Oh, for heaven's sake. Carney knew perfectly well that saying what he said would frighten and rile up a lot of clueless boomers (half his base) and generate more anti-American sentiment, as it in fact did. A responsible PM would behave the way that American senior officer recently did, and compare the idea of an American invasion to an alien invasion - which is also an extreme tail risk.
Of course, he also knew that presenting it that way would enable sycophantic media (the other half of his base) to blame the Conservatives rather than him. As, evidently, they are doing.
I actually think he's quite intelligent, and credit him with being able to understand perfectly obvious and predictable consequences of his words. Do you think he's dumb?
I'm not insulting anyone, even the Prime Minister. I'm just saying he's not so dumb as to be unaware of the obvious effect of his comments. But, if you strongly disagree, I am very willing to listen to your argument that he is in fact dumb.
He could have said "I'm not going to discuss scenarios that are that unlikely to happen" and stopped it cold, but didn't. I don't know if this was deliberate or not, but again this just so happened to result in another round of anti-American moral panic that drove Liberal numbers to new highs. So weird, how could that have happened?
It must be nice to just be able to say magic words and get an immediate popularity boost. You can even overlap them for maximum effect! No, he's actually organically and deservedly the most popular PM in Canadian history. Sure. Just like GW Bush was the most popular US president in living memory in October 2001, but in our case the phenomenon is dragged out for years.
He was responding to a question accurately, and a denial that they'd considered that contingency at all would be much more alarming. American military action against Canada is a long tail risk. Unfortunately, what was once probably an 8- or 9-sigma risk has increased to ~6-sigma because of the man occupying the White House.
Meanwhile, Conservatives don't seem to be able to stop themselves from flying into hysterical responses to anything Carney says or does, and they're making asses of themselves.
And one thing we know about Carney is that, when asked any question, he always tells the full, clear truth without considering the political impact of his words, right?
Of course he considers what he's saying. It was still a good answer, and if the answer is alarming, it's because it's about something that IS alarming. Read the full interview - it shows Carney has an impressive grasp of issues and policies that's been missing from Canadian leadership for a long time. Harper had a similar capacity, but I've seen nothing comparable on offer from Poilievre, Singh, Trudeau, O'Toole, Scheer, or Lewis.
When one looks at your posts, it is clear that you are a reactionary troll who, on this topic at least, as reflected by your rhetoric, operate in bad faith. Only people like Polievre and Scheer would take you seriously. Oh, and other Maple Maga.
I'm in no way operating in bad faith. My original point, that Carney knew perfectly well what the reaction to his statement would be, and was perfectly happy with the result, seems unchallenged. The ideas that he didn't know, or that he knew but didn't want this to happen yet felt compelled to speak as he did anyway, both seem ridiculous to me.
The real problem is that Carney supporters seem to have lost basic reasoning skills and can't accept what I say or any of the counterarguments, resorting instead to name-calling.
Man, name calling? Read your own posts. They demonstrate your bad faith. You have a view. You seem to support the Conservatives and the Americans in the dispute. Just say so and argue your point instead of calling his supporters clueless and the media sycophantic, i.e., name calling. There's an argument to be made, albeit one that I fundamentally disagree with, that Canada's sovereignty is not worth enough and that we should pursue deeper integration if not unification with the US. At the current moment, that would be deeply unpopular but if that's your position, and reviewing the overall reactionary perspective of your posts (e.g., compulsory voting for men only), have the courage to advance it.
The thrust of The Line's article is, essentially, that one would have to be stupid to find Carney's comments alarming. In my view, name calling would be if one were to call one's comment interlocutor something like a "reactionary troll".
I still don't see you asserting either that Carney should have expected that his words would alarm people or not, or whether he wanted this to happen or not. I'm asserting yes to both, and therefore the article's criticism of the Conservatives was invalid.
Surely accusations of bad faith can only be made about people who refuse to give their views on these simple questions.
On balance I agree. If it was careless banker speak, he could have walked it back. Instead, there was a clear game plan to have the caucus echo his comments.
The other half though, is why.
I think it was few fold:
1) Media buzz on the US side that validates the ‘Trump is nuts’ narrative that piles onto Trumps net negatives. Carney showing he can, in fact, reach out and touch him a bit. More likely to just piss the guy off. But ok, maybe worth the flex.
2) Juice the fear vote.
3) well laid trap, in which the conservatives obligingly landed by breathlessly making hay about it.
It is, of course, his job to be kept appraised tail risk issues. I suspect many improbable events are the subjects of his briefings, and he doesn’t lay them out like this, even when asked about them.
This was very much calibrated for the reaction he got, and he got a good one from the Line. In that sense a nice peice of work.
But still open to a line of criticism: seriously, was that the right stinker to lob out there, when you’re trying to get back at the table? That too, is a reasonable question. Was the flex worth it? And if it wasn’t a flex but con baiting - was that worth it? We’re trying to get a deal done, many jobs and whole companies are at stake - is this the best path?
The Line is great - but I think they’ve missed 1/2 the bullshit here.
I completely agree. It was intentional and, for him, effective. But what makes you think he wants to get back to the table? Is it not equally plausible that his whole intention is to do whatever harm to Trump that he can, regardless of the harm to Canada? He could even rationalize this by telling himself that a blue restoration in the US will be so good for Canada (and the world) that it is worth considerable immediate harm to Canadians for a longer term benefit.
I remember 5 weeks ago that The Line was demanding to see documents of what Carney turned down. I believe that reasonable request has been forgotten, with Carney, as usual, given the benefit of the doubt that he creates through his own lack of transparency.
My understanding is that the Canadian military have had contingency plans, in case of U.S. invasion, since the time of the War of 1812. Early days included forts, which we can still visit, at Prescott and Kingston. The town of Perth, midway between the U,S, border at Ogdensburg and Ottawa, was originally also a military fort across the likeliest invasion route, up the Old Perth Road. I currently live about two kilometers east of Highway 416, the modern version of that invasion route. If they do invade, the Americans better not try it at rush hour.
So yes, Canada has a contingency plan in case of U.S. invasion, and no, it's not a threat, it is an extremely low risk. But then they probably have contingency plans in case of flying saucers.
My Grade 12 history teacher told us about an incident where a Canadian Army officer was cashiered after finding a contingency plan for dealing with a worker's uprising in Edmonton. He sent a memo up the chain of command referencing the plan and noting that they weren't currently stockpiling the required amount of machine gun ammunition. So yeah - they've got plans for everything, and they never throw anything out.
You are right to mention that PM Carney answered the question about US invasion scenarios honestly and reasonably. It would be nice if he used some of that honesty when dealing with his own subjects. This isn’t the first time he has used US Media to communicate. Perhaps he’s honest because US media and commentators -,even the NY Times - do not tolerate obfuscation and word salads as much as the bought and paid for Canadian media and her majesty’s loyal opposition.
Having said that, to my knowledge almost all such interviews are based on agreed upon questions in advance. So raising anew the topic of a US invasion gives the PM a perfect opportunity to wrap himself and his party in the Maple Leaf flag and also benefit the Quebec federalist parties. What’s not to like. His recent hirings of American Democratic advisers seem to be paying off quite nicely.
2. US media and political communication is nothing to aspire to. Quite the opposite. Obfuscation is child’s play down there.
3. Which lies? There have been a couple of misstatements, on things where anyone would know the facts would come out. That's not what deliberate lying looks like.
4. Carney is among the clearest and most direct communicators of any major leader right now. Criticizing him for evasiveness is a weak line of attack.
As for the editorial board sit-down, topics are usually shared in advance, but that's not the same as agreed questions. The Times pressed him on the 51st-state issue, which isn't how a scripted session goes. If you have a source saying the questions were scripted, please share it.
1. Just for clarity I used the word subject to refer to Canadians as being Subjects of the Crown as opposed to free citizens. Not to refer to discussion subjects.
2. I wasn’t intending to claim that US legacy as an example where reporters are paragons of investigative skills. Been decades since the Watergate reports. But in comparison to Canadian legacy media which now feeds at the Ottawa Governent trough they stand head and shoulders sbove the likes of CBC and CTV. Compare 60 Minutes to the offerings of the latter two for but one instance.
3 I looked high and low in my post and could not find the word “lie” anywhere. Sounds like saying “I’ll shoot your dog and if you don’t have one I’ll buy you one and shoot it” (MAID it in Canada)
4. Grant your point but it’s hardly a high bar. Reagan, Lincoln and Churchill come to mind.
Maybe it wasn’t specific questions but you partially agree with me with your statement on topics. But choosing a topic which has been and is continuously hashed over for generations smacks of opportunism given the Quebec election and the need to score points to help Quebec Federalists.
> I used the word subject to refer to Canadians as being Subjects of the Crown as opposed to free citizens.
This is like referring to Canadians "as human beings as opposed to homo sapiens" since Canadians as subjects of the Canadian Crown are free citizens of Canada. They're the same thing.
I beg to differ. Canadians are subjects of the King. Any freedoms they might have at a particular time are granted by the king (Charter means “permission” which can be taken away) Their rights and freedoms are not God given and unalienable.
Put another way, government gets/borrows its power from the citizens (the people) who can take it away. Subjects get their rights and freedoms from the State/King/Government who can take them away.
Most of the world is governed under a subjecthood arrangement. The United States of America and the United Mexican States are democratic Constitutional republics where power comes from the people . Others with that arrangement include Germany, France, India, Iceland, Italy,Nigeria and the Philippines.
I remember my first Canadian passport. It stated up front (early page) “A Canadian citizen is a British subject”.
FWIW neither the US nor the Canadian passports refer to the holder as “citizen” They use the term “nationality” instead.
1. Oh. Carney does not have “subjects.” King Chuck does (ceremonially speaking).
2. You implied he was only honest because the US press doesn’t do shenanigans. As my mother used to say to such things: Poppycock.
3. “It would be nice if he used some of that honesty when dealing with his own subjects” (citizens). I can’t see a way to interpret this to mean something other than he lies to us.
4. If one has to go back decades and to foreign lands… I’d say it just might be a pretty high bar. I feel like Obama may have been a more recent example at that level but I don’t follow US politics closely enough. Alexander Stubb (Finland) I think is the only one comparable in terms of regularly providing clear complete thoughtful and non-rhetorical answers to media questions.
His Majesty does indeed have subjects. He is represented by the Governor General who is appointed by the PM who also controls the making of laws and appoints the justices who interpret these laws. For all practical purposes Canadian nationals are subjects of the PM even if nominally they are His Majesty’s subjects. You could replace the king with an oxidized cargo airplane or a stone dolmen and appoint various viziers and poobahs to speak to the symbolwrite and administer laws and there would be no difference.
Liberal truth is sticking to provable facts. Cherry picking the facts you state and adding additional facts is not lying. Given that we are dealing with differing interpretations, perhaps “openness” might have been a better term than “honesty”.
I didn’t say the US press didn’t do shenanigans. (I had an Irish Mother BTW. Her view of Trudeau Senior was “I bet he sits down to pee”). I just meant that the US press is less likely to accept blatant BS than the Canadian legacy media. If only because they don’t get Government funding.
I too would have preferred to find more recent examples. But when almost 60 years ago the Canadian people selected a Quebec French socialist to lead them, the social reengineering of Canada’s morality, values and culture started and is pretty well completed by now. As someone said, Canada was promised British government, American business efficiency and French culture and now has French government, American culture and British efficiency.
Good column. It is also worth noting that the NYT amplified and distorted Carney's remark in an effort to pursue their own political agenda regarding the Trump administration (Trump so bad even the peaceful cousin to the north has to fear an American invasion). But their amplification does not excuse the political opposition from their own distortion. And I echo the comment about the absence of any BC election commentary.
I also agree on the NYTimes doing this for their own agenda. But, Carney’s people would have known they’d do that. So everyone got what they wanted out of that interview.
The military, security services, law enforcement and emergency managers conduct threat assessments and create contingency plans continually. Their job is to plan for possible threats including those with low probability.
If Canadians (and especially CPC politicians) don't know and understand this then the country is dumber and more fragile than I thought! And the ones spouting this bullshit are the same people who would be screaming at governments when something happened and there wasn't a plan.
Bullshit factor? Sure. How about calling the government out to reveal the same analysis for any number of other countries such as China, Russia, Iran that appear to be actually in the process of invading Canada by one means or another? All you have done is add to this ridiculous anti_American rhetoric.
The difference with China is that at any given time, if we get tired of their shadow police stations or infiltration of regional elections, we could stop it overnight. Gone. CSIS and the RCMP know what China does in Canada; we don’t stop it because it’s useful to the Canadian government to get closer to the other superpower. They’re not actually impacting real decision-making, they’re mostly using this interference to keep tabs on their own diaspora’s attempts to meddle in home politics from abroad. India does this too and the UK did during the Troubles.
So China is not an actual threat. They’re thousands of kilometres away!
With the US, of course they’re not doing anything right now. The risk is that things spiral quickly. The ability to economically blockade Canada, or yes, in extremis, actually occupy land (it wouldn’t be “tanks up the 416”, it would be in the Arctic, done to “secure it against Russia, since Canada can’t hold the land”) is ever-present, and under this President, it’s naive to think that things couldn’t spiral.
We have made our objections known to the PRC insofar as its "police stations" and electoral interference efforts are concerned.
I do worry, though, about how seriously our politicians really take PRC efforts to subvert the Canadian political process.
My fear is that many Canadian politicians, both at the federal and provincial level, also do not take seriously enough the PRC's intimidation of perceived "enemies" in Canada, most notably dissidents of Chinese ethnicity, Tibetan-Canadians, and Uyghur Canadians.
I understand what you folks are saying and writing; I don’t necessarily disagree.
The Prime Minister has nothing but contempt for Parliament.
The Prime Minister has a very tenuous relationship with the truth.
The Prime Minister has shown himself to be slyly clever at, shall we say, promoting the interests of the Liberal Party of Canada somewhat independently of the best interests of the Country.
One could say, he is ruthless in the pursuit of power, influence, and wealth.
Everyone in politics is selling his next book, as well as his last one.
Here is a better answer to the question the Prime Minister was asked, in my opinion: “there are no such plans, and it would be the height of stupidity to even contemplate such an event. I will not dignify the question with further reply.”
Mr. Carney used the event to his benefit, and to the benefit of the Liberal Party of Canada. He leveraged a very stupid question with a serious answer.
Once again, Canadians bought the myth, and fell for the ruse.
If Canadians were fish, we would each get caught five times per day.
Is it really that difficult to believe- that far-fetched- that an electorate that chose Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister three bloody times would not be positively influenced by the reporting of this story?
Compare with how Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, when president, would have responded to a question about whether there was a contingency plan for war with Canada (which the US has had since forever). This wouldn't have been either of their answer. The self-serving nature of Carney's spin on this comes into focus.
This was boosted by incredibly irresponsible reporting on both sides of the border - some literally twisting "extreme tail risk" into just "extreme risk". In this environment, stupid will always win.
Were I a journalist- American or otherwise- I would also ask “Have you seen the contingency plans whereby the U.S. protects Canada from a foreign assault?”
Good coverage of Trump and the Quebec election. But not a word about the election in BC. Just last night my wife and I met a very nice senior couple from Montreal. When we said we are from Vancouver Island, the lady said, "Where is that?" (It's that big lump, 500kms long housing approaching a million Canadians just west of Vancouver). Yes, Canada does extend beyond the Ontario/Manitoba border. (Jen: We need your voice to represent us.)
Good point Bob. Canadians seem to be aware of their own neighborhoods but a lot less about other parts of the country. I have to admit I’m not that knowledgeable about parts outside of Ontario.
Here’s my American take. The point of the NYT question was not to rile up Canadians but rather to rile up its readers who are overwhelmingly affluent, college educated Democrats on the two American coasts. Carney’s answer, as you said, was honest… extreme tail risk, meaning ‘it’s 99.9% not going to happen but we have to consider it.’ A perfectly reasonable, not scary at all response. But the NYT, acting in its role as mouthpiece of the DNC, knows Democrats will read this and jump to the conclusion that that madman Trump has driven Canada to this UNPRECEDENTED planning for Trump’s INVASION! The audience is American, not Canadian. That is, the fear mongering was subtle and was from the New York Times in asking the somewhat absurd question, not Carney.
Hmm. Well, I usually agree with you Matt but I think you're in the weeds on this one. Carney's answer, while technically correct as you point out, was painfully pedantic and clearly calculated to have exactly the effect it did. He should have blown the question off as ridiculous and been done with it but that would have been so much less dramatic.
I agree with your comments on military planning for all contingencies but should have PM Carney said so publically to the country we are negotiating with. It might not hurt the trade dispute but it certainly can't help.
Matt, I think it's time for an electronic pillory, a sort of town square "stocks" where we can name the names of purveyors of stupidity for ridicule by all. A sort of "Rotten Tomatoes" evaluation of written rot.
Of course a US invasion of Canada has been wargamed! That is one of the jobs of the military, I mean the US has wargamed invading Canada, War Plan Red, anyone?
“Wait!wait,wait. The other guys’ criticism.” hahahahahaha! Things are getting heated in Alberta! I’m afraid to bring up her name,you know who I mean. Over half the people I know want to burn the house down,the other silent few want to stay in Canada. All are not liking our Premier right now
Oh, for heaven's sake. Carney knew perfectly well that saying what he said would frighten and rile up a lot of clueless boomers (half his base) and generate more anti-American sentiment, as it in fact did. A responsible PM would behave the way that American senior officer recently did, and compare the idea of an American invasion to an alien invasion - which is also an extreme tail risk.
Of course, he also knew that presenting it that way would enable sycophantic media (the other half of his base) to blame the Conservatives rather than him. As, evidently, they are doing.
You seem to know an awful lot about what the Prime Minister is thinking, and what he knows. Are you psychic, or something?
I actually think he's quite intelligent, and credit him with being able to understand perfectly obvious and predictable consequences of his words. Do you think he's dumb?
You have a real gift for twisting things in order to insult people. Do they teach you that in Epistemology class?
I'm not insulting anyone, even the Prime Minister. I'm just saying he's not so dumb as to be unaware of the obvious effect of his comments. But, if you strongly disagree, I am very willing to listen to your argument that he is in fact dumb.
He could have said "I'm not going to discuss scenarios that are that unlikely to happen" and stopped it cold, but didn't. I don't know if this was deliberate or not, but again this just so happened to result in another round of anti-American moral panic that drove Liberal numbers to new highs. So weird, how could that have happened?
It must be nice to just be able to say magic words and get an immediate popularity boost. You can even overlap them for maximum effect! No, he's actually organically and deservedly the most popular PM in Canadian history. Sure. Just like GW Bush was the most popular US president in living memory in October 2001, but in our case the phenomenon is dragged out for years.
He was responding to a question accurately, and a denial that they'd considered that contingency at all would be much more alarming. American military action against Canada is a long tail risk. Unfortunately, what was once probably an 8- or 9-sigma risk has increased to ~6-sigma because of the man occupying the White House.
Meanwhile, Conservatives don't seem to be able to stop themselves from flying into hysterical responses to anything Carney says or does, and they're making asses of themselves.
And one thing we know about Carney is that, when asked any question, he always tells the full, clear truth without considering the political impact of his words, right?
Of course he considers what he's saying. It was still a good answer, and if the answer is alarming, it's because it's about something that IS alarming. Read the full interview - it shows Carney has an impressive grasp of issues and policies that's been missing from Canadian leadership for a long time. Harper had a similar capacity, but I've seen nothing comparable on offer from Poilievre, Singh, Trudeau, O'Toole, Scheer, or Lewis.
You say above that a US invasion is six sigma, or one in a billion. That seems reasonable. But do you really find that alarming?
That's my exact point. It's only alarming to certain people, as I described above. And he alarmed them intentionally.
When one looks at your posts, it is clear that you are a reactionary troll who, on this topic at least, as reflected by your rhetoric, operate in bad faith. Only people like Polievre and Scheer would take you seriously. Oh, and other Maple Maga.
I'm in no way operating in bad faith. My original point, that Carney knew perfectly well what the reaction to his statement would be, and was perfectly happy with the result, seems unchallenged. The ideas that he didn't know, or that he knew but didn't want this to happen yet felt compelled to speak as he did anyway, both seem ridiculous to me.
The real problem is that Carney supporters seem to have lost basic reasoning skills and can't accept what I say or any of the counterarguments, resorting instead to name-calling.
Man, name calling? Read your own posts. They demonstrate your bad faith. You have a view. You seem to support the Conservatives and the Americans in the dispute. Just say so and argue your point instead of calling his supporters clueless and the media sycophantic, i.e., name calling. There's an argument to be made, albeit one that I fundamentally disagree with, that Canada's sovereignty is not worth enough and that we should pursue deeper integration if not unification with the US. At the current moment, that would be deeply unpopular but if that's your position, and reviewing the overall reactionary perspective of your posts (e.g., compulsory voting for men only), have the courage to advance it.
The thrust of The Line's article is, essentially, that one would have to be stupid to find Carney's comments alarming. In my view, name calling would be if one were to call one's comment interlocutor something like a "reactionary troll".
I still don't see you asserting either that Carney should have expected that his words would alarm people or not, or whether he wanted this to happen or not. I'm asserting yes to both, and therefore the article's criticism of the Conservatives was invalid.
Surely accusations of bad faith can only be made about people who refuse to give their views on these simple questions.
On balance I agree. If it was careless banker speak, he could have walked it back. Instead, there was a clear game plan to have the caucus echo his comments.
The other half though, is why.
I think it was few fold:
1) Media buzz on the US side that validates the ‘Trump is nuts’ narrative that piles onto Trumps net negatives. Carney showing he can, in fact, reach out and touch him a bit. More likely to just piss the guy off. But ok, maybe worth the flex.
2) Juice the fear vote.
3) well laid trap, in which the conservatives obligingly landed by breathlessly making hay about it.
It is, of course, his job to be kept appraised tail risk issues. I suspect many improbable events are the subjects of his briefings, and he doesn’t lay them out like this, even when asked about them.
This was very much calibrated for the reaction he got, and he got a good one from the Line. In that sense a nice peice of work.
But still open to a line of criticism: seriously, was that the right stinker to lob out there, when you’re trying to get back at the table? That too, is a reasonable question. Was the flex worth it? And if it wasn’t a flex but con baiting - was that worth it? We’re trying to get a deal done, many jobs and whole companies are at stake - is this the best path?
The Line is great - but I think they’ve missed 1/2 the bullshit here.
I completely agree. It was intentional and, for him, effective. But what makes you think he wants to get back to the table? Is it not equally plausible that his whole intention is to do whatever harm to Trump that he can, regardless of the harm to Canada? He could even rationalize this by telling himself that a blue restoration in the US will be so good for Canada (and the world) that it is worth considerable immediate harm to Canadians for a longer term benefit.
I remember 5 weeks ago that The Line was demanding to see documents of what Carney turned down. I believe that reasonable request has been forgotten, with Carney, as usual, given the benefit of the doubt that he creates through his own lack of transparency.
My understanding is that the Canadian military have had contingency plans, in case of U.S. invasion, since the time of the War of 1812. Early days included forts, which we can still visit, at Prescott and Kingston. The town of Perth, midway between the U,S, border at Ogdensburg and Ottawa, was originally also a military fort across the likeliest invasion route, up the Old Perth Road. I currently live about two kilometers east of Highway 416, the modern version of that invasion route. If they do invade, the Americans better not try it at rush hour.
So yes, Canada has a contingency plan in case of U.S. invasion, and no, it's not a threat, it is an extremely low risk. But then they probably have contingency plans in case of flying saucers.
My Grade 12 history teacher told us about an incident where a Canadian Army officer was cashiered after finding a contingency plan for dealing with a worker's uprising in Edmonton. He sent a memo up the chain of command referencing the plan and noting that they weren't currently stockpiling the required amount of machine gun ammunition. So yeah - they've got plans for everything, and they never throw anything out.
You are right to mention that PM Carney answered the question about US invasion scenarios honestly and reasonably. It would be nice if he used some of that honesty when dealing with his own subjects. This isn’t the first time he has used US Media to communicate. Perhaps he’s honest because US media and commentators -,even the NY Times - do not tolerate obfuscation and word salads as much as the bought and paid for Canadian media and her majesty’s loyal opposition.
Having said that, to my knowledge almost all such interviews are based on agreed upon questions in advance. So raising anew the topic of a US invasion gives the PM a perfect opportunity to wrap himself and his party in the Maple Leaf flag and also benefit the Quebec federalist parties. What’s not to like. His recent hirings of American Democratic advisers seem to be paying off quite nicely.
1. These ARE his own subjects.
2. US media and political communication is nothing to aspire to. Quite the opposite. Obfuscation is child’s play down there.
3. Which lies? There have been a couple of misstatements, on things where anyone would know the facts would come out. That's not what deliberate lying looks like.
4. Carney is among the clearest and most direct communicators of any major leader right now. Criticizing him for evasiveness is a weak line of attack.
As for the editorial board sit-down, topics are usually shared in advance, but that's not the same as agreed questions. The Times pressed him on the 51st-state issue, which isn't how a scripted session goes. If you have a source saying the questions were scripted, please share it.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Here is mine.
1. Just for clarity I used the word subject to refer to Canadians as being Subjects of the Crown as opposed to free citizens. Not to refer to discussion subjects.
2. I wasn’t intending to claim that US legacy as an example where reporters are paragons of investigative skills. Been decades since the Watergate reports. But in comparison to Canadian legacy media which now feeds at the Ottawa Governent trough they stand head and shoulders sbove the likes of CBC and CTV. Compare 60 Minutes to the offerings of the latter two for but one instance.
3 I looked high and low in my post and could not find the word “lie” anywhere. Sounds like saying “I’ll shoot your dog and if you don’t have one I’ll buy you one and shoot it” (MAID it in Canada)
4. Grant your point but it’s hardly a high bar. Reagan, Lincoln and Churchill come to mind.
Maybe it wasn’t specific questions but you partially agree with me with your statement on topics. But choosing a topic which has been and is continuously hashed over for generations smacks of opportunism given the Quebec election and the need to score points to help Quebec Federalists.
> I used the word subject to refer to Canadians as being Subjects of the Crown as opposed to free citizens.
This is like referring to Canadians "as human beings as opposed to homo sapiens" since Canadians as subjects of the Canadian Crown are free citizens of Canada. They're the same thing.
I beg to differ. Canadians are subjects of the King. Any freedoms they might have at a particular time are granted by the king (Charter means “permission” which can be taken away) Their rights and freedoms are not God given and unalienable.
Put another way, government gets/borrows its power from the citizens (the people) who can take it away. Subjects get their rights and freedoms from the State/King/Government who can take them away.
Most of the world is governed under a subjecthood arrangement. The United States of America and the United Mexican States are democratic Constitutional republics where power comes from the people . Others with that arrangement include Germany, France, India, Iceland, Italy,Nigeria and the Philippines.
I remember my first Canadian passport. It stated up front (early page) “A Canadian citizen is a British subject”.
FWIW neither the US nor the Canadian passports refer to the holder as “citizen” They use the term “nationality” instead.
.
My reply to your reply to my reply:
1. Oh. Carney does not have “subjects.” King Chuck does (ceremonially speaking).
2. You implied he was only honest because the US press doesn’t do shenanigans. As my mother used to say to such things: Poppycock.
3. “It would be nice if he used some of that honesty when dealing with his own subjects” (citizens). I can’t see a way to interpret this to mean something other than he lies to us.
4. If one has to go back decades and to foreign lands… I’d say it just might be a pretty high bar. I feel like Obama may have been a more recent example at that level but I don’t follow US politics closely enough. Alexander Stubb (Finland) I think is the only one comparable in terms of regularly providing clear complete thoughtful and non-rhetorical answers to media questions.
His Majesty does indeed have subjects. He is represented by the Governor General who is appointed by the PM who also controls the making of laws and appoints the justices who interpret these laws. For all practical purposes Canadian nationals are subjects of the PM even if nominally they are His Majesty’s subjects. You could replace the king with an oxidized cargo airplane or a stone dolmen and appoint various viziers and poobahs to speak to the symbolwrite and administer laws and there would be no difference.
Liberal truth is sticking to provable facts. Cherry picking the facts you state and adding additional facts is not lying. Given that we are dealing with differing interpretations, perhaps “openness” might have been a better term than “honesty”.
I didn’t say the US press didn’t do shenanigans. (I had an Irish Mother BTW. Her view of Trudeau Senior was “I bet he sits down to pee”). I just meant that the US press is less likely to accept blatant BS than the Canadian legacy media. If only because they don’t get Government funding.
I too would have preferred to find more recent examples. But when almost 60 years ago the Canadian people selected a Quebec French socialist to lead them, the social reengineering of Canada’s morality, values and culture started and is pretty well completed by now. As someone said, Canada was promised British government, American business efficiency and French culture and now has French government, American culture and British efficiency.
In my opinion, the proper action would have been to swat away such a question.
It was an inappropriate question to even acknowledge, in my opinion.
Good column. It is also worth noting that the NYT amplified and distorted Carney's remark in an effort to pursue their own political agenda regarding the Trump administration (Trump so bad even the peaceful cousin to the north has to fear an American invasion). But their amplification does not excuse the political opposition from their own distortion. And I echo the comment about the absence of any BC election commentary.
Did everybody miss this the other day? It was an entire explainer on the B.C. election:
https://www.readtheline.ca/p/rob-shaw-a-concise-primer-on-just
I also agree on the NYTimes doing this for their own agenda. But, Carney’s people would have known they’d do that. So everyone got what they wanted out of that interview.
Nicely put.
The military, security services, law enforcement and emergency managers conduct threat assessments and create contingency plans continually. Their job is to plan for possible threats including those with low probability.
If Canadians (and especially CPC politicians) don't know and understand this then the country is dumber and more fragile than I thought! And the ones spouting this bullshit are the same people who would be screaming at governments when something happened and there wasn't a plan.
Grow up people!
Bullshit factor? Sure. How about calling the government out to reveal the same analysis for any number of other countries such as China, Russia, Iran that appear to be actually in the process of invading Canada by one means or another? All you have done is add to this ridiculous anti_American rhetoric.
Explain how Russia, China, and Iran are invading Canada.
Explain how the US is invading Canada? You know it's not actually happening, right?
The difference with China is that at any given time, if we get tired of their shadow police stations or infiltration of regional elections, we could stop it overnight. Gone. CSIS and the RCMP know what China does in Canada; we don’t stop it because it’s useful to the Canadian government to get closer to the other superpower. They’re not actually impacting real decision-making, they’re mostly using this interference to keep tabs on their own diaspora’s attempts to meddle in home politics from abroad. India does this too and the UK did during the Troubles.
So China is not an actual threat. They’re thousands of kilometres away!
With the US, of course they’re not doing anything right now. The risk is that things spiral quickly. The ability to economically blockade Canada, or yes, in extremis, actually occupy land (it wouldn’t be “tanks up the 416”, it would be in the Arctic, done to “secure it against Russia, since Canada can’t hold the land”) is ever-present, and under this President, it’s naive to think that things couldn’t spiral.
We have made our objections known to the PRC insofar as its "police stations" and electoral interference efforts are concerned.
I do worry, though, about how seriously our politicians really take PRC efforts to subvert the Canadian political process.
My fear is that many Canadian politicians, both at the federal and provincial level, also do not take seriously enough the PRC's intimidation of perceived "enemies" in Canada, most notably dissidents of Chinese ethnicity, Tibetan-Canadians, and Uyghur Canadians.
Drones have changed warfare the same way the machine gun and the aircraft carrier did.....it's a whole new ballgame.
I understand what you folks are saying and writing; I don’t necessarily disagree.
The Prime Minister has nothing but contempt for Parliament.
The Prime Minister has a very tenuous relationship with the truth.
The Prime Minister has shown himself to be slyly clever at, shall we say, promoting the interests of the Liberal Party of Canada somewhat independently of the best interests of the Country.
One could say, he is ruthless in the pursuit of power, influence, and wealth.
Everyone in politics is selling his next book, as well as his last one.
Here is a better answer to the question the Prime Minister was asked, in my opinion: “there are no such plans, and it would be the height of stupidity to even contemplate such an event. I will not dignify the question with further reply.”
Mr. Carney used the event to his benefit, and to the benefit of the Liberal Party of Canada. He leveraged a very stupid question with a serious answer.
Once again, Canadians bought the myth, and fell for the ruse.
If Canadians were fish, we would each get caught five times per day.
Is it really that difficult to believe- that far-fetched- that an electorate that chose Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister three bloody times would not be positively influenced by the reporting of this story?
Compare with how Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, when president, would have responded to a question about whether there was a contingency plan for war with Canada (which the US has had since forever). This wouldn't have been either of their answer. The self-serving nature of Carney's spin on this comes into focus.
This was boosted by incredibly irresponsible reporting on both sides of the border - some literally twisting "extreme tail risk" into just "extreme risk". In this environment, stupid will always win.
Were I a journalist- American or otherwise- I would also ask “Have you seen the contingency plans whereby the U.S. protects Canada from a foreign assault?”
Good coverage of Trump and the Quebec election. But not a word about the election in BC. Just last night my wife and I met a very nice senior couple from Montreal. When we said we are from Vancouver Island, the lady said, "Where is that?" (It's that big lump, 500kms long housing approaching a million Canadians just west of Vancouver). Yes, Canada does extend beyond the Ontario/Manitoba border. (Jen: We need your voice to represent us.)
We just ran a long primer on it by a real-life B.C.-er just a few days ago.
Good point Bob. Canadians seem to be aware of their own neighborhoods but a lot less about other parts of the country. I have to admit I’m not that knowledgeable about parts outside of Ontario.
Bob, with the turmoil in BC politics these days, being "unknown" isn't always a bad thing.
Here’s my American take. The point of the NYT question was not to rile up Canadians but rather to rile up its readers who are overwhelmingly affluent, college educated Democrats on the two American coasts. Carney’s answer, as you said, was honest… extreme tail risk, meaning ‘it’s 99.9% not going to happen but we have to consider it.’ A perfectly reasonable, not scary at all response. But the NYT, acting in its role as mouthpiece of the DNC, knows Democrats will read this and jump to the conclusion that that madman Trump has driven Canada to this UNPRECEDENTED planning for Trump’s INVASION! The audience is American, not Canadian. That is, the fear mongering was subtle and was from the New York Times in asking the somewhat absurd question, not Carney.
Hmm. Well, I usually agree with you Matt but I think you're in the weeds on this one. Carney's answer, while technically correct as you point out, was painfully pedantic and clearly calculated to have exactly the effect it did. He should have blown the question off as ridiculous and been done with it but that would have been so much less dramatic.
I agree with your comments on military planning for all contingencies but should have PM Carney said so publically to the country we are negotiating with. It might not hurt the trade dispute but it certainly can't help.
Exactly.
Matt, I think it's time for an electronic pillory, a sort of town square "stocks" where we can name the names of purveyors of stupidity for ridicule by all. A sort of "Rotten Tomatoes" evaluation of written rot.
Of course a US invasion of Canada has been wargamed! That is one of the jobs of the military, I mean the US has wargamed invading Canada, War Plan Red, anyone?
If I had three thumbs, I'd give you three thumbs up... oh, wait:
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
On "The Line", most anything is fair game!
“Wait!wait,wait. The other guys’ criticism.” hahahahahaha! Things are getting heated in Alberta! I’m afraid to bring up her name,you know who I mean. Over half the people I know want to burn the house down,the other silent few want to stay in Canada. All are not liking our Premier right now