Totally accept the premise of a generational shift with a country that is no longer reliable and can be actively hostile. Different people will come to this realization in their own way. Usually painfully. And, the disentangling needs to be done carefully. Geography will remain but no longer will be the determinant it once was.
I couldn’t agree more wholeheartedly with Mr Quinn’s assessment. Too many, particularly on the right, have failed to understand the seismic shift in our relationship with the United States.
I’m not entirely sure on the F-35 issue, but even in military terms, the old-school fetishism about fighter jets piloted by macho jet jockeys makes less and less sense in a world where hostile air defences are widely available. In other words, forget about (our legitimate) political war with the United States. This 26-year-old “fifth-generation” design may be past its best-before date.
As for Alberta, well.
It is certainly the case that the MAGATS have been supporting separatists in the province. Canadians (and, again, Conservatives in particular) who pretend that it is not so are deluding themselves.
I mean, good that The Line publishes this, but this line of thinking is very much not accepted in the business community. Strong opinion of the C-suite (and these are the people who have Carney’s ear) is that thinking we can decouple in any meaningful way from the U.S. is a delusion, a hallmark of immature thinking.
The implication of course is that we’re going to be a satrapy, if the U.S. wants that. And that that’s a better outcome than defiance and (relative) impoverishment. Especially if you’re a partisan who is furious that the LPC never got their historic defeat in 2025 as a renunciation of everything Trudeau Jr did, and so there’s more than a bit of a view that “the U.S. is going in the right direction now, and defiance just keeps entrenching Liberal progressive decline in Canada”
We're buying 30 F35s. I wouldn't buy any more. I'd buy Gripens. They aren't perfect, but they'll be ours. And with F35 availability still sucking, we could at least put something in the air. We need to get rid of supply management to increase our foreign trade (I don't care what Fairlife tries to sell here, I'm not buying American dairy at any price). I really don't care what Premier's toes get stepped on. We need a government with a backbone, not one of appeasement of anyone.
I would love to see some legal opinions on what the separatist provinces would get to keep if they left. I think that might be eye-opening for both sides. It certainly would be nice to know. Imagine Alberta losing Fort McMurray, or Quebec losing its dams.....a whole new calculus.....
Ignore Geography at our peril. Trump is a bump on the horizon. Just over 2 yrs from now he will be gone. In many cases I believe we are authors of our own misfortune. We managed to get rid Trudeau but hired a banker when we needed a boxer. Which Trudeau wasn’t
either. I do not want an Iran with nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles. If the roles were reversed do you think Carney would deal with Iran. In many ways Trump is exactly what the world needed. Buy European at your peril. If the shit hits the fan and we are tied to Europe use your imagination.
Donald Trump is a temporary aberration. His time will end and with that end will come the opportunity to create a new beginning in the long term relationship between our two countries. One that is beneficial to both parties on this continent. Our best interests most assuredly do not exist in forming stronger relationships with China.
The joint project with various European nations for a new generation fighter is great in theory but the administrative friction of making progress is not for the faint hearted. Each country, no huge surprise, will want its portion of the pie, preferably more than its portion, and the squabbles will be endless. It can work but the odds are against it. Canada has a reputation of talking a good game in these matters but usually delivers very little at day's end. Note, we're not 'in', we're 'observing'. Now that's commitment for you.
Secondarily, while one hopes that a post-Trump America will be less mercurial (I'm being polite), the cost of his administration is the near total destruction of trust. While everyone understands national interest one also likes to think that fair dealing and consistency are part of the equation when making deals and arrangements on this or that. At present, Trump's word is utterly without meaning in any ordinary sense and so what he commits to today might be overturned tomorrow. Even nice solid contracts such as with the Gordy Howe Bridge was worthless at day's end - a bridge needed by both sides, agreed to terms, built and then rubbished. I note that Trump is learning the unpleasant reality of zero trust with his futile discussions with Iran - schadenfreude, while unworthy and unhelpful for our wider interests, is almost impossible not to feel.
All said, the destruction of the assumptions about the old world order is something we will all miss and will have to accommodate. A transactional relationship with the US as opposed to a shared future will take getting used to but the longest journey starts with a single step. Onward.
And, yes, Gripens make sense for us. Not F35s - this aircraft is a maintenance nightmare, relatively low availability, single engine, requiring sophisticated bases. Essentially the opposite of the Gripen.
It's great that Canada joined the GCAP program, but we still need to get through until they're available. Assuming the timelines are met and deliveries start in 2035, and a partner Canada likely won't get deliveries for a few years after that. The CF-18s are quickly burning through the last of their useful life. By 2030 or so, they're going to be unusable. So we probably need something to plug the gap from about 2030 to the early 2040s.
Ideally, this would not be the F-35 for political reasons. The problem is nothing else is really available.
The most talked about alternative - the Gripen both needs US approval before they can be sold, and has an order book that will keep them busy into the mid 2030s anyway. There may be an option to work out something creative: we do a secret deal with Saab to get our orders in first, and hope the Democrats win the 2028 election and will approve the sale and then we can get them delivered starting 2029. That would actually be a good solution, but it's a delicate needle to thread. Depends a lot on everyone else being willing to accommodate us. I think any realistic path forward on the Gripen has to have a viable contingency for the possibility that it may never happen.
Rafale can perhaps be acquired without US approval, though they have a full order book too. It may work if we start now, but if it takes 3 years to switch from Gripen to Rafale, it probably doesn't work time-wise.
We are already in contract for some F-35s. We could slow roll buying more and make do with a genuinely minimal air force for the better part of a decade, and then fill in with GCAP. That would leave us really unable to do anything except the bare minimum for at least a decade though, more if the GCAP program runs into any delays.
But looking at the options, I think we're probably stuck between an F-35 with all the political discomfort that entails, or a dramatically reduced air force for an extended period of time. The 20 year saga of delaying the order for political reasons has used up all our options to delay this far.
Totally accept the premise of a generational shift with a country that is no longer reliable and can be actively hostile. Different people will come to this realization in their own way. Usually painfully. And, the disentangling needs to be done carefully. Geography will remain but no longer will be the determinant it once was.
Oh good. We can now stop consuming American TV and film content while hating all things culturally Canadian
I couldn’t agree more wholeheartedly with Mr Quinn’s assessment. Too many, particularly on the right, have failed to understand the seismic shift in our relationship with the United States.
I’m not entirely sure on the F-35 issue, but even in military terms, the old-school fetishism about fighter jets piloted by macho jet jockeys makes less and less sense in a world where hostile air defences are widely available. In other words, forget about (our legitimate) political war with the United States. This 26-year-old “fifth-generation” design may be past its best-before date.
As for Alberta, well.
It is certainly the case that the MAGATS have been supporting separatists in the province. Canadians (and, again, Conservatives in particular) who pretend that it is not so are deluding themselves.
I mean, good that The Line publishes this, but this line of thinking is very much not accepted in the business community. Strong opinion of the C-suite (and these are the people who have Carney’s ear) is that thinking we can decouple in any meaningful way from the U.S. is a delusion, a hallmark of immature thinking.
The implication of course is that we’re going to be a satrapy, if the U.S. wants that. And that that’s a better outcome than defiance and (relative) impoverishment. Especially if you’re a partisan who is furious that the LPC never got their historic defeat in 2025 as a renunciation of everything Trudeau Jr did, and so there’s more than a bit of a view that “the U.S. is going in the right direction now, and defiance just keeps entrenching Liberal progressive decline in Canada”
We're buying 30 F35s. I wouldn't buy any more. I'd buy Gripens. They aren't perfect, but they'll be ours. And with F35 availability still sucking, we could at least put something in the air. We need to get rid of supply management to increase our foreign trade (I don't care what Fairlife tries to sell here, I'm not buying American dairy at any price). I really don't care what Premier's toes get stepped on. We need a government with a backbone, not one of appeasement of anyone.
I would love to see some legal opinions on what the separatist provinces would get to keep if they left. I think that might be eye-opening for both sides. It certainly would be nice to know. Imagine Alberta losing Fort McMurray, or Quebec losing its dams.....a whole new calculus.....
Canada could use the upcoming decisions on purchasing more F-35s as an incentive to reduce tariffs that the USA has imosed on Canadian exports.
Nah. Trump's signature isn't worth the paper it's printed on, so any agreement will Art of the Dealed away in a month.
Best to build/buy the best package (in terms of cost, technology IP, security, etc etc) with those who respect an ally and a contract.
Ignore Geography at our peril. Trump is a bump on the horizon. Just over 2 yrs from now he will be gone. In many cases I believe we are authors of our own misfortune. We managed to get rid Trudeau but hired a banker when we needed a boxer. Which Trudeau wasn’t
either. I do not want an Iran with nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles. If the roles were reversed do you think Carney would deal with Iran. In many ways Trump is exactly what the world needed. Buy European at your peril. If the shit hits the fan and we are tied to Europe use your imagination.
Donald Trump is a temporary aberration. His time will end and with that end will come the opportunity to create a new beginning in the long term relationship between our two countries. One that is beneficial to both parties on this continent. Our best interests most assuredly do not exist in forming stronger relationships with China.
Couple of things...
The joint project with various European nations for a new generation fighter is great in theory but the administrative friction of making progress is not for the faint hearted. Each country, no huge surprise, will want its portion of the pie, preferably more than its portion, and the squabbles will be endless. It can work but the odds are against it. Canada has a reputation of talking a good game in these matters but usually delivers very little at day's end. Note, we're not 'in', we're 'observing'. Now that's commitment for you.
Secondarily, while one hopes that a post-Trump America will be less mercurial (I'm being polite), the cost of his administration is the near total destruction of trust. While everyone understands national interest one also likes to think that fair dealing and consistency are part of the equation when making deals and arrangements on this or that. At present, Trump's word is utterly without meaning in any ordinary sense and so what he commits to today might be overturned tomorrow. Even nice solid contracts such as with the Gordy Howe Bridge was worthless at day's end - a bridge needed by both sides, agreed to terms, built and then rubbished. I note that Trump is learning the unpleasant reality of zero trust with his futile discussions with Iran - schadenfreude, while unworthy and unhelpful for our wider interests, is almost impossible not to feel.
All said, the destruction of the assumptions about the old world order is something we will all miss and will have to accommodate. A transactional relationship with the US as opposed to a shared future will take getting used to but the longest journey starts with a single step. Onward.
And, yes, Gripens make sense for us. Not F35s - this aircraft is a maintenance nightmare, relatively low availability, single engine, requiring sophisticated bases. Essentially the opposite of the Gripen.
It's great that Canada joined the GCAP program, but we still need to get through until they're available. Assuming the timelines are met and deliveries start in 2035, and a partner Canada likely won't get deliveries for a few years after that. The CF-18s are quickly burning through the last of their useful life. By 2030 or so, they're going to be unusable. So we probably need something to plug the gap from about 2030 to the early 2040s.
Ideally, this would not be the F-35 for political reasons. The problem is nothing else is really available.
The most talked about alternative - the Gripen both needs US approval before they can be sold, and has an order book that will keep them busy into the mid 2030s anyway. There may be an option to work out something creative: we do a secret deal with Saab to get our orders in first, and hope the Democrats win the 2028 election and will approve the sale and then we can get them delivered starting 2029. That would actually be a good solution, but it's a delicate needle to thread. Depends a lot on everyone else being willing to accommodate us. I think any realistic path forward on the Gripen has to have a viable contingency for the possibility that it may never happen.
Rafale can perhaps be acquired without US approval, though they have a full order book too. It may work if we start now, but if it takes 3 years to switch from Gripen to Rafale, it probably doesn't work time-wise.
We are already in contract for some F-35s. We could slow roll buying more and make do with a genuinely minimal air force for the better part of a decade, and then fill in with GCAP. That would leave us really unable to do anything except the bare minimum for at least a decade though, more if the GCAP program runs into any delays.
But looking at the options, I think we're probably stuck between an F-35 with all the political discomfort that entails, or a dramatically reduced air force for an extended period of time. The 20 year saga of delaying the order for political reasons has used up all our options to delay this far.