"Trump is both a symptom and a cause, and represents a unique challenge and, perhaps, threat to American democracy as we know it."
Trump a threat to American Democracy? Really? You must have drunk the proverbial corporate media kool aid.
Who instigated mass censorship online? (cf twitter files and Mike Shellenberger's amazing investigative work)
Who forced vaccine mandates?
Who's been beating the drum of the the trump = orange hitler rhetoric since 2016? Which by the way can be argued to have at least indirectly caused the shooter to literally take up arms.
Who cried Russian election interference in 2016 when there was never any proof of that?
Who promoted debunked hoax after debunked hoax to vilify Trump (drinking bleach, fine people etc.) to this very day?
If there's a threat to American Democracy it's the Democrat establishment, not Trump, who aside from bad manners and a combative demeanour had a rather normal presidency policy-wise, and even in some ways accomplished great things (cf Abraham Accords).
You have always been measured and fairly impartial, and I don't personally like Trump, but anyone with half open eyes should see clear as day that Trump's enemies have done everything in their power to eliminate him, literally and figuratively. And I'm not talking about dirty tricks, that's par for the course in Politics.
Trump tried to overturn the result of the 2020 election. He provoked a riot that disrupted 2 centuries of peaceful transition of power in the US. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
He did dispute the results of the elections, but that's pretty routine, see democrats in 2000 and 2016. So it's OK for the dems to cry wolf but not the GOP (regardless of whether one thinks the grievance is legit or not)? Gimme a break.
Provoking a riot? I think not. Go read the transcript of his speech on January 6th. Plus, a few wackos trespassing into the capitol is hardly a coup. Pretty dumb, sure, but there was never any danger of them toppling the government.
Rubbish... He tried to coerce the vice-president into certifying him as the winner of an election he lost. My source on that? Mike Pence himself, the vice-President of the United States and the man picked for that role by Donald Trump himself.
That's just reality and as people like to say sometimes... "reality doesn't care about your feelings".
"Disputing" or questioning immediate election results is one thing, lying about the results years after the fact is quite another.
In 2000 and 2016 the Democrat presidential candidates did actually win the popular vote, so some amount of criticism of the system would be inevitable regardless of the proper legality of the Republican victories. Trump never won the popular vote in *any* election he contested, won some key swing states in 2016 by only tens of thousands of votes, and then has the audacity to insist without any evidence that the same system that has immensely privileged him was rigged by a nebulous cabal.
There was no purpose, at all, for Trump organizing any rally against the election results of any kind on January 6th, since all his "objections" to the results had been consistently slapped down in court - other than that he wanted a mob to organize a violent coup on Capitol Hill to overturn the results.
Well that was a masterful job of balancing on the fence. I can’t imagine anyone believing Trudeau hasn’t broken Canada. We are flat broke and have virtually zero standing in the international arena. Just read the foreign press and watch tv coverage.
Poilievre when elected is going to walk into a sh#t storm with a forecast of no change for the foreseeable future. He must carefully prioritize each problem and act on a plan. Your priorities are not necessarily his.
I just wish he would start being more specific on some things. The silence on some issues is frustrating but Poilievre will still get my vote because Trudeau and his party have done enough damage to Canada and I cling to the hope that he will be an improvement.
On a less important note, I hope to never again have to listen to Trudeau’s smugness, condescension or see his fake sincere facial expressions.
I have to say, that I was not impressed by his eulogy at his Father’s funeral. I thought throughout that it was more about himself and was weirdly like his own personal introduction of himself to the Canadian people.
Yet so many swooned. Haha. It was a warning. Sorry.
"For now, we at The Line are pondering what's next. July 13, 2024 is going to be one of those days that future historians look back upon with a certain wistfulness. If the wind was a little harder, a bullet lands a few inches in another direction, and Donald Trump is dead. In this timeline, though, the shooter missed, and now America is going to witness first hand the problems with relying on violence to secure political outcomes. Namely, it very often backfires."
Wait, are you saying that future historians are going to be wistfully saying "too bad he missed"? Is that what historians do? Honestly, I love the Line, but this column seemed rather bizarre. Things are really going to get bad in the US now, in my opinion. But I think they'd be getting a lot worse a lot more quickly had the guy actually killed Trump. Careful what you wish for, folks.
I am always surprised (usually pleasantly) by your insights and have been a paying subscriber as soon as I could. Like many I have observed the increasing prevalence of Canadian state sponsored mass media presstitution.
However I feel with your comment about puffs of wind you have fallen into the trap of talking about the object rather than its use for evil purposes. There are innumerable ballistic scenarios that could have changed the result but this detracts from the main point - ie the lack of respect for your fellow humans, or however you want to describe it. I was watching CTV National news that they brought in a Washington “expert” ( missed his name - dark skinned balding gentleman with IPods in both ears) who within two sentences blamed the incident on “gun violence” as if the rifle climbed on the roof all by itself and started firing. Then we gave the common government accepted fallacy that by getting rid of the object its user will be magically transformed into a model citizen.
In this case, if the assassin did not posses a gun, he could have exacted the same death toll (one mortality) by other means. But he wouldn't have come anywhere close to hurting the former President, either by knife, car, etc, because then he would have needed to get past the Secret Service. Weapons capability does significantly affect one's capacity for murder and mayhem.
"ignore the real risks he poses both to American and Canada". Sorry, I've lostpatience with these sorts of claims. Gimme the facts to support this contention.
Canada?
Risk of narrowing of trade deals? Let's discussion our Quebec milk monoply.
Risk of reduced protection from Russia? Parsimonious Trudeau's military is a joke.
US?
Espousing the concept of "No" to freeloading countries like Canada, Europe et al? It's time.
Standing "woke" on its head. I repeat, about time.
Trump will reign chaos...but it will be necessary. North America is busted.
Canada always gets a bad deal on trade deals with the US, regardless of who's in charge down there. Obama didn't do us any favours either. US absolutely doesn't look out for Canada's best interests, nor should they. I just wish we in Canada had a government that looked after Canada's best interests. Hopefully, Poilievre will. There are no guarantees, but he can't possibly be worse than what we've got, can he?
B-, you say, in part, "Canada always gets a bad deal on trade deals with the US, regardless of who's in charge down there." I respond with a hearty, "unless the issue is important to Quebec [see agricultural marketing boards], in which case it WILL be important to Ottawa."
Trump demands unrestricted access to Ontario's ring of fire. He's told not without environmental protections. Trump says screw that, pulls out of the autopact and puts a 50% tariff on cars made in Canada. How much damage would that do? If America turns its economic clout against us, we're screwed. Look where the head offices of most of the big companies and retailers in Canada are located. It's not here. It's a potential example. Let's hope we never find out how much damage he can do.
Have you given any thought as to why you're exactly correct, David? In the US, things get done twice as fast, twice as efficiently, twice as profitably as in Canada. Ottawa has no concept of productivity. We keep screwing ourselves.
That's easy. Studying is cheaper than acting, and our "leaders" are so paranoid about making mistakes, or creating P3 partnerships to share the cost(which always turns out to be a disaster we don't learn from), that we don't act. Look at military procurement....800 hands in the negotiating pot so no decision is ever made until we're past an emergency situation. Toronto sat on its subway system for 30 years before adding a few token extensions.
But the other side of the coin is this; how many billions in clean-up costs are left on the burden of the taxpayer because of how the US works? Look at the Powder river Basin coal fields in Wyoming. Companies cleaned out the profit while their coal was still popular, declared bankruptcy....which was then taken over by another who did the exact same thing leaving taxpayers to foot the bill for billions in clean-up costs. Oil wells in Canada are identical. The better choice would be to force every one of the extraction companies to set aside a portion of the profits; before shareholders get paid, to clean up when the extraction is complete. But like corporate subsidies, these need to be G20 initiatives or business will just play countries off each other as they do today.
I think the notion that it's "twice as profitable" is just a measure of how badly the taxpayer gets screwed.
David, you've gotten off track--at least relative to my original post. I found Gurney's comment about "the real risks" (represented by Trump) to be gratuitous...unsupported. And my comment said so. Condemning mining or sloppy and underburdened bureaucracies had no part in it. I'll have to pass on your concerns.
You spoke of US productivity. I answered that. I explained why they are more profitable. My initial point is a Trump dictatorship is the greatest threat Canada has ever faced; the US too. Trump can use the power of the dictatorship he's all but declared to economically cripple Canada. You haven't addressed it at all. Anyone who says he's firing 50000 civil servants and replacing them with loyalists is establishing a dictatorship. Anyone who changes an oath to the Constitution, and makes it a personal one to him is establishing a dictatorship(something he tried to do with Comey, and fired him when he refused). Like it or not, if you're in Canada, he parallels with Austria in 1937 should be deeply concerning. Have a peak at Project 2025.....it's all laid out for your "enjoyment". Ignore it at your peril. https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
David, time to agree that we see life and learning quite differently. You make assertions; I seek facts. The Line article is unusually short of them. Tom
BTW I'm reading the 2025 piece now. No comments as of yet.
While project 2025 is a proposal by the Hudson Institute I’m not aware of it being Republican Party policy and a lot of it is on its face unconstitutional. There are already 7000 senior US government positions that are appointments by Congress and the executive and these appointments end when a new administration takes over. Project 2025 proposes to expand the list of positions subject to congressional review. This to my view offers the benefit of preventing appointees with a political bias from hiding behind regular civil service appointment job protection while sabotaging the new administration’s objective. So a new administration wanting to create change doesn’t have to duplicate staff to get around “tenured” appointees. And when the administration changes (as it inevitably will -read the US election cycle) the incoming executive can implement changes much faster.
If an international treaty were a simple lease or a contract, Canada would face not only paying what the agreement provided for, but also making good on the accumulated deficiency.
Like a squatter who has promised to pay rent, but has willfully refused.
So, we should count ourselves lucky that treaties are only pieces of paper.
Because of course, what has happened here – unhappily exacerbated by the current PM, who, to be fair, is following the path of his predecessors – is that international treaties have been looked upon merely as opportunities for political performance and virtue signaling; and in practical terms, they are divorced from considerations of their efficacy, their utility, quite apart from any meaningful sense of obligation to comply with them.
Rather like climate change targets, despite all the hoopla. Or royal commissions. Just a diversion and substitute for action.
Instead, they are n opportunity for mutual self congratulation, among the governmental class.
The problem – like the problem of law enforcement in Canada more generally – is that there are insufficient consequences for non-compliance with such instruments, and insufficient pressures to ensure – indeed TO REQUIRE - compliance.
Just like protesters have come to understand that they can interfere with the property and civil rights of other citizens with impunity.
Accordingly, it will be very interesting to see what the election of Donald Trump (which now seems likely), will mean for our compliance with treaty obligations. And how long “free-riding” will be tolerated.
Or put differently: how long we will be permitted to go ‘rent free’.
What sniper would you trust to “just nick your ear” from 150 yards away, given the 100% certainty that the shooter would get killed seconds later by the Secret Service?
It doesn't read that way. When I heard the vague details on radio, the same thought flashed by, but it took about one minute to find out it was no hoax.
I expect (terrifically strongly) that I will vote for Poilievre (I mean, really, any of the other dwarves????) but I fully agree that PP does have to start fleshing out policy with something other than, "I'm not him."
Yes, that has the strong potential to alienate some erstwhile supporters but PP has to use that political capital much sooner than later. Further, he doesn't have to give excruciatingly detailed policies but he does have to provide realistic views of where he will go. After all, at some point after the election, a (presumed) PM PP will announce some action or other and it would be quite useful to say something like, "Well, we made our position clear before and during the campaign and the people voted us to carry out that policy."
Now as for your comment about the McGill encampment wherein you say, in part, "...we wonder if this is maybe something the RCMP might wish to look into..." Surely, you jest! The Horsemen being responsive and doing something necessary? Particularly when the "subject" of the investigation is an "ethnic" and "ideological" type that is effectively "protected" by the powers that be in Canada.
Your aspirations should never confused with expectations, no matter how reasonable, logical and matters of legitimate law enforcement. Don't forget that these are the guys who are having problems staffing the musical ride. They are also the guys who send out their members with inadequate, outdated and insufficient equipment. They are also the guys who are looking to find an excuse to abandon provincial contract policing. There was a time that the Mounties were a symbol for all Canadians to look up to. That time has long gone.
And, finally, G & G (actually, I think I know which one of you is primarily responsible for this dispatch but you both have earned my accolades), well done. Particularly in the summer and, very particularly, given the late breaking nature of events.
I like the U.S., I really do. I admire it's bill of rights and constitutional protections, it's strong sense of nationhood and innovative spirit and it's people are broadly speaking good. Having said that, there were three things which stood out as not being "world class"; guns, race and healthcare. Unfortunately I must now add a fourth, even though it's been simmering for a while, politics. My family has an annual California get away each November, ominous timing. This may well be the last year.
There is this mindset in the US that firearms will solve the problem. Since we seem always to copy every stupid American trend, I fear a similar thing happening here despite our much stricter, but functionally useless gun laws.
Nobody I know in the US believes firearms by themselves solve a darn thing. People’s use of them can and do millions of times a year in self protection scenarios generally without a shot being fired. In Canada there are other protection means permitted by the State. Some suggestions are to vote Liberal, get a rape whistle, put 911 on speed dial, learn Psalm 23 if you’re Judeo-Christian, and keep KY jelly handy.
Thank you for this. I really appreciated your hard-hitting assessment of US politics (and the damage that Trump has done--and will likely do again--during his time as a politician).
WRT Trudeau and Poilievre, well, what else to say except that we Canadians really are hooched. I am so disappointed by Trudeau's utter hypocrisy and lack of integrity (on so many issues). But on defence, he has taken duplicity and stupidity to unheard-of levels.
You were correct, of course, to call Poilievre out for his own ridiculous statement regarding defence spending and the budget. Clearly he doesn't have the courage to say in no uncertain terms that "no, I don't want us to spend more on defence".
What I want to know is why he has opted to signal a disinterest in more defence spending. Is it because he and his political party really are beholden to the ignoramuses who see any spending by the federal government in Canada as a waste of money? Are they trapped by his stupid "axe the tax" bullshit?
Os is there something else going on?
For the record, I'm actually really annoyed that the discussion about Canadian defence spending is only ever framed in terms of NATO requirements.
Does it not occur to Canadians (and their leaders) that a country as big and as rich as we are should really have a more credible defence capability, not least because that is the cost of ensuring our continued sovereignty and independence?
And is it so strange to acknowledge (indeed, proudly proclaim) that our continued membership in NATO is the rational and responsible thing to do, as it likely REDUCES how much money we would have to spend if we were a non-aligned state?
I'd better go to bed... all this is really getting me down.
I'm old-fashioned; I actually write (via email, but in a formal and respectful manner) to my MP (in the case of defence spending).
BTW, I also write to the MP and the provincial legislator in the same riding (and when appropriate, to my municipal councillor in the ward where I live) in order to offer my views and ideas that they can (or do not) consider.
I wish more people would do that (and, according to friends of mine who have worked for both Conservative and Liberal organizations, form letters do not cut it).
The notion that Trump is "perhaps, threat to American democracy as we know it" possibly one of the greatest understatements of the 21st century. Another Trump presidency; read dictatorship is the death of the American experiment with democracy, and the greatest economic threat Canada has ever faced. In 2024, you vote Democrat; even if the candidate is in a body bag, or you're voting for fascism. My hope is Joe pulls out the day Donald announces his VP. Americas women will have a lot to say about who wins, because they have the most to lose.
On so many issues, our current government is utterly useless. Nice to see PP with a flying start confirming the next one won't be any better. Served to him on a silver platter, he still tripped and stuck his face in the pudding. Andrew Scheer lives again.
Is it ever long overdue that those idiotic encampments were ripped down. They've been a pointless nuisance since day 1. Pity McGill's had to involve idiotic political language- based nonsense, but that's Quebec. Still playing by a different rulebook. maybe Pierre will address that....not.
Good article. This surprised me. Your publication functions as a Critical Thinking challenge for me. Responsible media tends to (usually, sometimes) focus on issues (frequently, sometimes) with actual factual information not usually selective bias. Your publication remains irreverent - which I appreciate.
Calling on a prospective PM to articulate their particular policy stance is responsible media. I'm old enough to recall the Harper government stance on funding defence - which was not meeting NATO targets back then. However, please note ships are not built overnight and do actually take time - years. Given a melting arctic, ships are a good plan. I agree with your statement that a Trump president would not be good for Canada, or democracy generally. However, it is long passed time that Canada improved interprovincial trade. We tend to look south - rather than east/west/north.
The awful news about the Trump shooting brought out quick reactions from the Canadian political class, all denouncing the shooting without reservation.
Good on all of them, but questions arise. Will this be the impetus for yet another round of anti firearm BS from the Liberals? Will they unveil another plan of action that has been waiting patiently for circumstances to introduce it? Shame on them if they do.
Also, I hope that our political leaders do some self reflection and see the worst consequences of continually using demonizing and bullying rhetoric to motivate the “base” and fundraise off of it. The Ottawa bubble just can’t seem to understand how some average Canadians are struggling in the high inflation, high interest rate environment. Mental health and addiction problems are everywhere and the Banks are squirrelling away huge amounts of money, foreseeing climbing mortgage defaults by 2026.
This is not a good time to stand in front of a microphone and tell supporters of a political party that those politics are “small, cold and cruel”. It’s not a good time to call the Prime Minister a “wacko”. And remember that the slippery slope started by othering a segment of our country by calling them “racists and misogynists with unacceptable views”.
The temperature needs to drop and the only way it will is to have an election and clear out the worst offenders.
Id like to say I'm surprised by Mr. Poilievre's failure to stand up for Canadian security but I am really not. I served over 39 years in the RCN and early on discovered, that from a defence point of view, the choice between parties is akin to the condemned choosing between a noose, fire squad or lethal injection.
We should be concerned about what is taking place politically in the United States. However, greater concern should be focused on what is taking place in Europe, England and Ireland. Immigration conflict is no longer brewing just below the political surface. The Political bubbles have reached the surface. This is not going to end well.
Quebec seems to pride itself in being an intolerant, fracophone backwater. Great Upheaval Day is coming up soon in New Brunswick and I often wonder what Canada would be like today had the British cleaned the French out of Lower Canada along with the Acadians?
"Trump is both a symptom and a cause, and represents a unique challenge and, perhaps, threat to American democracy as we know it."
Trump a threat to American Democracy? Really? You must have drunk the proverbial corporate media kool aid.
Who instigated mass censorship online? (cf twitter files and Mike Shellenberger's amazing investigative work)
Who forced vaccine mandates?
Who's been beating the drum of the the trump = orange hitler rhetoric since 2016? Which by the way can be argued to have at least indirectly caused the shooter to literally take up arms.
Who cried Russian election interference in 2016 when there was never any proof of that?
Who promoted debunked hoax after debunked hoax to vilify Trump (drinking bleach, fine people etc.) to this very day?
If there's a threat to American Democracy it's the Democrat establishment, not Trump, who aside from bad manners and a combative demeanour had a rather normal presidency policy-wise, and even in some ways accomplished great things (cf Abraham Accords).
You have always been measured and fairly impartial, and I don't personally like Trump, but anyone with half open eyes should see clear as day that Trump's enemies have done everything in their power to eliminate him, literally and figuratively. And I'm not talking about dirty tricks, that's par for the course in Politics.
Please do better than dumb, thoughtless bromides.
Trump tried to overturn the result of the 2020 election. He provoked a riot that disrupted 2 centuries of peaceful transition of power in the US. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Case in point, cf corporate media kool aid.
He did dispute the results of the elections, but that's pretty routine, see democrats in 2000 and 2016. So it's OK for the dems to cry wolf but not the GOP (regardless of whether one thinks the grievance is legit or not)? Gimme a break.
Provoking a riot? I think not. Go read the transcript of his speech on January 6th. Plus, a few wackos trespassing into the capitol is hardly a coup. Pretty dumb, sure, but there was never any danger of them toppling the government.
Rubbish... He tried to coerce the vice-president into certifying him as the winner of an election he lost. My source on that? Mike Pence himself, the vice-President of the United States and the man picked for that role by Donald Trump himself.
That's just reality and as people like to say sometimes... "reality doesn't care about your feelings".
"Disputing" or questioning immediate election results is one thing, lying about the results years after the fact is quite another.
In 2000 and 2016 the Democrat presidential candidates did actually win the popular vote, so some amount of criticism of the system would be inevitable regardless of the proper legality of the Republican victories. Trump never won the popular vote in *any* election he contested, won some key swing states in 2016 by only tens of thousands of votes, and then has the audacity to insist without any evidence that the same system that has immensely privileged him was rigged by a nebulous cabal.
There was no purpose, at all, for Trump organizing any rally against the election results of any kind on January 6th, since all his "objections" to the results had been consistently slapped down in court - other than that he wanted a mob to organize a violent coup on Capitol Hill to overturn the results.
You claimed that there was "never any proof of Russian election interference". That is false:
Mark Hosenball, Factbox: Key findings from Senate inquiry into Russian interference in 2016 U.S. election, Reuters, 18 August 2020, https://www.reuters.com/article/world/factbox-key-findings-from-senate-inquiry-into-russian-interference-in-2016-us-idUSKCN25E2OY/
Young Mie Kim, New Evidence Shows How Russia’s Election Interference Has Gotten More Brazen, Brennan Center for Justice, 5 March 2020, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/new-evidence-shows-how-russias-election-interference-has-gotten-more
Eric Tucker and Mary Clare Jalonick, Senate panel finds Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election, AP via PBS, 18 August 2020, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-panel-finds-russia-interfered-in-the-2016-us-election
Well that was a masterful job of balancing on the fence. I can’t imagine anyone believing Trudeau hasn’t broken Canada. We are flat broke and have virtually zero standing in the international arena. Just read the foreign press and watch tv coverage.
Poilievre when elected is going to walk into a sh#t storm with a forecast of no change for the foreseeable future. He must carefully prioritize each problem and act on a plan. Your priorities are not necessarily his.
And there's no plan.
I just wish he would start being more specific on some things. The silence on some issues is frustrating but Poilievre will still get my vote because Trudeau and his party have done enough damage to Canada and I cling to the hope that he will be an improvement.
On a less important note, I hope to never again have to listen to Trudeau’s smugness, condescension or see his fake sincere facial expressions.
I have to say, that I was not impressed by his eulogy at his Father’s funeral. I thought throughout that it was more about himself and was weirdly like his own personal introduction of himself to the Canadian people.
Yet so many swooned. Haha. It was a warning. Sorry.
"For now, we at The Line are pondering what's next. July 13, 2024 is going to be one of those days that future historians look back upon with a certain wistfulness. If the wind was a little harder, a bullet lands a few inches in another direction, and Donald Trump is dead. In this timeline, though, the shooter missed, and now America is going to witness first hand the problems with relying on violence to secure political outcomes. Namely, it very often backfires."
Wait, are you saying that future historians are going to be wistfully saying "too bad he missed"? Is that what historians do? Honestly, I love the Line, but this column seemed rather bizarre. Things are really going to get bad in the US now, in my opinion. But I think they'd be getting a lot worse a lot more quickly had the guy actually killed Trump. Careful what you wish for, folks.
I am always surprised (usually pleasantly) by your insights and have been a paying subscriber as soon as I could. Like many I have observed the increasing prevalence of Canadian state sponsored mass media presstitution.
However I feel with your comment about puffs of wind you have fallen into the trap of talking about the object rather than its use for evil purposes. There are innumerable ballistic scenarios that could have changed the result but this detracts from the main point - ie the lack of respect for your fellow humans, or however you want to describe it. I was watching CTV National news that they brought in a Washington “expert” ( missed his name - dark skinned balding gentleman with IPods in both ears) who within two sentences blamed the incident on “gun violence” as if the rifle climbed on the roof all by itself and started firing. Then we gave the common government accepted fallacy that by getting rid of the object its user will be magically transformed into a model citizen.
In this case, if the assassin did not posses a gun, he could have exacted the same death toll (one mortality) by other means. But he wouldn't have come anywhere close to hurting the former President, either by knife, car, etc, because then he would have needed to get past the Secret Service. Weapons capability does significantly affect one's capacity for murder and mayhem.
"ignore the real risks he poses both to American and Canada". Sorry, I've lostpatience with these sorts of claims. Gimme the facts to support this contention.
Canada?
Risk of narrowing of trade deals? Let's discussion our Quebec milk monoply.
Risk of reduced protection from Russia? Parsimonious Trudeau's military is a joke.
US?
Espousing the concept of "No" to freeloading countries like Canada, Europe et al? It's time.
Standing "woke" on its head. I repeat, about time.
Trump will reign chaos...but it will be necessary. North America is busted.
Canada always gets a bad deal on trade deals with the US, regardless of who's in charge down there. Obama didn't do us any favours either. US absolutely doesn't look out for Canada's best interests, nor should they. I just wish we in Canada had a government that looked after Canada's best interests. Hopefully, Poilievre will. There are no guarantees, but he can't possibly be worse than what we've got, can he?
B-, you say, in part, "Canada always gets a bad deal on trade deals with the US, regardless of who's in charge down there." I respond with a hearty, "unless the issue is important to Quebec [see agricultural marketing boards], in which case it WILL be important to Ottawa."
I can’t argue with that. 😂
Trump demands unrestricted access to Ontario's ring of fire. He's told not without environmental protections. Trump says screw that, pulls out of the autopact and puts a 50% tariff on cars made in Canada. How much damage would that do? If America turns its economic clout against us, we're screwed. Look where the head offices of most of the big companies and retailers in Canada are located. It's not here. It's a potential example. Let's hope we never find out how much damage he can do.
Have you given any thought as to why you're exactly correct, David? In the US, things get done twice as fast, twice as efficiently, twice as profitably as in Canada. Ottawa has no concept of productivity. We keep screwing ourselves.
That's easy. Studying is cheaper than acting, and our "leaders" are so paranoid about making mistakes, or creating P3 partnerships to share the cost(which always turns out to be a disaster we don't learn from), that we don't act. Look at military procurement....800 hands in the negotiating pot so no decision is ever made until we're past an emergency situation. Toronto sat on its subway system for 30 years before adding a few token extensions.
But the other side of the coin is this; how many billions in clean-up costs are left on the burden of the taxpayer because of how the US works? Look at the Powder river Basin coal fields in Wyoming. Companies cleaned out the profit while their coal was still popular, declared bankruptcy....which was then taken over by another who did the exact same thing leaving taxpayers to foot the bill for billions in clean-up costs. Oil wells in Canada are identical. The better choice would be to force every one of the extraction companies to set aside a portion of the profits; before shareholders get paid, to clean up when the extraction is complete. But like corporate subsidies, these need to be G20 initiatives or business will just play countries off each other as they do today.
I think the notion that it's "twice as profitable" is just a measure of how badly the taxpayer gets screwed.
David, you've gotten off track--at least relative to my original post. I found Gurney's comment about "the real risks" (represented by Trump) to be gratuitous...unsupported. And my comment said so. Condemning mining or sloppy and underburdened bureaucracies had no part in it. I'll have to pass on your concerns.
You spoke of US productivity. I answered that. I explained why they are more profitable. My initial point is a Trump dictatorship is the greatest threat Canada has ever faced; the US too. Trump can use the power of the dictatorship he's all but declared to economically cripple Canada. You haven't addressed it at all. Anyone who says he's firing 50000 civil servants and replacing them with loyalists is establishing a dictatorship. Anyone who changes an oath to the Constitution, and makes it a personal one to him is establishing a dictatorship(something he tried to do with Comey, and fired him when he refused). Like it or not, if you're in Canada, he parallels with Austria in 1937 should be deeply concerning. Have a peak at Project 2025.....it's all laid out for your "enjoyment". Ignore it at your peril. https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
David, time to agree that we see life and learning quite differently. You make assertions; I seek facts. The Line article is unusually short of them. Tom
BTW I'm reading the 2025 piece now. No comments as of yet.
While project 2025 is a proposal by the Hudson Institute I’m not aware of it being Republican Party policy and a lot of it is on its face unconstitutional. There are already 7000 senior US government positions that are appointments by Congress and the executive and these appointments end when a new administration takes over. Project 2025 proposes to expand the list of positions subject to congressional review. This to my view offers the benefit of preventing appointees with a political bias from hiding behind regular civil service appointment job protection while sabotaging the new administration’s objective. So a new administration wanting to create change doesn’t have to duplicate staff to get around “tenured” appointees. And when the administration changes (as it inevitably will -read the US election cycle) the incoming executive can implement changes much faster.
Destroying the environment--an old Canadian habit, BTW--is surely not the way to "build a better future".
If an international treaty were a simple lease or a contract, Canada would face not only paying what the agreement provided for, but also making good on the accumulated deficiency.
Like a squatter who has promised to pay rent, but has willfully refused.
So, we should count ourselves lucky that treaties are only pieces of paper.
Because of course, what has happened here – unhappily exacerbated by the current PM, who, to be fair, is following the path of his predecessors – is that international treaties have been looked upon merely as opportunities for political performance and virtue signaling; and in practical terms, they are divorced from considerations of their efficacy, their utility, quite apart from any meaningful sense of obligation to comply with them.
Rather like climate change targets, despite all the hoopla. Or royal commissions. Just a diversion and substitute for action.
Instead, they are n opportunity for mutual self congratulation, among the governmental class.
The problem – like the problem of law enforcement in Canada more generally – is that there are insufficient consequences for non-compliance with such instruments, and insufficient pressures to ensure – indeed TO REQUIRE - compliance.
Just like protesters have come to understand that they can interfere with the property and civil rights of other citizens with impunity.
Accordingly, it will be very interesting to see what the election of Donald Trump (which now seems likely), will mean for our compliance with treaty obligations. And how long “free-riding” will be tolerated.
Or put differently: how long we will be permitted to go ‘rent free’.
"Does the shooting turn out to be a hoax perpetrated by Trump or his supporters?"
WTF?????
I’ve heard variations on that today repeatedly.
Not sure how people think that would work.
What sniper would you trust to “just nick your ear” from 150 yards away, given the 100% certainty that the shooter would get killed seconds later by the Secret Service?
Seriously…
Right? And we’re to believe that they intentionally kill one and injure two others just to mess with us?
Yah that was way over the top. Bad attempt at humour maybe?
It doesn't read that way. When I heard the vague details on radio, the same thought flashed by, but it took about one minute to find out it was no hoax.
I expect (terrifically strongly) that I will vote for Poilievre (I mean, really, any of the other dwarves????) but I fully agree that PP does have to start fleshing out policy with something other than, "I'm not him."
Yes, that has the strong potential to alienate some erstwhile supporters but PP has to use that political capital much sooner than later. Further, he doesn't have to give excruciatingly detailed policies but he does have to provide realistic views of where he will go. After all, at some point after the election, a (presumed) PM PP will announce some action or other and it would be quite useful to say something like, "Well, we made our position clear before and during the campaign and the people voted us to carry out that policy."
Now as for your comment about the McGill encampment wherein you say, in part, "...we wonder if this is maybe something the RCMP might wish to look into..." Surely, you jest! The Horsemen being responsive and doing something necessary? Particularly when the "subject" of the investigation is an "ethnic" and "ideological" type that is effectively "protected" by the powers that be in Canada.
Your aspirations should never confused with expectations, no matter how reasonable, logical and matters of legitimate law enforcement. Don't forget that these are the guys who are having problems staffing the musical ride. They are also the guys who send out their members with inadequate, outdated and insufficient equipment. They are also the guys who are looking to find an excuse to abandon provincial contract policing. There was a time that the Mounties were a symbol for all Canadians to look up to. That time has long gone.
And, finally, G & G (actually, I think I know which one of you is primarily responsible for this dispatch but you both have earned my accolades), well done. Particularly in the summer and, very particularly, given the late breaking nature of events.
I like the U.S., I really do. I admire it's bill of rights and constitutional protections, it's strong sense of nationhood and innovative spirit and it's people are broadly speaking good. Having said that, there were three things which stood out as not being "world class"; guns, race and healthcare. Unfortunately I must now add a fourth, even though it's been simmering for a while, politics. My family has an annual California get away each November, ominous timing. This may well be the last year.
There is this mindset in the US that firearms will solve the problem. Since we seem always to copy every stupid American trend, I fear a similar thing happening here despite our much stricter, but functionally useless gun laws.
Nobody I know in the US believes firearms by themselves solve a darn thing. People’s use of them can and do millions of times a year in self protection scenarios generally without a shot being fired. In Canada there are other protection means permitted by the State. Some suggestions are to vote Liberal, get a rape whistle, put 911 on speed dial, learn Psalm 23 if you’re Judeo-Christian, and keep KY jelly handy.
Thank you for this. I really appreciated your hard-hitting assessment of US politics (and the damage that Trump has done--and will likely do again--during his time as a politician).
WRT Trudeau and Poilievre, well, what else to say except that we Canadians really are hooched. I am so disappointed by Trudeau's utter hypocrisy and lack of integrity (on so many issues). But on defence, he has taken duplicity and stupidity to unheard-of levels.
You were correct, of course, to call Poilievre out for his own ridiculous statement regarding defence spending and the budget. Clearly he doesn't have the courage to say in no uncertain terms that "no, I don't want us to spend more on defence".
What I want to know is why he has opted to signal a disinterest in more defence spending. Is it because he and his political party really are beholden to the ignoramuses who see any spending by the federal government in Canada as a waste of money? Are they trapped by his stupid "axe the tax" bullshit?
Os is there something else going on?
For the record, I'm actually really annoyed that the discussion about Canadian defence spending is only ever framed in terms of NATO requirements.
Does it not occur to Canadians (and their leaders) that a country as big and as rich as we are should really have a more credible defence capability, not least because that is the cost of ensuring our continued sovereignty and independence?
And is it so strange to acknowledge (indeed, proudly proclaim) that our continued membership in NATO is the rational and responsible thing to do, as it likely REDUCES how much money we would have to spend if we were a non-aligned state?
I'd better go to bed... all this is really getting me down.
Yup, it is a downer. Good comments. I hope for the best. What else is there to do?
I'm old-fashioned; I actually write (via email, but in a formal and respectful manner) to my MP (in the case of defence spending).
BTW, I also write to the MP and the provincial legislator in the same riding (and when appropriate, to my municipal councillor in the ward where I live) in order to offer my views and ideas that they can (or do not) consider.
I wish more people would do that (and, according to friends of mine who have worked for both Conservative and Liberal organizations, form letters do not cut it).
The notion that Trump is "perhaps, threat to American democracy as we know it" possibly one of the greatest understatements of the 21st century. Another Trump presidency; read dictatorship is the death of the American experiment with democracy, and the greatest economic threat Canada has ever faced. In 2024, you vote Democrat; even if the candidate is in a body bag, or you're voting for fascism. My hope is Joe pulls out the day Donald announces his VP. Americas women will have a lot to say about who wins, because they have the most to lose.
On so many issues, our current government is utterly useless. Nice to see PP with a flying start confirming the next one won't be any better. Served to him on a silver platter, he still tripped and stuck his face in the pudding. Andrew Scheer lives again.
Is it ever long overdue that those idiotic encampments were ripped down. They've been a pointless nuisance since day 1. Pity McGill's had to involve idiotic political language- based nonsense, but that's Quebec. Still playing by a different rulebook. maybe Pierre will address that....not.
Good article. This surprised me. Your publication functions as a Critical Thinking challenge for me. Responsible media tends to (usually, sometimes) focus on issues (frequently, sometimes) with actual factual information not usually selective bias. Your publication remains irreverent - which I appreciate.
Calling on a prospective PM to articulate their particular policy stance is responsible media. I'm old enough to recall the Harper government stance on funding defence - which was not meeting NATO targets back then. However, please note ships are not built overnight and do actually take time - years. Given a melting arctic, ships are a good plan. I agree with your statement that a Trump president would not be good for Canada, or democracy generally. However, it is long passed time that Canada improved interprovincial trade. We tend to look south - rather than east/west/north.
The awful news about the Trump shooting brought out quick reactions from the Canadian political class, all denouncing the shooting without reservation.
Good on all of them, but questions arise. Will this be the impetus for yet another round of anti firearm BS from the Liberals? Will they unveil another plan of action that has been waiting patiently for circumstances to introduce it? Shame on them if they do.
Also, I hope that our political leaders do some self reflection and see the worst consequences of continually using demonizing and bullying rhetoric to motivate the “base” and fundraise off of it. The Ottawa bubble just can’t seem to understand how some average Canadians are struggling in the high inflation, high interest rate environment. Mental health and addiction problems are everywhere and the Banks are squirrelling away huge amounts of money, foreseeing climbing mortgage defaults by 2026.
This is not a good time to stand in front of a microphone and tell supporters of a political party that those politics are “small, cold and cruel”. It’s not a good time to call the Prime Minister a “wacko”. And remember that the slippery slope started by othering a segment of our country by calling them “racists and misogynists with unacceptable views”.
The temperature needs to drop and the only way it will is to have an election and clear out the worst offenders.
Id like to say I'm surprised by Mr. Poilievre's failure to stand up for Canadian security but I am really not. I served over 39 years in the RCN and early on discovered, that from a defence point of view, the choice between parties is akin to the condemned choosing between a noose, fire squad or lethal injection.
We should be concerned about what is taking place politically in the United States. However, greater concern should be focused on what is taking place in Europe, England and Ireland. Immigration conflict is no longer brewing just below the political surface. The Political bubbles have reached the surface. This is not going to end well.
Quebec seems to pride itself in being an intolerant, fracophone backwater. Great Upheaval Day is coming up soon in New Brunswick and I often wonder what Canada would be like today had the British cleaned the French out of Lower Canada along with the Acadians?