation of Canada and turning it into the 51st state has been, and remains, the official and explicit policy of the United States of America.”
Stop. Just stop.
This statement is patently absurd, ill-thought out, and fealty to it is why we have muddled along with total middle-power mediocrity for 18 months or more.
Honestly, I am a tad disappointed that you folks fell for the ruse, and bought the myth.
I get it that the “Elbownians” can’t intellectually maneuver into a position that enables themselves to consider thoughtful introspection, but I thought you folks had been vaccinated.
Brave words..... but without any "bite"... So the U.S. isn't dealing with a conventional “foreign competitor.” Canada is effectively part of the North American production system. The Americans have recognized this to some extent. The latest 50% Canadian tariffs, for example, exclude energy, potash, critical minerals and certain other strategically important products. But the Trump administration view that Canada has benefited disproportionately from access to the enormous U.S. market while maintaining policies that protect Canadian industries. Trump therefore sees the relationship less as: “Two friendly countries trading freely” and more as: “America has enormous leverage because Canada needs the American market more than America needs Canada's market.” Whether that is a good description of the economic relationship is debatable—but it explains much of the strategy. Canada will be lucky to get out of these negotiations with it's shirt, which the "elbows up" crowd don't want to hear. But this is the reality.
I say forget a deal. Any agreement with the US has nothing more than a curb guarantee. Our negotiators are good and our previous FT deals were not bad. There seems a lot of public speculation on issues such as dairy and booze. Believe me, if that is what the discussions are focusing on to get a deal, we are gong to be OK, at least until the next day.
Earlier FTA discussions included big items such as water and water diversion, auto pact, American definition of government subsidies (not surprisingly, their defence spending on development didn’t count) etc. I have to believe that big items such as access to critical minerals and purchasing of US military equipment, steel and aluminum tariffs, must be at play. Just review what Trump is demanding elsewhere in return for “military protection”. We are in a no win negotiation. Whatever the US doesn’t get through this process, they will take anyway. It has ever thus been so, just a little more subtle. Delay any deal until after the midterms and reassess, they could be in a civil war by then.
Canada has become a world of antipithy alongside a country changing radically...one that will never return. It's articles like this that foment continuous hate for a people and a country that ain't goin' away. Elbows up my ass. Stuff like this is almost a call to arms.
On a better day--one with better leadership in the US and any indication of leadership in Canada--two mature minds will see the possibilities--the country of North America in some relationship or another--and begin positive discussions.
This article is right from a patriotic, WWII perspective. Canadian pride has been wonded. This article is wrong in so many other ways: it's shortsighted, inflexible, revengeful and inciting. Of little use except for entertainment. Matt and Jen normally do much better.
It's time to look at a better, brighter, stronger and more peaceful use of our continent. Sadly, neither of us has the leadership to begin the discussion. And it isn't coming from the good minds around us.
I think this dispatch gets it right on all fronts except 1. There is little talk of what Canada can do to build itself economically. Military strength flows from economic strength, in the long term. I would like to see The Line focus readers on what we need to do to strengthen our country economically. Tax reform to encourage investment and business creation, using the federal government's constitutional authority and spending power to force provinces to drop all trade and regulatory barriers, ruthless competition reform in most of our large industries. Just consider, almost 2 years ago Trump threatened Canada's sovereignty, and we still have free-er trade with America than within our own country on many items.
Talking about what Canada can "improve" sounds like questioning Canada's greatness. How can you "improve" when you are the best country in the world in every way already? Just ask any white Canadian retiree, they will set you straight, and do so without leaving the dock at their Muskoka cottage. Indeed, this talk of 'building ourselves economically' sounds downright treasonous. What are you, one of those nasty anti-Canadian "PP" boosters?
Yes! The Line's dispatches on US/Canada relations have been fantastic! A year ago last spring (I think, it's hard to remember, time has been so packed since Trump's reelection) we were asked at what point we'd think that the US had become unrecognizable. Most readers were sanguine about its long-term trajectory back then. I wonder how many have changed their mind.
Agreed. Anti-Americanism makes many people happy. It allows Canadians to feel morally superior to the USA. However, Canada has made policy choices that weaken our economy. For example, it is still very difficult to get BC wine at the LCBO. Ontario construction companies have difficulty bidding on projects in Quebec. Very few Canadians realize that Ontario's GDP per capita is now equal to Alabama's. If the 10 provinces joined the USA, the Atlantic provinces & Quebec would be at the bottom of the list. The tariffs from the USA are a wake-up call that Canada has to get its own house in order despite what the USA is doing.
An excellent, excellent commentary. I'm glad you didn't pull your punches.
I think the Prime Minister has fallen victim to "business leader syndrome". This illness features a belief that "pulling out all the stops to get 'er done" is a virtue.
It is not. In fact, it is a fatal flaw in the context of geostrategy and statecraft, particularly in the face of a hostile and predatory great power such as the United States is becoming, insofar as Canada is concerned.
You are still naive. Buy US jets? How can you say they cannot be trusted but we need to do deals with them so hopefully “they get off our back”? Then you go on to say that our negotiators/government believe it is a temporary “Trump only” issue and that it will simply disappear once he is gone. On what basis do you make this statement?
Anyone that reads knows that the US democracy is dead and that, as you have said, absorption of Canada and Greenland as well as all remaining parts of the western hemisphere is official US policy per its National Defence Strategy and public statements. We are effectively at war. You want appeasement. I believe Carney knows better. Appeasement is not possible. Fuck’m and let’s prepare to fight like Ukrainians. It is going to be horrible. Our only hope is the midterms, if they ever are allowed to happen, and a big Dem win. Then a US Civil war that buys us more time to arm up. Get real guys.
The EU and other democracies around the world and banding tightly together are democracy’s only hope. We have to try.
Ron, what Matt said, in context, was something like: it sucks but the fact is that the F35 is clearly the best aircraft so get over it and get the best.
Now, as for your commentary about going to war ..... with what army? with what air force? with what navy? The Ukrainians had a very strong and modern military force before the Russians invaded. Canada cannot say the same. That doesn't mean that we can't improve; we can. But to propose to actually go to now is incredibly foolish.
And, hoping for a civil war in the US or anywhere ..... that causes me to say that I see your thought process is - how to be polite?" ..... skewed.
Ken, you are absolutely correct. As one of my Republican acquaintances in Florida recently reminded me when discussing the 51st state issue: " You are not the Ukraine and we're not Russia. You're nice people, but going toe to toe with the US- Really?" Ultimately, that is the American mindset.
This is so profoundly sad its hard to comprehend. I just know that I won't and can't ask my sons to make that sacrifice. They are not going to fight their cousins. I guess we will all be leaving.
But, we don’t have the military, the Air Force or the navy to stand up to the US. Our citizens couldn’t even be a resistance force. We can’t have any decent personal weapons available to use thanks to gun control.
Isn’t that the elephant in the room? That if the US wanted to take over Canada by force it would be over in about 45 minutes and the US military wouldn’t break a sweat.
Spot on. There is no point in any deal with this administration. Their word is nothing. Take delivery of the 30 F35s we're committed to. Buy Gripens.
The US is an island to itself. What it used to be is gone, and it's not coming back. We should adapt to that and move on.
No jets.
We've already committed to 30. Take those and move on.
I'm getting tired of the waffling. Like the author, I want to see Canada's hard nose. Carney, will he show up for this? More than elbows up platitudes, it's time for fists.
Got it Glen: you want a fight.
Just what thingys should the government do? What provocations should Canada commit?
Sounding tough is, well, just talking. Be specific about what should be done and what YOU are willing to sacrifice. Are you willing for your kids to not have jobs and to lose their house and then have to move in with you? Just what are you willing to sacrifice?
Personally, I have no answers for those questions but I am not the one who has argued for the fight.
Mad comment. Sure you have noticed that it is the United States and not Canada that has become ugly, aggressive and confrontational.
Given the tenor of our past discussions, I get where you are coming from. You want to ensure that Alberta does not have to give anything up in order to defend Canadian sovereignty.
I'm telling you that this is a non-starter. At some point, we are ALL going to have to sacrifice to maintain our sovereignty in the face of increased US hostility.
Let me tell you WHY I oppose using Alberta's oil as a bargaining chip.
First off, I don't think it would work just as a general trade policy with the US but I might be wrong. I am not wrong, however, about the use of this product as a weapon.
The various US refineries that now buy Alberta oil are built to refine heavy crude and they would have trouble refining other grades. But .... Perhaps you have heard that Venezuela is now rapidly bringing their industry back on line. Oronoco grade oil from Venezuela is very competitive with Canadian Select. They are not the same but are kinda, possibly, maybe substitutable and, if you don't think the US will have a reason to use the Venezuelan product you are dreaming.
All those pipelines that carry Canadian oil to US refineries? They can be reversed. Right now, Canadian crude reaches the Gulf coast so the pipes can be reversed to pump to the north and Oronoco grade crude from Venezuela can be pumped from the Gulf to the refineries. It would take some noticeable time and great cost but the US would do it.
Oh, and Canadian oil would be shut out of the US forever. You and many others say that "We'll never forget" the actions of the US. Well, you can bet that the US will not forget either.
Now, the second reason and the PRIMARY REASON that I oppose using Alberta's oil as a bargaining chip. Central Canada has used the resources of the West as the center's own since Confederation and the use has always, always, always been specifically to provide benefit to the center. Not to the West.
Why is it that so many folks want to use our oil as a bargaining chip but they don't suggest that Ontario's auto industry, both manufacturing and parts sectors, be used as bargaining chips? Why don't they suggest that BC and Quebec's lumber and pulp exports be used as bargaining chips. Why don't they suggest that Quebec simply cut off electricity exports to the US?
My point is that if you are going to go down this road use those bargaining chips first. THEN BUT ONLY THEN come to Alberta and we can discuss using oil. Not before you use the other chips; only after.
I understand your point. However, I also want the export tax on electricity. Secondly, the goal is to impose instant retaliatory pain on the US. We will have overseas oil markets for some time. And as always, if you'd just put it on the train, you could ship it anywhere for a fraction of the price of building a pipeline.....which is problematic since the province you want to build it through is currently on fire. Long term, oil is on the way out. Trump's idiotic war is the greatest thing to ever happen to green energy.
He's willing to sacrifice your kids.
The confrontation with the US is existential for Canada and must be viewed that way when considering what we, individually, are prepared to do. Will we be like the bulk of the US population? Too comfortable and lazy to actively resist dictatorship ? Or will we fight like Ukraine and Iran?
Ron, you didn't answer the question.
What are you prepared to sacrifice? Specifically. Damned specifically.
Are you willing for your kids to be killed in battle? Are you willing for your kids to starve to death due to inability to get actual food?
You know, specifics like that.
No sacrifices will be made that cost a single Liberal vote or cost a boomer a single dollar. Which really means we won't sacrifice anything. It's all vague pointless talk. And another excuse for unlimited government spending and zero accountability. Turns out the Covid era was the perfect ecosystem for our perpetual government to operate. And with blustering bullshitter Trump in office, it's pandemic style panic forever!
I am a boomer and am really tired of this false idea that we are all a bunch of selfish , grasping old, out of touch people.
We are as mixed as any other group ie. gen X ,millennials, Gen Z and the Gen Alpha’s.
Otherwise, your comment on the unlimited government spending and zero accountability is quite accurate.
I know it's not all of people over 60 who are asking for this, or are all dupes to this government and its propaganda. But poll after poll indicates it's that demographic who are - vast majority - behaving and reacting to current events in a certain way that very much favours Mark Carney and the Liberals. In return that is the favoured demographic for government policy. Hence no sacrifices that will cost that generation anything they will notice.
This is what I was getting at. We've already established a pattern of nothingness; it will take very bold and unfamiliar moves to snap us out of our sleepwalk. To respond to the question, what am I specifically willing to give up? I would have to say collect the taxes and build or buy the shit as outlined in the article. Fast. That's a start.
What happens when 350 million wealthy people decide to boycott the production of 40 million?
What do you do then, Glen?
I am thrilled you folks are insulated from the consequences of your policy preferences; there remains yet a pile of folks whose livelihoods are dependent on access to the U.S. market.
I wonder if the majority of those 350 million even notice or care where their stuff comes from.
Even so, a plan to pivot to other new markets that's clearly laid out and implemented would be a welcome baby step. I see the bind we're in; nothing can change quickly, but the difference is between kicking it down the road or tackling it.
Thank you for the respectful reply, Glen.
The solution to the problem is not trade diversification; it is the implementation of fair trade practices.
1) Supply Management hurts Canadians.
2) Protection of favoured industries hurts Canadians.
3) Interprovincial trade barriers hurt Canadians.
These three policy decisions are within our purview to repair; that we choose not to bother is the proverbial can being kicked, not trade diversification from a wealthy and willing trade partner that represents the greatest market in the history of mankind .
I'm with you all the way. 1, 2, and 3 mean we are still too comfortable in certain areas of making money that are politically established and politically entwined. Like the gordian knot, I guess I'm on the team that wants to take a sword to it rather than unravel it, or even take the time to find the ends. That's the fist I'm talking about. It punches on both sides of the border.
Having a brother married to an American and with his wonderful family living in the USA makes it impossible for me to just start hating on them. Somehow, the Canada-US trade can still exist underneath and entirely separate from how you or I or anyone may feel good hating on the neighbours.
Fingers crossed we're still as sovereign a decade from now?
I have no animosity toward Americans. I have always found them to be friendly, informed, and able.
That is precisely why I discount the efficacy of trade diversification efforts. We should be trying to capture more trade with the Americans, not less.
Sovereignty is up to us, Glen; if we dislike being referred to as the 51st State, perhaps we should stop acting like the 51st State.
Good exchange, friend.
Should Canadians start fist-fighting American tourists? Mark Carney's children are studying in the USA. Should he ask them to come back to Canada ?
Yes, his kids should come home. I have no issue with American tourists coming here....it's nice that they're supporting our economy. I wish more Canadians would stop supporting theirs.
It would show that Mark Carney is serious about a permanent rupture with the USA if he brought his kids back to Canada. He could also divest of any American securities that he owned.
Another idea would be to offer a temporary reduction in capital gains tax for Canadians who own real estate in the USA. This would encourage Canadian snowbirds to move back to Canada during the winter.
That also begs the question of how much parents are responsible for the actions of their kids.....
I think a lot of Snowbirds have already spoken with their for sale signs, the insane cost of health insurance, and the inability to get property insurance.
Diana Carney gave an interview several years ago in which she said she was happy her children were planning to study at Ivy League universities. She has degrees from the University of Pennsylvania & Oxford. Mark has a degree from Harvard. One of his daughters, Cleo, is studying there now. It is obvious that the Carney's encouraged their children to study at some of the best universities in North America.
I agree that it is more expensive to maintain a property in the USA. A cut in the capital gains tax on sales of US real estate would encourage more Canadians to sell their properties in the USA.
What she said several years ago iss meaningless, as that country doesn't exist anymore.
Agreed. I don't actually care if US booze gets back on the shelf..especially the stuff we already paid for. It can sit there and "age".....I am in favour on an energy export tax, and could not care less which premiers' toes are stepped on.
.......equivalent to the one we would put on Ontario's auto sector.....
There are already all sorts of excess tariffs on the auto sector through steel and aluminium. I expect they will get worse, and Canada's entire auto sector is currently under threat. It's almost like you're in favour of consequences for anyone but you instead of trying to share them equally....
Nothing is shared equally in this country
In a decent society, the rich help pick up the poorest instead of hoarding their wealth for themselves.
Admirable.
"... the annexation of Canada and turning it into the 51st state has been, and remains, the official and explicit policy of the United States of America."
I was about to make the point that you guys are jumping the shark with this one, but then I decided to keep reading to make sure I wasn't being premature in my judgement.
But then I read "Again, let’s make things plain: this is the current, explicit policy of the United States of America toward Canada."
But you're right that there's no point in making trade agreements with an administration that makes such statements, but don't confuse the reason why - as you said "The United States, and Trump specifically, are simply too incoherent to work with in good faith." The point that Trump makes claims like this is an issue, but the bigger issue behind it is that he can't be trusted. And that comes simply from the CUSMA issues and the Gordie Howe Bridge deal. And there's simply no point in making a deal wth someone you can't trust. It's as pointless as arguing with a fool.
So, making the jump that simply because an incoherent president says we should be the 51st state makes it official policy, is just about as clueless. Frankly, it's more like clickbait.
Not making any deal, just like ignoring (more or less) the jibes about the 51st state says we don't take Trump seriously. And neither should anyone else, including (and especially) Americans.
The rest of your post about us doing the right thing (about defence and other trade sticking points that would be good for us) - without making it a bargaining chip - is spot on though.
It reminds me of an op-ed by Andrew Coyne back in the late 80s when he was writing for The Financial Post - and before the Free Trade Agreement. He made the point that we should be declaring free trade unilaterally - because it would be good for us.
You don't do the right thing because of someone else - you do it because it's who you are.
Have you heard of the Monroe Doctrine. When a President continually says something and is supported by his administration it is the country’s doctrine.
When a president is so far outside of the usual bounds of normalcy as to be incoherent and he is surrounded by sycophants, then I suggest that what you might normally assume to be true is not.
I like what Bill Maher (a noted Democrat) said on this recently.
I'm paraphrasing:
"Ten years into the age of Trump, if you are still hung up on the zany things he says to distract you, that's on you. His personality quirks are NOT going to change to better suit your feelings. Concentrate instead on the things he actually DOES.".
The government’s, yes, but not necessarily that of all of the population.
The Monroe Doctrine was ridiculous when it was promulgated: President Monroe had no ability to stop Britain or the other great powers from projecting power into the Western Hemisphere, as was amply demonstrated when Britain cleaned America's clock in the War of 1812. Further, the doctrine didn't change the status of any European colonies in the Western hemisphere until those countries decided to change it. It was the bark of a small, yappy dog trying to act tough. Now it's trotted out by US administrations whenever they want to throw their weight around, and even *then* it's come with mixed success. America didn't succeed in ejecting the Castro regime from Cuba, nor did it successfully overthrow the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and South American nations (notwithstanding the recent abduction of the head of Venezuela) have generally told America to get bent.
There's a lesson here: the Monroe Doctrine is nonsense, and the US actually has little capacity to implement it. That's not going to stop an imperialistic US president from trying, and they can do a lot of damage. Mostly, though, the response needs to be an eyeroll and "Sure, Donny."
Britain was all for the Monroe Doctrine...it left their colonies as is and kept European Powers out of the America's.
And I thought the War of 1812 was more of a draw.....Britain did good to begin with mostly because of incompetent US leadership.....but Jackson cleaned Britain's clock at New Orleans and then a mighty storm and stubborn US resistance in the battle before Fort McHenry held the British fleet at bay.........and the burning of Washington didn't win British support back home....
It is official policy. Current US National Security Strategy. It is very public. Search for and read.
Not quite, Ron.
The Strategy considers neighboring countries - Canada would be included there - as being part of a US sphere of influence. That means, however, that the US would want to have economic and security influence in Canada.
So, it is almost what you say but not quite.
I concede that those are the words, but regardless, the interpretation as voiced by the administration and President is consistent with my, and others, extrapolation
Well, thanks for the challenge, but why didn't you post the link yourself? It's pretty easy to find: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf
And a simple search reveals only one (1) mention of Canada:
We must encourage Europe, Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and other prominent nations in adopting trade policies that help rebalance China’s economy toward household consumption, because Southeast Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East cannot alone absorb China’s enormous excess capacity.
There is no mention of "51", "annex" or North America, "western" only comes up in fairly bland generalities of what the US expects from its western hemisphere neighbours.
But maybe you read a different document that what is posted on the White House site?
(edit) I see that the Dept. of War has a different document on its site , but while there are three mentions of Canada, they are all in context of working with Canada and there are still none of the other words I mention above.
https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/23/2003864773/-1/-1/0/2026-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY.PDF
If this annexation premise is right and I guess I allow for the theoretical possibility it might be although I really don’t think it is - (I am much more aligned with William Watson’s piece in the Post a few weeks ago premised on the notion that Trump too shall pass) – then it’s truly over for us. There is NOTHING that we can do about it. The notion of “retaliation” in such circumstances is hilarious as that would be nothing more than a suicide mission. Yes, by all means, let’s impose tariffs!! Great plan that is, if you are trying to make everyone’s life more expensive than it already is. Let’s cut off their energy. An even better idea!! Imagine the situation when the USA retaliates to THAT in the first week of December.
Look, if this premise of a malevolent USA bent on our destruction is right, then we are not just dealing with a stereotypical school-yard bully. The better analogy is that John Gotti, Sammy the Bull Gravano and numerous other Gambino Group underlings have moved in and are patrolling the neighborhood collecting mafia protection money. Not only are there far more of them, they are far more powerful/armed than you, they are more ruthless than you, they can easily withstand every tactic (economic and “physical”) you use to try and hurt them and they can respond with a ferocity you could never match in a million years. Furthermore, unlike when the Gambino Group actually ran New York and there were police and courts occasionally getting in their way (before eventually breaking them entirely), there simply are no police or courts in this analogy. It is the wild west to mix metaphors and we are TOTALLY outgunned. People think we can retaliate against that!?
Thankfully, Trump will actually be gone in January, 2029, hence the Watson column. So how about we finally try and get our own act together rather than focusing on Trump and fantasizing about taking actions that would only hasten our ruin whether or not the USA is as malevolent as suggested herein? “Control what you can” is a pretty good way to go about life in my experience. The list of things we can control is pretty damn long and has gone largely unattended for 18 plus months. Also, even if the premise of this piece is right, we are not hurting ourselves by focusing inward. And if the premise is wrong, we will be in a FAR better position once Trump does exit (and even before) than if we embark on suicidal retaliatory measures.
While I don't necessarily give Trump credit for rational thought, it is near certain that a currently annexed Canada would deliver about 30 million voters to the Democratic Party. Even Trump shouldn't be that stupid.
Personally I’m far more concerned about China and its tentacles extending further into Canada than a lame duck confused old doofus like Trump who will be gone sooner than later.
Trump is the figurehead. The GOP and Federalist Society are the cancer, and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. And without a Democratic supermajority in the Senate, November means nothing.
I have to respectfully disagree. There is a movement within the GOP to distance themselves from Trump and when he goes away the game changes.
You make a great point, Peter.
There are far too many folks in this Country whose elbows are in from of their eyes.
Yes, we are on completely different pages. I believe what they say is irrelevant. What they do matters. They marched in step to confirm Todd Blanche. Peter Thiel owns JD Vance. Nothing changes when Trump is gone......you don't establish a dictatorship with a plan to give it up.
What has the US done? Tariffs and...?
Are they interfering with our politics?
Are they producing and moving massive amounts of drugs through our country?
Are they operating clandestine police stations in Canada?
Are they messing with our housing market with money laundering?
If the US tried anything like that, you would scream bloody murder. But it is China, and you can't wait to participate in their brutal regime. Slavery! Yes! Sex trafficking! Can't wait!
News for you: European descendents will be treated no better than the Uyghers.
Yes, they are interfering in our politics, especially in Alberta.
Yes, they are pumping far more drugs...and guns into Canada than go the other way.
Chinese police stations are inexcusable.
Are you suggesting that no US corporations aren't involved in our housing market for all sorts of reasons? If China is doing it, so is the US.
Your paranoia is your issue. I trust China as much as I trust the US...not at all. In 20 years, European immigrants will be a minority in North America.
The biggest participant in sex trafficking I've heard anything about lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
I suspect we'll agree to disagree.
You forgot to tell me what the US has done to Canada.
Why especially Alberta? Because you don't like Alberta?
The US is far less tolerant of money laundering than Canada. TD did plead guilty of money laundering in the US, though.
"His" paranoia???
The Federalist Society? You mean the organization dedicated to conservative judicial principles whose members appointed to the bench have consistently been among the most effective checks on Trump's abuses?
If there's a problem with the Federalist Society, it's that it became a magnet for ambitious and unprincipled people like Ted Cruz , Josh Hawley, and Aileen Cannon who saw it as a route to power. However, the Federalist Society's commitment to its principles is one of the reasons that the judiciary appears to be the last functional branc of the US federal government.
You mean the 3 members of Trump's court who all lied about Roe to get confirmed, with massive amounts of dark money behind them? The same Court that effectively made Trump a dictator by saying he is immune from criminal responsibility for his actions as president? SCOTUS is an arm of the GOP.
Exactly.
Wait a minute. Was Trudeau an astute politician or an idiot? You have to choose a narrative before you can definitely decide what the 51st state comment meant. If Trump was mocking an idiot - Trudeau or Carney - that is different than threatening invasion.
We are at a greater risk of becoming a Chinese vassal state, though, because of our politicians' fascination with Chinese wealth and desperate need for Chinese intervention to keep them in power.
The Line had an excellent article by Anne Sofie Allarp that brought out a lot more nuance to the Greenland saga. Trump didn't threaten Greenland, the Panama Canal and Canada randomly.
The PRC is 10,000 kilometres away. We will never become a PRC vassal.
The US, on the other hand, is right next door, and has made it crystal clear that it does not respect our sovereignty.
Take your head out of the ground, please.
Why does distance matter? We are willingly entering the New World Order which is centered on China. If we aren't willing to respect our own sovereignty, why should any country?
“Take your head out of the ground, please.” Try to be civil, please. This isn’t X.
And please let’s remember all of the security threats and all that meant and still does re Chinese infiltration, spying, threats to the Chinese communities and individuals here in Canada.
Trade with China ok, but I was disgusted by Carney’s over fast near kow towing embrace with China.
But he is a Liberal, they just cannot help themselves.
I actually hoped that Carney would be better than this.
One of your best dispatches yet. In summary, don’t give away anything that does not benefit Canada, do things that benefit us even if it means buying from America, and accept that it will never again be ‘the way it was’ and act accordingly in our own best interest even if it hurts.
Agreed . Excellent column.
Hard-baking anti-Americanism into Canadianism (for lack of any other meaningful umbrella term) I think is shooting one's self in the head ands calling the act one of 'sovereignty'. I think the rationalization for this level of antipathy is based on so many people having no clue what an actual threat to real sovereignty looks like in action (I'm almost sure a Memorandum of Understanding with a slave owning, expansionist, terror-supporting, hostage taking, drug dealing, cartel-managing, militarized, totalitarian state and making a 'strategic partnership' to better align our security services with its goals rather than US cannot possibly be anything other than improving Canada's 'sovereignty'... now, how best to load this gun pointed at our national head? Let's ask the Chinese to help and the Liberals to interpret the instructions.).
Because Canada is so integrated with the US in most ways that influence day-to-day living of every citizen throughout the land, pretending we are a separate agency that can obtain independence is delusional. That delusion rises in importance when we confuse 'sovereignty' with 'independence'.
We cannot be independent of the US. The real world makes this impossible. But we can be sovereign as a long as we promote our side of the integration to better serve our national differences that should inform the Canadian identity. Anti-Americanism hurts this goal by making it more difficult to obtain, especially by reaching out to the dominant enemy of the US and offering it legitimacy through favoured trade and other ways of 'friendship'. This increases the threat of necessary and rational US retaliation for its own national security interests. That's a reasonable result.
Calling anti-Americanism 'patriotic' and pursuing various means to promoting this as a national policy I think is a guaranteed path to the loss of Canadian sovereignty (if not the actual political disintegration of the country... pretty much the opposite in my vocabulary of what patriotism in the real world means).
“First, it is worth starting this conversation by noting that the annexation of Canada and turning it into the 51st state has been, and remains, the official and explicit policy of the United States of America.”
Stop. Just stop.
This statement is patently absurd, ill-thought out, and fealty to it is why we have muddled along with total middle-power mediocrity for 18 months or more.
Honestly, I am a tad disappointed that you folks fell for the ruse, and bought the myth.
I get it that the “Elbownians” can’t intellectually maneuver into a position that enables themselves to consider thoughtful introspection, but I thought you folks had been vaccinated.
Please, just stop.
Even if Trump is serious, there is zero chance the American public would stand for the annexation of Canada against our will.
Americans will march against the government when the US battles their actual enemies.
A hostile takeover of America's neighbour and closest friend would be so unpopular it could lead to open revolt.
The idea that this childish taunt is somehow official US government policy is simply too ridiculous to take seriously.
Good post, Mike.
On so many levels annexation of Canada by the US is absurd!!!!!!
Brave words..... but without any "bite"... So the U.S. isn't dealing with a conventional “foreign competitor.” Canada is effectively part of the North American production system. The Americans have recognized this to some extent. The latest 50% Canadian tariffs, for example, exclude energy, potash, critical minerals and certain other strategically important products. But the Trump administration view that Canada has benefited disproportionately from access to the enormous U.S. market while maintaining policies that protect Canadian industries. Trump therefore sees the relationship less as: “Two friendly countries trading freely” and more as: “America has enormous leverage because Canada needs the American market more than America needs Canada's market.” Whether that is a good description of the economic relationship is debatable—but it explains much of the strategy. Canada will be lucky to get out of these negotiations with it's shirt, which the "elbows up" crowd don't want to hear. But this is the reality.
I say forget a deal. Any agreement with the US has nothing more than a curb guarantee. Our negotiators are good and our previous FT deals were not bad. There seems a lot of public speculation on issues such as dairy and booze. Believe me, if that is what the discussions are focusing on to get a deal, we are gong to be OK, at least until the next day.
Earlier FTA discussions included big items such as water and water diversion, auto pact, American definition of government subsidies (not surprisingly, their defence spending on development didn’t count) etc. I have to believe that big items such as access to critical minerals and purchasing of US military equipment, steel and aluminum tariffs, must be at play. Just review what Trump is demanding elsewhere in return for “military protection”. We are in a no win negotiation. Whatever the US doesn’t get through this process, they will take anyway. It has ever thus been so, just a little more subtle. Delay any deal until after the midterms and reassess, they could be in a civil war by then.
My read of this is that the editors would like the return of Asshole Canada.
Canada has become a world of antipithy alongside a country changing radically...one that will never return. It's articles like this that foment continuous hate for a people and a country that ain't goin' away. Elbows up my ass. Stuff like this is almost a call to arms.
On a better day--one with better leadership in the US and any indication of leadership in Canada--two mature minds will see the possibilities--the country of North America in some relationship or another--and begin positive discussions.
This article is right from a patriotic, WWII perspective. Canadian pride has been wonded. This article is wrong in so many other ways: it's shortsighted, inflexible, revengeful and inciting. Of little use except for entertainment. Matt and Jen normally do much better.
It's time to look at a better, brighter, stronger and more peaceful use of our continent. Sadly, neither of us has the leadership to begin the discussion. And it isn't coming from the good minds around us.
"antipithy" - did you mean apathy? Antipathy doesn't really work, I think.
Thanks for reading...and for challenging.
"Antipathy is a deep-seated, strong feeling of dislike, hatred, or opposition toward a person, thing, or idea."
"Apathy is a lack of feeling, emotion, interest, or concern."
It is the meaining of "antipithy" that I wanted...but I agree...it feels awkward. :-)
Suggestion:
Canada, like the U.S., has changed radically, become full of antipathy and a return to their former selves seems unlikely.
If that’s what you want, I’ll just delete my comments after you edit.
I often have to edit a few times after my initial post. I usually try to draft in another app and then copy/paste.
Cheers.
I'll send my comments to you for editing! Nice job, tho'. Maybe use CHAT in the chats?
I think this dispatch gets it right on all fronts except 1. There is little talk of what Canada can do to build itself economically. Military strength flows from economic strength, in the long term. I would like to see The Line focus readers on what we need to do to strengthen our country economically. Tax reform to encourage investment and business creation, using the federal government's constitutional authority and spending power to force provinces to drop all trade and regulatory barriers, ruthless competition reform in most of our large industries. Just consider, almost 2 years ago Trump threatened Canada's sovereignty, and we still have free-er trade with America than within our own country on many items.
Talking about what Canada can "improve" sounds like questioning Canada's greatness. How can you "improve" when you are the best country in the world in every way already? Just ask any white Canadian retiree, they will set you straight, and do so without leaving the dock at their Muskoka cottage. Indeed, this talk of 'building ourselves economically' sounds downright treasonous. What are you, one of those nasty anti-Canadian "PP" boosters?
Yes! The Line's dispatches on US/Canada relations have been fantastic! A year ago last spring (I think, it's hard to remember, time has been so packed since Trump's reelection) we were asked at what point we'd think that the US had become unrecognizable. Most readers were sanguine about its long-term trajectory back then. I wonder how many have changed their mind.
What have they done, besides tariffs?
Mostly it has been words and you should realize the value of any politician's words.
Agreed. Anti-Americanism makes many people happy. It allows Canadians to feel morally superior to the USA. However, Canada has made policy choices that weaken our economy. For example, it is still very difficult to get BC wine at the LCBO. Ontario construction companies have difficulty bidding on projects in Quebec. Very few Canadians realize that Ontario's GDP per capita is now equal to Alabama's. If the 10 provinces joined the USA, the Atlantic provinces & Quebec would be at the bottom of the list. The tariffs from the USA are a wake-up call that Canada has to get its own house in order despite what the USA is doing.
An excellent, excellent commentary. I'm glad you didn't pull your punches.
I think the Prime Minister has fallen victim to "business leader syndrome". This illness features a belief that "pulling out all the stops to get 'er done" is a virtue.
It is not. In fact, it is a fatal flaw in the context of geostrategy and statecraft, particularly in the face of a hostile and predatory great power such as the United States is becoming, insofar as Canada is concerned.
You are still naive. Buy US jets? How can you say they cannot be trusted but we need to do deals with them so hopefully “they get off our back”? Then you go on to say that our negotiators/government believe it is a temporary “Trump only” issue and that it will simply disappear once he is gone. On what basis do you make this statement?
Anyone that reads knows that the US democracy is dead and that, as you have said, absorption of Canada and Greenland as well as all remaining parts of the western hemisphere is official US policy per its National Defence Strategy and public statements. We are effectively at war. You want appeasement. I believe Carney knows better. Appeasement is not possible. Fuck’m and let’s prepare to fight like Ukrainians. It is going to be horrible. Our only hope is the midterms, if they ever are allowed to happen, and a big Dem win. Then a US Civil war that buys us more time to arm up. Get real guys.
The EU and other democracies around the world and banding tightly together are democracy’s only hope. We have to try.
Ron, what Matt said, in context, was something like: it sucks but the fact is that the F35 is clearly the best aircraft so get over it and get the best.
Now, as for your commentary about going to war ..... with what army? with what air force? with what navy? The Ukrainians had a very strong and modern military force before the Russians invaded. Canada cannot say the same. That doesn't mean that we can't improve; we can. But to propose to actually go to now is incredibly foolish.
And, hoping for a civil war in the US or anywhere ..... that causes me to say that I see your thought process is - how to be polite?" ..... skewed.
Ken, you are absolutely correct. As one of my Republican acquaintances in Florida recently reminded me when discussing the 51st state issue: " You are not the Ukraine and we're not Russia. You're nice people, but going toe to toe with the US- Really?" Ultimately, that is the American mindset.
Reminds me of what the Russians used to think about Ukrainians.
This is so profoundly sad its hard to comprehend. I just know that I won't and can't ask my sons to make that sacrifice. They are not going to fight their cousins. I guess we will all be leaving.
But, we don’t have the military, the Air Force or the navy to stand up to the US. Our citizens couldn’t even be a resistance force. We can’t have any decent personal weapons available to use thanks to gun control.
A mere matter of marching, then, I guess.
Maybe use brooms to sweep them away’
Isn’t that the elephant in the room? That if the US wanted to take over Canada by force it would be over in about 45 minutes and the US military wouldn’t break a sweat.
And NATO would be useless.