Do you really think immigration became a disaster because the Liberals looked the other way? Do you think our courts are packed with crazy judges because the Liberals looked the other way?
They fully intended all of this, but backed down (or may in future back down), temporarily, when (and only because) the political cost became too high.
The motive for DEI is to build a better world. It's interesting that some companies in the US like Costco refused to back down on their DEI hiring practices because it opened up a new tranche good employees for them. I agree with you that those good intentions are not always in operation. A significant amount of that has been hijacked by people who really do not like regular people. A lot of cases it's a power move for people who don't want to earn that power legitimately. For example see Sankova Square in Toronto. Fortunately the pendulum is swinging back towards common sense. As for political corruption, the Conservative governments in Ontario and Alberta are breaking new ground. They're showing the Liberals what corruption really is. The courts are not packed with crazy judges. I think there's a generation (or two) of people who grew up spoiled and have been able to live their lives without making hard decisions. That's what we need to work on.
Anyone who can think that DEI can build a better world can perfectly well think that bringing millions from the third world to Canada or appointing judges who refuse to punish criminals will do the same. At least, that's what they tell themselves. Outside observers would attribute their actions to the third motive I propose: it's more predictive.
Can you prove that they deliberately appointed a judge who refuses to punish criminals or is it just a feeling? It was Danielle Smith who wanted to bring 5 million more people to Alberta. Not sure where she was going to get them from.
The idea that the Liberals must be given the benefit of the doubt unless you can prove mens rea, as if in a court case but without the power of subpoena, is exactly the idea that I am mocking. At some point, one must use judgment rather than slavish partisanship.
Except that anyone who does that deserted the Liberals long ago
The only motive is the quest for power that unites the Liberal Party of Canada. Add to that is the dislike, hatred that Justine Trudeau displays for his native land and its values.
I wonder this myself. I try approach things on the basis that people mean what they say.
Liberal decisions for the past 12 years (and ongoing, but not covered by the news) seem to be both an attempt at atonement and reconstruction of Canadian civil society. Traditional Canada is bad. It is racist. It is sexist. It is homophobic. It is islamophobic. It is a settler-colonialist white patriarchy that destroys the environment. The liberals in power have said this for decades.
Now assume the system skews towards the people who share these beliefs. Which makes sense - in politics you hire and appoint people who share your values. Would not the past 10 years of policies be a rational response? would it not be virtuous to fundamentally change Canada by opening up immigration (and becoming a post-national state) or by incorporating race-based sentencing into the criminal justice system (to mitigate the effects of pervasive systemic racism)?
This is ‘better world’ they wanted. And in large part, they got it. And much of it does make sense in a world without external threats, economic competition and extremism. What they didn’t anticipate is that threats from an ally would highlight the weaknesses of their utopia and the forgotten benefits of nationalism and a coherent civil society.
Which is why limited government, with heaps of checks and balances is the best form of governance long term, even over a benevolent dictator. Humans are all susceptible to bad ideas - both individually and collectively. We should have as little power over others as possible to prevent (or at least mitigate) the tyranny of bad ideas.
It depends on the nature of the check. When it is smaller and cantankerous communities, each with their own view and fiercely independent, I agree. When it is mere bureaucratic procedure, the covid years showed that doesn't work when most needed
I think I agree. As Gurney said episodes ago - the process has become the point of much of government.
I also wonder if, with the creation of large arm’s-length bureaucracies whether we didn’t just inadvertently create a fourth branch of government without consciously building the robust accountability mechanisms that would be in a constitution.
Someone might want to remind The Donald that, in addition to what M&J pointed out in this Dispatch, that technically N&S Korea are still at war - they've been in an uneasy ceasefire since 1953 (or since we're dealing with DJT, perhaps 1983 when M*A*S*H* ended - he'll remember that).
Close to a year ago, Matt asked disgruntled MAGA-friendly Line Subscribers what their 'red-line' would be with regards to Trump; that is, what would he have to say or do for them to say 'I'm out'.
My question is, when will the GOP Congress, Senate, SCOTUS appointees, etc. realize that this guy is steadily adding to the likelihood of scuttling their party's electoral chances for a generation, not to mention sewering America's reputation in the world, perhaps permanently (I think we are already at that point)?
The way things are going, the Democrats could exhume Jimmy Carter to run on the Democrat ticket in two years and I'd say there's a chance he'd win!
Seriously though, as DJT amps up the crazy week by week, it's a complete disincentive for the Democrats to even bother positioning anyone for the presidency that's semi-normie, as Gavin Newsom has been styling himself as a Dems version of Trump for some time now.
America's descent into actual Reality TV is nearly complete.
Sure, North Korea is a terrible totalitarian country and an easy way to vilify Trump for saying he can get along with its current Dear Leader. But this righteous position by our hosts reeks of hypocrisy when China is far, far worse taking Canadians hostage and tariffs us with obvious blackmail (its foreign policy is no mystery: steal, scale, strangle)... earning nowhere near the condemnation aimed at Trump. What, the US owes South Korea about 30K American troops for its defence every day of every year of every decade of every century for perpetuity? Relying on Middle East oil but refusing to answer the US call for help in dealing with totalitarian Islam that shuts off this resource?
The criticism is easy when it comes to framing Canada as the poor victim of Trump rather than one that consistently grants power to irresponsible, unserious, and inept governance and leaders busy producing self-serving legislation and protecting interprovincial trade barriers much larger in economic suppression tariffs than what Trump is threatening. But because it's Trump, as sure as the sun rises in the east along comes the special treatment of condemnation by today's 'journalistic' talking heads without fairly comparing and contrasting the actual trade issues and making Canadians more aware of them.
Sure, the French can sell their tariffed cheeses to Canadian retailers but the Americans? Oh, well, for them they can only sell their tariffed cheeses to manufacturers. Yeah sure, no special treatment here. Remember, Canada is always the victim, never the perpetrator. And they can shove their 250 billion dollar investment budget for critical minerals they would prefer to buy from Canada. We are too busy building (MOUs) at speeds not seen in generations! We have Kentucky bourbon to keep off the shelves, after all, from them daring to complain about Chinese EVs - nice little reconnaissance units - made in part with slave labour in the very steel we use in car manufacturing that we know the US really should overlook because that little known fact would interfere with the whole notion of what real victimhood looks like in trade.
Nope, it's all anti-Trump because he's untrustworthy donchaknow, whereas our CCP strategic partners and all their criminal activities is welcome 'investment' using Canada as a backdoor to the US and we call that little arrangement 'patriotic'. Canada victim, Trump bad. What a hypocritical weekly offering masquerading as advice to the Canadian negotiators.
So you recognize your editorial hypocrisy as 'meh' and think someone pointing it out is as humorous as it is predictable. Oh. Okay. I thought you might give a shit if made aware of holding and exercising two conflicting standards, you know, in service to better informing your readers of reality rather than your preferred beliefs about it. I didn't realize this was a hilarious concept. My bad.
There it is... the accusation thrown over legitimate criticism under the umbrella it is 'crazy' because it is 'Maple Maga'. Presume much? The accusation was about hypocrisy linking Trump to North Korea but allowing Carney free reign to strategically link Canada to China without the equivalent outrage! You seem to have missed that point entirely in your rush to dismiss.
As for South Korea's self interest in the Middle East conflict while avoiding overt support for America that has dedicated more than half a century to keeping American forces rivalling the size of Canada's entire military on standby to defend this nation on Korean soil, the lack of payback in this case demonstrates a very skewed (but I guess a perfectly aligned with so many Canadians) understanding of recognizing the real world debt of its own sovereignty owed to the US. But, again, notice the absolute lack of balance by our hosts and many commentators comparing and contrasting the US under Trump's administration to others. My point was raising the weekly use of this special anti-Trump category or framing that produces in part this constant anti-American hypocrisy on display (and a hypocrisy creating the atmosphere of these trade disputes and tariffs in terms of economic 'warfare' so many Canadians are fed, again, without any real balance or understanding). This is not patriotism, meaning love of country; it is an ideological media narrative sprayed liberally across the country and, right on cue, the functionally illiterate show up to cheer.
Au contraire. You know Iran's government is an exporting totalitarian death cult, right? And you know it has promised to use nuclear weapons if obtained to destroy Palestine... oops, I mean Israel first - the little Satan - before dedicating itself to destroying the US - big Satan. That's not a joke. That's the terms of engagement. That's what the clerical leadership has consistently said is its reason d'etre (and bringing back the 12th Imam for global control by doing so). That's the Islamic version of heaven on earth.
So if you don't recognize your own interests and the interests of western civilization (that allows you to maintain your naivety) are served by the US doing its part by undertaking this multifaceted conflict, then I - representing reality's harsh facts about the intentional and well funded spreading and negotiating with this malignancy - can't help you overcome your own contrary beliefs. That's your job.
Mark Carney has said it so many times now it's practically a campaign jingle: *Canada will not accept a bad deal.* Fine words. But with the August 19 deadline days away and LeBlanc shuttling back and forth to Washington for a third, fourth, fifth round of meetings, I don't need a source inside PMO to tell me what "as many meetings as it takes" usually means in these situations. It means the other side knows you're the one who blinks first.
Look at what's reportedly on the table: dropping our retaliatory auto tariffs, cracking open provincial alcohol restrictions, reworking dairy quotas. Those aren't "creative diplomatic solutions." Those are concessions with different names. And the fact that a former Canadian diplomat is publicly saying this "looks like it's going to end in tears" isn't reassuring — that's someone with decades of experience in the room reading the tea leaves and not liking what he sees.
Here's my honest read: Trump doesn't negotiate to find middle ground. He negotiates to extract things, declare victory, and come back for more next quarter. Every past round with this administration has followed that pattern - steel, aluminum, autos, now dairy and booze. There's no reason to think this round breaks the mold, and "we'll have as many meetings as it takes" sounds a lot more like exhaustion-negotiating than principled holding of the line.
I'd love to be wrong. I'd love for Carney to walk out of this with Canadian interests actually protected. But if the pattern holds -and it has, every time - "not accepting a bad deal" quietly becomes "accepting a deal we're calling not-bad." And Trump doesn't need to trick anyone into that. He just needs to wait us out.
We'll know by the 19th. And if it does end the way it looks like it's ending, don't be surprised if more Canadians start asking why Poilievre's read on this administration - that you don't out-negotiate a president who "loves tariffs," you reduce your exposure to him - wasn't taken more seriously sooner. His pitch has been consistent: lean into Canada's actual leverage, our critical minerals, oil, and gas reserves, and put them on the table as part of any trade offer, rather than negotiating from a position where autos, dairy, and alcohol are the only bargaining chips in the room. It's not a complicated idea. Give the Americans a reason to want the deal, using strength we actually have, instead of only offering concessions on the things we're afraid to lose.
Maybe that's exactly why Trump has never had much good to say about Poilievre. It's a lot harder to roll a negotiating partner who's arguing from resource strength than one who keeps promising, over and over, not to fold.
“His (Pierre Poilievre’s) pitch has been consistent: lean into Canada's actual leverage, our critical minerals, oil, and gas reserves, and put them on the table as part of any trade offer, rather than negotiating from a position where autos, dairy, and alcohol are the only bargaining chips in the room. It's not a complicated idea. Give the Americans a reason to want the deal, using strength we actually have, instead of only offering concessions on the things we're afraid to lose.”
Agreed. “Pivot here”, pivot there!!” cried the Elbow-nian Chicken Littles and rank punditry keyboard warriors!!
Calm, clever, concise, and consistent seems not to be rewarded in Canadian politics at this moment.
Pierre Poilievre has been right about everything, and rewarded by few.
Pierre Poilevre also voted to take dairy off the negotiation table, therefore inflicting Canadians with low quality but some of the most expensive in the world dairy.
Yes, I am disappointed with the stance of the Conservative Party with respect to Supply Management.
I do not demand or require 100 per cent purity in my politicians; I vote for the politicians that I think will be good stewards of Canadian assets, and politicians who will improve the Country, rather than impairing Her.
I keep writing Carney and telling him and his negotiators to read your dispatches. I suggest your other readers do the same. I'm a Canadian-American living in Western NY and keeping my head down. I know the current American government can not be trusted, and even worse, I know that 90% of Americans, including the ones who do not support Trump would be happy with or at least look the other way if the trade negotiations screwed Canada even worse than the bridge. Write Carney and your MP. get your thoughts known.
If those tariffs come into effect we need to walk away from the table. Never give in to blackmailers. Beyond that Trump's word is worthless. He will never abide by any treaty. So why make one. As well Trump needs this deal as much if not more than we do. The Iran war is hurting the US economy and the mid-term elections are coming. If we are going to retaliate I would support:
1 Canceling orders for any military system those people attempt to use as a lever to blackmail us. American systems are not irreplaceable. There are alternatives (just as good or better) for any system that American companies make.
2 Retaliatory tariffs of equal amount against:
a. all companies that Trump, His family, Senior administration members are major investors in.
b. all companies which donate to Mega Inc. or other pro-Trump Super Pacs.
c. all companies which donated to Trump's white house ballroom.
3 Start negotiations on a bi-lateral free trade deal with Mexico.
4 Any companies shifting production to the United states should not get to do business with the Canadian Federal or provincial governments and if possible they should be required to pay back the amount of all federal and provincial subsidies received since the Covid outbreak.
In the end I am sick to the eye-teeth of the Trump administration and US political system in general. I don't see things getting much better after the mid-terms or even if they 25th Trump in January. Vance is not an improvement over Trump and I've not seen anything from the Democrats which gives me much hope. It is significant that not one senior democrat has proposed legislative changes, or other systemic reforms, to prevent a future president from abusing their authority as Trump has.
"Guests in Canada are subject to our rules and laws, and people who break those laws should be removed. That’s the point of our immigration system making the acquisition of citizenship gradual, and a big part of why we distinguish between visitors and citizens in the first place."
Obviously. And at minimum. I would even go much further than this - something modelled on Sweden's recently promulgated "good behaviour law" would warm my heart.
Removed? If these 'guests' are Chinese agents or cartel/IRGC operatives, transnational criminal laundering overseers using our casinos and mortgages to make us a most favoured partner-in-crime, then providing cover for them seems to be the official policy no matter the colour of ruling party in Canada. After all, we wouldn't want to offend North Korea's closest ally with whom we have a strategic partnership/integrated policing and open book intelligence relationship, and accept their hostage taking and tariffs without so much as a lasting peep from the chattering righteous crowd of this week's 'patriots' busy vilifying the evil American government looking out for their North American strategic interests. Nope, getting Qatar on board the Liberal plan for reducing our trade with the US is what passes for Canadian national security these days. Good behaviour law? How about the same applied to esteemed Laurentian class.
Yeah, like I'd rather keep a decent chunk of violent criminals versus the white collar criminals. I can understand a man who punches someone in anger, I struggle a lot more with large scale money laundering, but I know which is more likely to see a courtroom.
Spot on. If Carney makes concessions at this point, it will be curtains for Mr Carney's government. Which is not to say that he will be replaced by Poilievre, who is hopeless, in my view.
What a time to be alive. My only hope is that enough Americans come to their senses that Congress will be able to impeach Trump and Grierson, as well as other members of his cabal, after the Congressional elections this November.
"Fundamentally, a question we need to ask ourselves and our government: does this country have a survival instinct that reaches any further than seeking temporary political advantage?"
It's NOT the country, it is one particular political party. Unfortunately for all of us, just over a dozen years ago, that political party installed a set of backroom operatives who were very VERY good at seeking out - and even creating - temporary political advantage.
Those original operatives are gone now, but the party fully retains the institutional memory of the spin factory they had built - and has in fact built upon the gas-lit foundations left behind by those pioneers.
At this point, Canadians don't know which way is up.
We elected an economist as PM, yet all our economy has done since then is shrink - yet we are regularly regaled with tales (and million dollar TV ads, paid for by borrowed dollars) that our economy is roaring to life - that we are building huge projects (none have been approved yet, never mind started) and that "affordability is the best it has been in a decade" (to quote our esteemed PM himself).
We clap like seals at the cherry-picked numbers they showcase through their paid-for Pravda-like media, and imagine that (for example) the strong April jobs numbers (they are still crowing about in August) is actually some sign that Canada's economy is rebounding from it's decade-long slump (it isn't, at all).
....and the craziest trick they ever pulled - was convincing a far too sizeable chink of Canadians that ALL of their troubles are actually the fault of a politician from another country.
Canada will continue to fall further and further, until Canadians wake up and start to hold their own government accountable for actual results.
Note; endlessly holding the Opposition accountable for "using the wrong tone" does NOT move us forward.
Love your dispatches. They are so well organized and coherent.
You raise the question on whether the Liberals are aware of the destruction of the Canadian justice system they have wrought. My view is it doesn’t matter because they don’t give a damn - to quote Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind. And one reason they don’t give a damn is because Katy’s boyfriend Trudaddy appointed 7 of the 9 Canadian Supreme Court justices (counting his promotion of Chief Justice Wagner). The lack of a credible opposition leader doesn’t help (to the extent that I wonder if his remaining as opposition leader is being abetted by covert Liberal assistance). To follow with the Gone with the Wind parallel, Canadian attitudes seem to be more congruent with those of the slaves on the Tara plantation than anything else. To them it didn’t matter if you had a white grey coated southern massa or a a white blue coated northern carpetbagger.
I liked your reply with respect to the comments on the justice system and the laws they are asked to address.
But I sincerely disagree with your assessment of Pierre Poilievre. He has been an extremely effective Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. In fact, I contend he is the best Opposition Leader in our history. Only in Canada would this disqualify one for the top job.
Your use of Gone With the Wind anecdotes reminds me of the recent “Laurentian Plantation” essay by Upper Canadian Cavalier.
Oh I agree PP is an effective opposition leader. But his credibility gets destroyed daily by Pravda North. (CBC) and the government subsidized legacy Canadian mass media (eg CTV, Toronto Star)
Yes I was using the Union Bluecoats as proxies for the Laurentian elites and the Confederate Greycoats as proxies for the Quebec French carpetbaggers who took control of the Canadian civil service starting under Trudeau Senior.
I am kind of tired of reading about the failings of the Liberals as the main reason this country is where it is. I mean, I obviously get the point. But the bigger point being missed IMO is the unwillingness of the Canadian population to elect anyone other than the same party that brought it to this state in the first place. If people somehow strongly believe - as a mere speculation - that the CPC is not ready to govern, at least give them a chance to demonstrate that. But continuing to elect the same party for more than a decade and expecting different results is not an acceptable way of democracy.
Further to this Akshay. In my lifetime. human years.
Liberals: ~39 years (72%)
Conservatives: ~15 years (28%)
Hence why so many of us are so frustrated with this country and were it finds itself. I and many many of my friends and neighbors have never voted Liberals ever.
When it comes to a trade deal, the question to zero in on is "Will the country be better off with this deal or without it?" and if the answer is yes then you take it. Other questions, like "Is this deal as good as the previous deal?" "How does this deal make me feel?" or "What does this deal do to Mark Carney's political strength?" will lead us down the wrong path.
Any rational discussion on the topic should begin here: our close relationship to the world's most dynamic economy and gluttonous consumer base has been a great benefit to Canada. Canada is vastly better off retaining, say, 80% of that benefit than losing it entirely. To say that "concessions now mean that Canada will get economically weaker" is unhelpful saber-rattling that looks past the fact that we truly do not have the leverage to back that play.
When negotiating with a much larger and more powerful economic partner, the goal should be to maximize national benefit, not to avoid every concession. Keeping most of a valuable relationship is preferable to risking major damage in pursuit of a perfect outcome. I fear we are getting caught up in this. I do understand the concerns regarding concessions becoming the next starting point. At some point you can say no. Whats that old saying my mom used to tell me. "You get what you get and you cant be upset." Then we pull up our our big boy pants and get to work on creating our leverage. right now we have preciousl little to hold up. The pain could be very real. maybe thats what we need is a hard spanking to get our attention, instead of all the performative chants.
That's definitely not something we need to like, but it's not something we have the leverage to refuse either so a mindset shift is needed. Accept that the "set it and forget it" deal is not coming back, and expect something more like an ongoing negotiation featuring lots of noise and small bits of iteration over time.
We need to meet our situation as it is rather than moan about how it has changed.
The immigration thing has been law since 2013 (at least). The Harper government did nothing about it either. To be fair to the Supreme Court, deportation IS a harsher consequence for a sentence than not getting deported. The problem is the bit where that resulting in a softer sentence can be unfair. Of course, part of why it's unfair is that deportation is supposed to be automatic for certain offences. Except, of course, that those offences are often a LOT broader than people think they are (I can find you law to say any breaking of the skin is an aggravated assault, for example. And a bruise that lasts two weeks is probably bodily harm. Both will result in deportation if convicted). In short, the problem is at least as much idiot parliamentarians going 'let's have this automatic consequence' without understanding what they're actually doing. There's a LOT of parts of the law like that.
Also, the bail system is not provably dysfunctional because nobody collects any data on it. That there are prominent examples of bad people getting bail does not necessarily mean the system's screwed up. If bad people don't get bail sometimes, it will almost certainly mean we are locking up people we should not be. I'm rather concerned this guy committed a sex assault on release and got released again, but you guys rather imply that him having bail at all given he had serious charges is the problem and...no. No it isn't. Though to be fair to the court for all we know his original offence was extremely minor.
Guys with lengthy criminal records and multiple charged incidents should not be getting bail. But it's not actually demonstrated that they consistently DO.
There are many things I would change about the Criminal Code and about the justice system. But it is not nearly as straightforward as people seem to think, nor is it very clear that any of the things the Liberals are trying to do (or any of the suggestions I've seen proposed) would actually do much, let alone not have pretty hard consequences for anyone who's charged and actually innocent.
Carney holds the energy hammer as leverage. A threatened export tax on oil, using the NEB, with tax revenue going back to the producing provinces (AB, SK, NL) and a threatened export tax on electricity, with the tax revenue going back to Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and BC should be supported with by the province and the public, should bring Trump to heel given the impacts on the MAGA people. Let him have a win on US booze, which Canadians won't buy even if it goes back on the shelves.
An export tax on oil and electricity? Ludicrous. We're already charging as much as we can get away with. A tax will just lower the price, so that the "tax included" price remains the same. Because where else we will sell oil or electricity?
Don, as an Albertan I can say that so, so, so many Elbownians want to use our energy as a weapon. It is in your genes to take advantage of the Prairies (and of course, NL) to the benefit of Central Canada and to our detriment.
It is absolutely astounding to me - but it shouldn't be - that you never consider putting your own industries at risk first.
So ......
First, put a ban on automotive exports, including parts, etc. Further, put either export bans or export taxes on softwood lumber, electricity and just general manufactured products.
Then and only then come to us about using energy as a weapon.
Banning or taxing automotive exports would cause much more disruption in America much more rapidly than doing the same to oil or electricity. Because autos and parts are not commodities.
As a second generation born Albertan with family in the province, but now living in Ontario, I agree that this should be used as a last resort. It would be a major threat, as price can be changed with immediate effect, while reorganizing suppliers takes years.
I predict that the current trade negotiations will fail to reach an agreement, and that Trump's tariffs will go into effect Wednesday. I predict that Canada will impose counter-tariffs. I predict that Trump will impose counter-counter tariffs, Will Canada then impose counter-counter-counter tariffs? Cool.
Can we perhaps use energy as a lever? If we do, would Trump cut Line 5 from Michigan to Ontario? If he did, what would central Canada do? Start building a pipeline from Alberta to central Canada?
Yes, Canada has made some concessions already, but they are pretty minor ones. And so far, Canada has done well on Trump's tariffs relative to what has happened to other countries. Will our relatively favourable treatment continue? We shall see.
That said, I appreciate the position adopted by The Line. Patriotism is good. Willingness to sacrifice is good. Trump's power may be destroyed by the mid-term elections. Canadians may unite for once. Again, we shall see.
MOST of what Canadians are counting as "concessions we have already made" were actually NOT concessions at all, and would more accurately be described as walking back wrong-headed Liberal policy mistakes.
The Digital Services Tax, for example, was 100% Liberal hubris writ large. Before ramming this legislation through they were clearly warned that it would all end poorly - but Canadians seem to forget just how eager the Trudeau Liberals were to be seen as poking the USA in the eye on such matters.
...how convenient that Trump came along, which now allows PM Carney to reverse these ridiculous policies and blame it all on the Orange Meanie.
Do you really think immigration became a disaster because the Liberals looked the other way? Do you think our courts are packed with crazy judges because the Liberals looked the other way?
They fully intended all of this, but backed down (or may in future back down), temporarily, when (and only because) the political cost became too high.
What would be the motive for that behaviour?
Political power? Opportunity for corruption? Ideological dislike for actual Canadians? All of the above, most likely. What's the motive for DEI?
The motive for DEI is to build a better world. It's interesting that some companies in the US like Costco refused to back down on their DEI hiring practices because it opened up a new tranche good employees for them. I agree with you that those good intentions are not always in operation. A significant amount of that has been hijacked by people who really do not like regular people. A lot of cases it's a power move for people who don't want to earn that power legitimately. For example see Sankova Square in Toronto. Fortunately the pendulum is swinging back towards common sense. As for political corruption, the Conservative governments in Ontario and Alberta are breaking new ground. They're showing the Liberals what corruption really is. The courts are not packed with crazy judges. I think there's a generation (or two) of people who grew up spoiled and have been able to live their lives without making hard decisions. That's what we need to work on.
Anyone who can think that DEI can build a better world can perfectly well think that bringing millions from the third world to Canada or appointing judges who refuse to punish criminals will do the same. At least, that's what they tell themselves. Outside observers would attribute their actions to the third motive I propose: it's more predictive.
Can you prove that they deliberately appointed a judge who refuses to punish criminals or is it just a feeling? It was Danielle Smith who wanted to bring 5 million more people to Alberta. Not sure where she was going to get them from.
The idea that the Liberals must be given the benefit of the doubt unless you can prove mens rea, as if in a court case but without the power of subpoena, is exactly the idea that I am mocking. At some point, one must use judgment rather than slavish partisanship.
Except that anyone who does that deserted the Liberals long ago
If they secede, they'll have no trouble getting 5 million Canadians.
Wasn't there a road to somewhere that was paved with good intentions?
The only motive is the quest for power that unites the Liberal Party of Canada. Add to that is the dislike, hatred that Justine Trudeau displays for his native land and its values.
I wonder this myself. I try approach things on the basis that people mean what they say.
Liberal decisions for the past 12 years (and ongoing, but not covered by the news) seem to be both an attempt at atonement and reconstruction of Canadian civil society. Traditional Canada is bad. It is racist. It is sexist. It is homophobic. It is islamophobic. It is a settler-colonialist white patriarchy that destroys the environment. The liberals in power have said this for decades.
Now assume the system skews towards the people who share these beliefs. Which makes sense - in politics you hire and appoint people who share your values. Would not the past 10 years of policies be a rational response? would it not be virtuous to fundamentally change Canada by opening up immigration (and becoming a post-national state) or by incorporating race-based sentencing into the criminal justice system (to mitigate the effects of pervasive systemic racism)?
This is ‘better world’ they wanted. And in large part, they got it. And much of it does make sense in a world without external threats, economic competition and extremism. What they didn’t anticipate is that threats from an ally would highlight the weaknesses of their utopia and the forgotten benefits of nationalism and a coherent civil society.
It never made sense to adopt the destruction of the Canadian people as a goal.
If you believe what they believe, it absolutely does make sense. It is wrong and utter bullshit, but rational in a particular world view.
You have some really good points here.
I believe Canadian author Gad Saad coined the term, Suicidal Empathy.
We actually need to call it what it really is: malice, toward Canadians and our children.
Which is why limited government, with heaps of checks and balances is the best form of governance long term, even over a benevolent dictator. Humans are all susceptible to bad ideas - both individually and collectively. We should have as little power over others as possible to prevent (or at least mitigate) the tyranny of bad ideas.
It depends on the nature of the check. When it is smaller and cantankerous communities, each with their own view and fiercely independent, I agree. When it is mere bureaucratic procedure, the covid years showed that doesn't work when most needed
I think I agree. As Gurney said episodes ago - the process has become the point of much of government.
I also wonder if, with the creation of large arm’s-length bureaucracies whether we didn’t just inadvertently create a fourth branch of government without consciously building the robust accountability mechanisms that would be in a constitution.
My vote would be complete ideological capture.
I saw Trump's NK tweet about an hour ago.
Kind of blew my mind.
Trump just keeps on trumping....himself.
Someone might want to remind The Donald that, in addition to what M&J pointed out in this Dispatch, that technically N&S Korea are still at war - they've been in an uneasy ceasefire since 1953 (or since we're dealing with DJT, perhaps 1983 when M*A*S*H* ended - he'll remember that).
Close to a year ago, Matt asked disgruntled MAGA-friendly Line Subscribers what their 'red-line' would be with regards to Trump; that is, what would he have to say or do for them to say 'I'm out'.
My question is, when will the GOP Congress, Senate, SCOTUS appointees, etc. realize that this guy is steadily adding to the likelihood of scuttling their party's electoral chances for a generation, not to mention sewering America's reputation in the world, perhaps permanently (I think we are already at that point)?
The way things are going, the Democrats could exhume Jimmy Carter to run on the Democrat ticket in two years and I'd say there's a chance he'd win!
Seriously though, as DJT amps up the crazy week by week, it's a complete disincentive for the Democrats to even bother positioning anyone for the presidency that's semi-normie, as Gavin Newsom has been styling himself as a Dems version of Trump for some time now.
America's descent into actual Reality TV is nearly complete.
Carter would be a huge improvement over any actual or likely prospective Democrat candidate since Clinton. Bill Clinton..
Sure, North Korea is a terrible totalitarian country and an easy way to vilify Trump for saying he can get along with its current Dear Leader. But this righteous position by our hosts reeks of hypocrisy when China is far, far worse taking Canadians hostage and tariffs us with obvious blackmail (its foreign policy is no mystery: steal, scale, strangle)... earning nowhere near the condemnation aimed at Trump. What, the US owes South Korea about 30K American troops for its defence every day of every year of every decade of every century for perpetuity? Relying on Middle East oil but refusing to answer the US call for help in dealing with totalitarian Islam that shuts off this resource?
The criticism is easy when it comes to framing Canada as the poor victim of Trump rather than one that consistently grants power to irresponsible, unserious, and inept governance and leaders busy producing self-serving legislation and protecting interprovincial trade barriers much larger in economic suppression tariffs than what Trump is threatening. But because it's Trump, as sure as the sun rises in the east along comes the special treatment of condemnation by today's 'journalistic' talking heads without fairly comparing and contrasting the actual trade issues and making Canadians more aware of them.
Sure, the French can sell their tariffed cheeses to Canadian retailers but the Americans? Oh, well, for them they can only sell their tariffed cheeses to manufacturers. Yeah sure, no special treatment here. Remember, Canada is always the victim, never the perpetrator. And they can shove their 250 billion dollar investment budget for critical minerals they would prefer to buy from Canada. We are too busy building (MOUs) at speeds not seen in generations! We have Kentucky bourbon to keep off the shelves, after all, from them daring to complain about Chinese EVs - nice little reconnaissance units - made in part with slave labour in the very steel we use in car manufacturing that we know the US really should overlook because that little known fact would interfere with the whole notion of what real victimhood looks like in trade.
Nope, it's all anti-Trump because he's untrustworthy donchaknow, whereas our CCP strategic partners and all their criminal activities is welcome 'investment' using Canada as a backdoor to the US and we call that little arrangement 'patriotic'. Canada victim, Trump bad. What a hypocritical weekly offering masquerading as advice to the Canadian negotiators.
The "but" after the first sentence was as funny as it was foreseeable.
Are you saying that the word "but" was unnecessary? That's dark.
What I'm saying is in full view of everyone right over your comment.
So you recognize your editorial hypocrisy as 'meh' and think someone pointing it out is as humorous as it is predictable. Oh. Okay. I thought you might give a shit if made aware of holding and exercising two conflicting standards, you know, in service to better informing your readers of reality rather than your preferred beliefs about it. I didn't realize this was a hilarious concept. My bad.
Live and learn!
Yes, why didn’t those ‘nasty’ South Koreans join an illegal war against Iran which has caused the Strait of Hormuz to be closed?
Trump’s war and his stupid tariffs are a gift to China.
Maple Maga is a special kind of crazy.
There it is... the accusation thrown over legitimate criticism under the umbrella it is 'crazy' because it is 'Maple Maga'. Presume much? The accusation was about hypocrisy linking Trump to North Korea but allowing Carney free reign to strategically link Canada to China without the equivalent outrage! You seem to have missed that point entirely in your rush to dismiss.
As for South Korea's self interest in the Middle East conflict while avoiding overt support for America that has dedicated more than half a century to keeping American forces rivalling the size of Canada's entire military on standby to defend this nation on Korean soil, the lack of payback in this case demonstrates a very skewed (but I guess a perfectly aligned with so many Canadians) understanding of recognizing the real world debt of its own sovereignty owed to the US. But, again, notice the absolute lack of balance by our hosts and many commentators comparing and contrasting the US under Trump's administration to others. My point was raising the weekly use of this special anti-Trump category or framing that produces in part this constant anti-American hypocrisy on display (and a hypocrisy creating the atmosphere of these trade disputes and tariffs in terms of economic 'warfare' so many Canadians are fed, again, without any real balance or understanding). This is not patriotism, meaning love of country; it is an ideological media narrative sprayed liberally across the country and, right on cue, the functionally illiterate show up to cheer.
Trump’s war in Iran serves no one’s interest.
Au contraire. You know Iran's government is an exporting totalitarian death cult, right? And you know it has promised to use nuclear weapons if obtained to destroy Palestine... oops, I mean Israel first - the little Satan - before dedicating itself to destroying the US - big Satan. That's not a joke. That's the terms of engagement. That's what the clerical leadership has consistently said is its reason d'etre (and bringing back the 12th Imam for global control by doing so). That's the Islamic version of heaven on earth.
So if you don't recognize your own interests and the interests of western civilization (that allows you to maintain your naivety) are served by the US doing its part by undertaking this multifaceted conflict, then I - representing reality's harsh facts about the intentional and well funded spreading and negotiating with this malignancy - can't help you overcome your own contrary beliefs. That's your job.
I thought your orange God King said that Iran’s nuclear capacity was obliterated in 2025?
Mark Carney has said it so many times now it's practically a campaign jingle: *Canada will not accept a bad deal.* Fine words. But with the August 19 deadline days away and LeBlanc shuttling back and forth to Washington for a third, fourth, fifth round of meetings, I don't need a source inside PMO to tell me what "as many meetings as it takes" usually means in these situations. It means the other side knows you're the one who blinks first.
Look at what's reportedly on the table: dropping our retaliatory auto tariffs, cracking open provincial alcohol restrictions, reworking dairy quotas. Those aren't "creative diplomatic solutions." Those are concessions with different names. And the fact that a former Canadian diplomat is publicly saying this "looks like it's going to end in tears" isn't reassuring — that's someone with decades of experience in the room reading the tea leaves and not liking what he sees.
Here's my honest read: Trump doesn't negotiate to find middle ground. He negotiates to extract things, declare victory, and come back for more next quarter. Every past round with this administration has followed that pattern - steel, aluminum, autos, now dairy and booze. There's no reason to think this round breaks the mold, and "we'll have as many meetings as it takes" sounds a lot more like exhaustion-negotiating than principled holding of the line.
I'd love to be wrong. I'd love for Carney to walk out of this with Canadian interests actually protected. But if the pattern holds -and it has, every time - "not accepting a bad deal" quietly becomes "accepting a deal we're calling not-bad." And Trump doesn't need to trick anyone into that. He just needs to wait us out.
We'll know by the 19th. And if it does end the way it looks like it's ending, don't be surprised if more Canadians start asking why Poilievre's read on this administration - that you don't out-negotiate a president who "loves tariffs," you reduce your exposure to him - wasn't taken more seriously sooner. His pitch has been consistent: lean into Canada's actual leverage, our critical minerals, oil, and gas reserves, and put them on the table as part of any trade offer, rather than negotiating from a position where autos, dairy, and alcohol are the only bargaining chips in the room. It's not a complicated idea. Give the Americans a reason to want the deal, using strength we actually have, instead of only offering concessions on the things we're afraid to lose.
Maybe that's exactly why Trump has never had much good to say about Poilievre. It's a lot harder to roll a negotiating partner who's arguing from resource strength than one who keeps promising, over and over, not to fold.
Would any of those "concessions" actually be bad for Canadians? Or only embarrassing for our rulers?
“His (Pierre Poilievre’s) pitch has been consistent: lean into Canada's actual leverage, our critical minerals, oil, and gas reserves, and put them on the table as part of any trade offer, rather than negotiating from a position where autos, dairy, and alcohol are the only bargaining chips in the room. It's not a complicated idea. Give the Americans a reason to want the deal, using strength we actually have, instead of only offering concessions on the things we're afraid to lose.”
Agreed. “Pivot here”, pivot there!!” cried the Elbow-nian Chicken Littles and rank punditry keyboard warriors!!
Calm, clever, concise, and consistent seems not to be rewarded in Canadian politics at this moment.
Pierre Poilievre has been right about everything, and rewarded by few.
Pierre Poilevre also voted to take dairy off the negotiation table, therefore inflicting Canadians with low quality but some of the most expensive in the world dairy.
What's to say Pierre could do any better?
That is a fair comment.
Yes, I am disappointed with the stance of the Conservative Party with respect to Supply Management.
I do not demand or require 100 per cent purity in my politicians; I vote for the politicians that I think will be good stewards of Canadian assets, and politicians who will improve the Country, rather than impairing Her.
I keep writing Carney and telling him and his negotiators to read your dispatches. I suggest your other readers do the same. I'm a Canadian-American living in Western NY and keeping my head down. I know the current American government can not be trusted, and even worse, I know that 90% of Americans, including the ones who do not support Trump would be happy with or at least look the other way if the trade negotiations screwed Canada even worse than the bridge. Write Carney and your MP. get your thoughts known.
If those tariffs come into effect we need to walk away from the table. Never give in to blackmailers. Beyond that Trump's word is worthless. He will never abide by any treaty. So why make one. As well Trump needs this deal as much if not more than we do. The Iran war is hurting the US economy and the mid-term elections are coming. If we are going to retaliate I would support:
1 Canceling orders for any military system those people attempt to use as a lever to blackmail us. American systems are not irreplaceable. There are alternatives (just as good or better) for any system that American companies make.
2 Retaliatory tariffs of equal amount against:
a. all companies that Trump, His family, Senior administration members are major investors in.
b. all companies which donate to Mega Inc. or other pro-Trump Super Pacs.
c. all companies which donated to Trump's white house ballroom.
3 Start negotiations on a bi-lateral free trade deal with Mexico.
4 Any companies shifting production to the United states should not get to do business with the Canadian Federal or provincial governments and if possible they should be required to pay back the amount of all federal and provincial subsidies received since the Covid outbreak.
In the end I am sick to the eye-teeth of the Trump administration and US political system in general. I don't see things getting much better after the mid-terms or even if they 25th Trump in January. Vance is not an improvement over Trump and I've not seen anything from the Democrats which gives me much hope. It is significant that not one senior democrat has proposed legislative changes, or other systemic reforms, to prevent a future president from abusing their authority as Trump has.
"Guests in Canada are subject to our rules and laws, and people who break those laws should be removed. That’s the point of our immigration system making the acquisition of citizenship gradual, and a big part of why we distinguish between visitors and citizens in the first place."
Obviously. And at minimum. I would even go much further than this - something modelled on Sweden's recently promulgated "good behaviour law" would warm my heart.
Removed? If these 'guests' are Chinese agents or cartel/IRGC operatives, transnational criminal laundering overseers using our casinos and mortgages to make us a most favoured partner-in-crime, then providing cover for them seems to be the official policy no matter the colour of ruling party in Canada. After all, we wouldn't want to offend North Korea's closest ally with whom we have a strategic partnership/integrated policing and open book intelligence relationship, and accept their hostage taking and tariffs without so much as a lasting peep from the chattering righteous crowd of this week's 'patriots' busy vilifying the evil American government looking out for their North American strategic interests. Nope, getting Qatar on board the Liberal plan for reducing our trade with the US is what passes for Canadian national security these days. Good behaviour law? How about the same applied to esteemed Laurentian class.
Yeah, like I'd rather keep a decent chunk of violent criminals versus the white collar criminals. I can understand a man who punches someone in anger, I struggle a lot more with large scale money laundering, but I know which is more likely to see a courtroom.
Spot on. If Carney makes concessions at this point, it will be curtains for Mr Carney's government. Which is not to say that he will be replaced by Poilievre, who is hopeless, in my view.
What a time to be alive. My only hope is that enough Americans come to their senses that Congress will be able to impeach Trump and Grierson, as well as other members of his cabal, after the Congressional elections this November.
It's a long shot, to be sure...
"Fundamentally, a question we need to ask ourselves and our government: does this country have a survival instinct that reaches any further than seeking temporary political advantage?"
It's NOT the country, it is one particular political party. Unfortunately for all of us, just over a dozen years ago, that political party installed a set of backroom operatives who were very VERY good at seeking out - and even creating - temporary political advantage.
Those original operatives are gone now, but the party fully retains the institutional memory of the spin factory they had built - and has in fact built upon the gas-lit foundations left behind by those pioneers.
At this point, Canadians don't know which way is up.
We elected an economist as PM, yet all our economy has done since then is shrink - yet we are regularly regaled with tales (and million dollar TV ads, paid for by borrowed dollars) that our economy is roaring to life - that we are building huge projects (none have been approved yet, never mind started) and that "affordability is the best it has been in a decade" (to quote our esteemed PM himself).
We clap like seals at the cherry-picked numbers they showcase through their paid-for Pravda-like media, and imagine that (for example) the strong April jobs numbers (they are still crowing about in August) is actually some sign that Canada's economy is rebounding from it's decade-long slump (it isn't, at all).
....and the craziest trick they ever pulled - was convincing a far too sizeable chink of Canadians that ALL of their troubles are actually the fault of a politician from another country.
Canada will continue to fall further and further, until Canadians wake up and start to hold their own government accountable for actual results.
Note; endlessly holding the Opposition accountable for "using the wrong tone" does NOT move us forward.
Love your dispatches. They are so well organized and coherent.
You raise the question on whether the Liberals are aware of the destruction of the Canadian justice system they have wrought. My view is it doesn’t matter because they don’t give a damn - to quote Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind. And one reason they don’t give a damn is because Katy’s boyfriend Trudaddy appointed 7 of the 9 Canadian Supreme Court justices (counting his promotion of Chief Justice Wagner). The lack of a credible opposition leader doesn’t help (to the extent that I wonder if his remaining as opposition leader is being abetted by covert Liberal assistance). To follow with the Gone with the Wind parallel, Canadian attitudes seem to be more congruent with those of the slaves on the Tara plantation than anything else. To them it didn’t matter if you had a white grey coated southern massa or a a white blue coated northern carpetbagger.
I liked your reply with respect to the comments on the justice system and the laws they are asked to address.
But I sincerely disagree with your assessment of Pierre Poilievre. He has been an extremely effective Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. In fact, I contend he is the best Opposition Leader in our history. Only in Canada would this disqualify one for the top job.
Your use of Gone With the Wind anecdotes reminds me of the recent “Laurentian Plantation” essay by Upper Canadian Cavalier.
Oh I agree PP is an effective opposition leader. But his credibility gets destroyed daily by Pravda North. (CBC) and the government subsidized legacy Canadian mass media (eg CTV, Toronto Star)
Yes I was using the Union Bluecoats as proxies for the Laurentian elites and the Confederate Greycoats as proxies for the Quebec French carpetbaggers who took control of the Canadian civil service starting under Trudeau Senior.
I thought it quite clever and I applaud you for that.
Thank you.
I am kind of tired of reading about the failings of the Liberals as the main reason this country is where it is. I mean, I obviously get the point. But the bigger point being missed IMO is the unwillingness of the Canadian population to elect anyone other than the same party that brought it to this state in the first place. If people somehow strongly believe - as a mere speculation - that the CPC is not ready to govern, at least give them a chance to demonstrate that. But continuing to elect the same party for more than a decade and expecting different results is not an acceptable way of democracy.
Further to this Akshay. In my lifetime. human years.
Liberals: ~39 years (72%)
Conservatives: ~15 years (28%)
Hence why so many of us are so frustrated with this country and were it finds itself. I and many many of my friends and neighbors have never voted Liberals ever.
When it comes to a trade deal, the question to zero in on is "Will the country be better off with this deal or without it?" and if the answer is yes then you take it. Other questions, like "Is this deal as good as the previous deal?" "How does this deal make me feel?" or "What does this deal do to Mark Carney's political strength?" will lead us down the wrong path.
Any rational discussion on the topic should begin here: our close relationship to the world's most dynamic economy and gluttonous consumer base has been a great benefit to Canada. Canada is vastly better off retaining, say, 80% of that benefit than losing it entirely. To say that "concessions now mean that Canada will get economically weaker" is unhelpful saber-rattling that looks past the fact that we truly do not have the leverage to back that play.
When negotiating with a much larger and more powerful economic partner, the goal should be to maximize national benefit, not to avoid every concession. Keeping most of a valuable relationship is preferable to risking major damage in pursuit of a perfect outcome. I fear we are getting caught up in this. I do understand the concerns regarding concessions becoming the next starting point. At some point you can say no. Whats that old saying my mom used to tell me. "You get what you get and you cant be upset." Then we pull up our our big boy pants and get to work on creating our leverage. right now we have preciousl little to hold up. The pain could be very real. maybe thats what we need is a hard spanking to get our attention, instead of all the performative chants.
Except no deal with Trump is binding. He’ll break it on a whim. Just as the EU.
That's definitely not something we need to like, but it's not something we have the leverage to refuse either so a mindset shift is needed. Accept that the "set it and forget it" deal is not coming back, and expect something more like an ongoing negotiation featuring lots of noise and small bits of iteration over time.
We need to meet our situation as it is rather than moan about how it has changed.
The immigration thing has been law since 2013 (at least). The Harper government did nothing about it either. To be fair to the Supreme Court, deportation IS a harsher consequence for a sentence than not getting deported. The problem is the bit where that resulting in a softer sentence can be unfair. Of course, part of why it's unfair is that deportation is supposed to be automatic for certain offences. Except, of course, that those offences are often a LOT broader than people think they are (I can find you law to say any breaking of the skin is an aggravated assault, for example. And a bruise that lasts two weeks is probably bodily harm. Both will result in deportation if convicted). In short, the problem is at least as much idiot parliamentarians going 'let's have this automatic consequence' without understanding what they're actually doing. There's a LOT of parts of the law like that.
Also, the bail system is not provably dysfunctional because nobody collects any data on it. That there are prominent examples of bad people getting bail does not necessarily mean the system's screwed up. If bad people don't get bail sometimes, it will almost certainly mean we are locking up people we should not be. I'm rather concerned this guy committed a sex assault on release and got released again, but you guys rather imply that him having bail at all given he had serious charges is the problem and...no. No it isn't. Though to be fair to the court for all we know his original offence was extremely minor.
Guys with lengthy criminal records and multiple charged incidents should not be getting bail. But it's not actually demonstrated that they consistently DO.
There are many things I would change about the Criminal Code and about the justice system. But it is not nearly as straightforward as people seem to think, nor is it very clear that any of the things the Liberals are trying to do (or any of the suggestions I've seen proposed) would actually do much, let alone not have pretty hard consequences for anyone who's charged and actually innocent.
Carney holds the energy hammer as leverage. A threatened export tax on oil, using the NEB, with tax revenue going back to the producing provinces (AB, SK, NL) and a threatened export tax on electricity, with the tax revenue going back to Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and BC should be supported with by the province and the public, should bring Trump to heel given the impacts on the MAGA people. Let him have a win on US booze, which Canadians won't buy even if it goes back on the shelves.
An export tax on oil and electricity? Ludicrous. We're already charging as much as we can get away with. A tax will just lower the price, so that the "tax included" price remains the same. Because where else we will sell oil or electricity?
Don, as an Albertan I can say that so, so, so many Elbownians want to use our energy as a weapon. It is in your genes to take advantage of the Prairies (and of course, NL) to the benefit of Central Canada and to our detriment.
It is absolutely astounding to me - but it shouldn't be - that you never consider putting your own industries at risk first.
So ......
First, put a ban on automotive exports, including parts, etc. Further, put either export bans or export taxes on softwood lumber, electricity and just general manufactured products.
Then and only then come to us about using energy as a weapon.
Banning or taxing automotive exports would cause much more disruption in America much more rapidly than doing the same to oil or electricity. Because autos and parts are not commodities.
As a second generation born Albertan with family in the province, but now living in Ontario, I agree that this should be used as a last resort. It would be a major threat, as price can be changed with immediate effect, while reorganizing suppliers takes years.
With respect, and without malice, I do not think it is the best idea to punish or anger the American people.
This is not said out of obsequiousness, but out of hoping we do not make a bad situation worse.
This was really good punditry and commentary.
I predict that the current trade negotiations will fail to reach an agreement, and that Trump's tariffs will go into effect Wednesday. I predict that Canada will impose counter-tariffs. I predict that Trump will impose counter-counter tariffs, Will Canada then impose counter-counter-counter tariffs? Cool.
Can we perhaps use energy as a lever? If we do, would Trump cut Line 5 from Michigan to Ontario? If he did, what would central Canada do? Start building a pipeline from Alberta to central Canada?
Yes, Canada has made some concessions already, but they are pretty minor ones. And so far, Canada has done well on Trump's tariffs relative to what has happened to other countries. Will our relatively favourable treatment continue? We shall see.
That said, I appreciate the position adopted by The Line. Patriotism is good. Willingness to sacrifice is good. Trump's power may be destroyed by the mid-term elections. Canadians may unite for once. Again, we shall see.
MOST of what Canadians are counting as "concessions we have already made" were actually NOT concessions at all, and would more accurately be described as walking back wrong-headed Liberal policy mistakes.
The Digital Services Tax, for example, was 100% Liberal hubris writ large. Before ramming this legislation through they were clearly warned that it would all end poorly - but Canadians seem to forget just how eager the Trudeau Liberals were to be seen as poking the USA in the eye on such matters.
...how convenient that Trump came along, which now allows PM Carney to reverse these ridiculous policies and blame it all on the Orange Meanie.
What is your reply to Canadians who feel they have sacrificed enough?