Having intelligent conversations based on facts, is at least, an encouraging starting point. Thank you for this thoughtful discussion. In my experience, until a few years ago most Canadians were oblivious to the real state of affairs in our country and especially select fellow boomers. It is a lot harder now when a homeless person steals their Bar B Q propane tank to likely heat their tent or half of the Tim Hortons employees are elderly ladies who clearly aren't working there for the fun of it.
Really enjoyed this episode, can’t say I’m feeling better about things, but it was very insightful for me, nice to listen to some intelligent conversations
Long time listener to you Matt keep up the good work
Thank you for provoking thought in your podcast today. I really like the idea of having regional locations for ministries which operate jointly between provinces and the federal government. Why does Culture and Heritage always have a minister from Quebec? I love travelling to La Belle Province but I enjoy hanging out in St. Boniface as well. French heritage exists in other provinces but the appointments never show that.
I wonder if you and Mr. Bricker notice that more Canadians are agitated by line items in the federal budget which show:
money given to wealthy foreign countries for unknown reason;
money given to advance gender issues in foreign countries;
money given to leaders within immigrant populations which find their way into funding anti-Canadian demonstrations;
concern about immigrants receiving a more generous level of healthcare, housing and food than do Canadians who paid taxes and contributed to Canadian society for decades;
immigrants who were rejected for entry into Canada continuing to receive financial support;
failure to apprehend those who enter Canada illegally.
Thank you Matt and Darrell - very scarifying. After I change my drawers, I am going to watch that Star Trek TNG episode where they battle autonomous drones on the planet whose inhabitants were killed by said autonomous drones that keep adapting every 5 minutes to become more deadly. Maybe I can pick up some survival tips.
But please do keep on this topic as eventually Canadians will have to start taking these threats seriously, if they want there to be a Canada in any recognizable form.
I've just gotten to the part where you guys are talking about hypersonic weapons, and I have to stop and point out that you're getting sucked in by a *lot* of hype regarding their capabilities.
Yes, they're different from ballistic missiles in that they fly lower, can follow different trajectories, and have some maneuverability. However, here's the thing: they still have to fly relatively high or else they'll melt, they're still significantly slower than ballistic missiles and are much, much more complex devices to achieve anything like the same range or payload. Finally, the maneuverability ain't what it's cracked up to be.
Let's posit a hypersonic vehicle flying at Mach 10 at 80,000 ft, kind of like Tom Cruise's fictional Darkstar from "Top Gun: Maverick". That's a speed of 2,980 m/s. If you remember your high school physics, consider the formula for centripetal acceleration: a = v^2/r, where a = acceleration m/s², v = velocity in m/s, and r = radius of the turn in m.
A conventional air-to-air missile used in air combat is capable of pulling a 30 g turn. They've got a pretty rugged structure, but let's say our hypersonic vehicle can do the same thing. That gives a turn radius of *30 km*.
Let's look at another more realistic example: the hypersonic X-15 rocket plane from the 1960s. A ruggedly built experimental plane, it had a structural load limit of 7.33 g. That turn radius is *124 km*.
We haven't even touched on the problem of the ability of the vehicle to sustain a turn as it starts bleeding energy due to the drag of maneuvering, the impact of maneuvering on the function of the propulsion system (it's hard enough to light a scramjet under nominal conditions - an inlet unstart due to disrupted airflow would be interesting...), or the thermal loads imposed on the structure.
Organizations like DARPA have looked at defense against hypersonic missiles: it's a more complicated problem, more demanding because the interceptors need more cross-range capability, but hypersonics aren't magic. They also don't change the calculus of mutual assured destruction if they're armed with nuclear weapons: nobody can *reliably* stop a large ICBM barrage either, and Moscow or Beijing will be just as dead if that weapon is lofted by a ballistic weapon or a hypersonic one.
The other thing about hypersonics is that they are hyper expensive. One of the main reasons to be wary of them is that you end up with a choice of one hypersonic, 10-20 long range subsonic missiles, or dozens to hundreds of drones depending on the specific type. The cost means you end up with a very shallow magazine and just can’t do much with them.
Great podcast. Far more measured than the recent anti-American diatribes.
"A sovereign country is a country that has the ability to enforce its rule over its own territory...".
Except we will never be capable of defending 3 coast lines and the ~6,416 km we share with the US. So get a grip.
Will look for the book, but Quebec leaving Confederation would solve many problems and likely torpedo Alberta's separatist movement. Unfortunately, the LPC will always prioritize its voting base over the health of the nation.
Still waiting for The Line to address the real existential threat to Confederation. Strange how it is being discussed in the US rather than here.
Whilst I regard myself as fairly rational, I do find, in the Age of Trump, that it's increasingly difficult not to see conspiracies here and there. The NSS openly reincarnates the Monroe Doctrine. The U.S. scraps sanctions with Belarus that will specifically allow access to Belarusian potash (potentially offsetting future tariffs on ours?) and Trump is focused on remaking Venezuela, potentially allowing the increased flow of their heavy oil to gulf coast refineries designed to process it (and located somewhat closer than Alberta), negating the U.S.'s current dependency on Western Canadian Select used in its place. The U.S.'s proposed ‘peace’ with Russia would potentially offset current U.S, dependency on a wide range of Canadian minerals. Yikes. If Trump wanted to increase U.S. leverage over Canada, this seems an ideal way to proceed. And we seem to be sleepwalking into the future. We will never be the 51st State, but maybe something worse?
Incompetent,entitled,gold standard pension. That’s the federal government employees and managers. Young men and women are more aware of this than boomers care to admit. The quality of service is horrendous. The Prime Minuster talks a good game,talk doesn’t pay the bills or win any games. Liberal party says that Piollievre is playing silly political stunts. They are very adept at pointing fingers,not remotely good at getting anything done,for the good of the country. Only out for themselves,is Pierre any better I wonder?
Thank you for this. I like Daryl Bricker a lot (and I've actually interacted with him in other contexts).
The observation about Trump "doing it for us" if we don't get our house in order was unsettling. My reading of Trump is that he really doesn't care that much about Canada. But he is inclined to bully those whom he doesn't respect...
Nonetheless, I think that many around him might have more threatening ideas in mind. And would like to see those implemented, not because they are bullies, but because they believe in things like "manifest destiny".
As has often been the case of late, I strongly agree with Matt Gurney's assessment of Canadian complacency. It is a huge problem.
As for Ottawa, well. I think that reducing the federal public service by 16,000 (or 40,000) is not enough. We have to rethink it.
Accountability is a must. As is efficiency and a sober assessment of what we can get rid of (or reduce in expense). I'me even of the view that this should include a reduction in OAS.
The one thing I haven't heard you or anyone else speak of is tax reform. I think our system is riddled with too many loopholes. I also happen to believe that the Harper government's decision to reduce the GST to five percent was a huge mistake.
We need the extra revenues and, in my view, raising the GST is the best way to collect them.
AC, truly, truly, I mean no disrespect but, unfortunately - even though I agree with all that you say - those tired old bromides will a) not occur; and b) are not nearly sufficient to pull this country out of it's death spiral.
Now, as for "Trump doing it for us" I think that you didn't quite get the reference sufficiently. Think of DJT's comments on Greenland and how he has/is threatening to just take over the territory. In Canada's case, he doesn't need to take us over using military force because, as he noted, he can simply use his economic force [Tariffs anyone? How about more tariffs? How about forcing - e.g. Chrysler - plants to relocate from Canada to the US? And so on and so forth.] to get what he wants. Using the military is messy and costly whereas using economic force is so much "easier." So, Trump will do what he wishes in America's interest (as he sees it) and we will be left with scraps and ultimately forced into the necessary (but too late) fixes.
I above used the phrase "death spiral" to describe Canada and I absolutely stand by it. I do believe Canada is on it's last legs. I absolutely believe that Quebec will be gone reasonably soon and I really, really, really hope that my province of Alberta sees that, notwithstanding the recent MOU, Canada is not going to work out for us and we also have to leave. Please don't misunderstand: it is not that I WANT to go but rather that I believe that we are FORCED to go. We are being forced out by those in Canada who hate our main industry and we are being forced out by those who are causing the death spiral.
Oh, as a retired accountant I absolutely believe that the tax system is an abomination. It won't be reformed as there is too much inertia and too little political will for that to occur. You can blame Harper for reducing the GST but it was a reasonable economic thing to do at the time; all the spending and expansion of the federal government since Harper has irreparably changed things and is simply part of the death spiral.
Thank you for writing "my" excellent answer to AC for me. I strongly disagree with AC on the GST.
a) if Harper did not drop the GST, the Trudeauist "Liberals" would simply have a bigger pool on savings to waste, because waste it they would. (look at Carney's budget of pixie dust, to say it very mildly).
b) I am absolutely against raising the GST. Repeal the 9 bad laws ( Danielle Smith's very polite words) AND repeal the laws Carney enacted FIRST. Stop strangling oil and gas development.
Could there be a limited time, specific purpose GST which would give the extra shot of money to start paying for increasing defense spending? It would stop being collected after a pre-determined date.
Giving a Liberal government additional money is a temptation for them to spend on other, not targeted, money give-aways from the Trudeau era.
The MOU signed by Ottawa and Edmonton was, I thought, a very good signal of the Carney government’s willingness to meet the Smith government halfway. Premier Smith also made concessions.
WRT the GST, it ought to be raised, if we are serious about all of the extra defence spending the government has have pledged to undertake.
As for US power and its ability in particular to use discriminatory economic policies to bring us to heel, well, that may be a battle between a wolf pup and a tiger (them). However, do not underestimate our ability to work with other countries (the EU “big three”, for example) to indulge in reprisals that would hurt the Americans.
Four (or more) “wolf pups” could give even the biggest tiger reason to reconsider.
I “want” NONE of this.
But I believe that we WILL defend ourselves. And if Carney’s government won’t do it, well, governments can still be replaced in our country.
"An entire system of 'no'." The absolutely perfect encapsulation of this country in five words.
Having intelligent conversations based on facts, is at least, an encouraging starting point. Thank you for this thoughtful discussion. In my experience, until a few years ago most Canadians were oblivious to the real state of affairs in our country and especially select fellow boomers. It is a lot harder now when a homeless person steals their Bar B Q propane tank to likely heat their tent or half of the Tim Hortons employees are elderly ladies who clearly aren't working there for the fun of it.
More Bricker! that was excellent!
Really enjoyed this episode, can’t say I’m feeling better about things, but it was very insightful for me, nice to listen to some intelligent conversations
Long time listener to you Matt keep up the good work
Thank you for provoking thought in your podcast today. I really like the idea of having regional locations for ministries which operate jointly between provinces and the federal government. Why does Culture and Heritage always have a minister from Quebec? I love travelling to La Belle Province but I enjoy hanging out in St. Boniface as well. French heritage exists in other provinces but the appointments never show that.
I wonder if you and Mr. Bricker notice that more Canadians are agitated by line items in the federal budget which show:
money given to wealthy foreign countries for unknown reason;
money given to advance gender issues in foreign countries;
money given to leaders within immigrant populations which find their way into funding anti-Canadian demonstrations;
concern about immigrants receiving a more generous level of healthcare, housing and food than do Canadians who paid taxes and contributed to Canadian society for decades;
immigrants who were rejected for entry into Canada continuing to receive financial support;
failure to apprehend those who enter Canada illegally.
The rail service between Calgary and Banff is a perfect example of the Federal Government saying ‘No’ for 20 years now.
Thank you Matt and Darrell - very scarifying. After I change my drawers, I am going to watch that Star Trek TNG episode where they battle autonomous drones on the planet whose inhabitants were killed by said autonomous drones that keep adapting every 5 minutes to become more deadly. Maybe I can pick up some survival tips.
But please do keep on this topic as eventually Canadians will have to start taking these threats seriously, if they want there to be a Canada in any recognizable form.
I've just gotten to the part where you guys are talking about hypersonic weapons, and I have to stop and point out that you're getting sucked in by a *lot* of hype regarding their capabilities.
Yes, they're different from ballistic missiles in that they fly lower, can follow different trajectories, and have some maneuverability. However, here's the thing: they still have to fly relatively high or else they'll melt, they're still significantly slower than ballistic missiles and are much, much more complex devices to achieve anything like the same range or payload. Finally, the maneuverability ain't what it's cracked up to be.
Let's posit a hypersonic vehicle flying at Mach 10 at 80,000 ft, kind of like Tom Cruise's fictional Darkstar from "Top Gun: Maverick". That's a speed of 2,980 m/s. If you remember your high school physics, consider the formula for centripetal acceleration: a = v^2/r, where a = acceleration m/s², v = velocity in m/s, and r = radius of the turn in m.
A conventional air-to-air missile used in air combat is capable of pulling a 30 g turn. They've got a pretty rugged structure, but let's say our hypersonic vehicle can do the same thing. That gives a turn radius of *30 km*.
Let's look at another more realistic example: the hypersonic X-15 rocket plane from the 1960s. A ruggedly built experimental plane, it had a structural load limit of 7.33 g. That turn radius is *124 km*.
We haven't even touched on the problem of the ability of the vehicle to sustain a turn as it starts bleeding energy due to the drag of maneuvering, the impact of maneuvering on the function of the propulsion system (it's hard enough to light a scramjet under nominal conditions - an inlet unstart due to disrupted airflow would be interesting...), or the thermal loads imposed on the structure.
Organizations like DARPA have looked at defense against hypersonic missiles: it's a more complicated problem, more demanding because the interceptors need more cross-range capability, but hypersonics aren't magic. They also don't change the calculus of mutual assured destruction if they're armed with nuclear weapons: nobody can *reliably* stop a large ICBM barrage either, and Moscow or Beijing will be just as dead if that weapon is lofted by a ballistic weapon or a hypersonic one.
The other thing about hypersonics is that they are hyper expensive. One of the main reasons to be wary of them is that you end up with a choice of one hypersonic, 10-20 long range subsonic missiles, or dozens to hundreds of drones depending on the specific type. The cost means you end up with a very shallow magazine and just can’t do much with them.
Great podcast. Far more measured than the recent anti-American diatribes.
"A sovereign country is a country that has the ability to enforce its rule over its own territory...".
Except we will never be capable of defending 3 coast lines and the ~6,416 km we share with the US. So get a grip.
Will look for the book, but Quebec leaving Confederation would solve many problems and likely torpedo Alberta's separatist movement. Unfortunately, the LPC will always prioritize its voting base over the health of the nation.
Still waiting for The Line to address the real existential threat to Confederation. Strange how it is being discussed in the US rather than here.
For adults only.
https://www.thefp.com/p/this-land-is-not-your-land
Thank you. Gave me a little hope
Whilst I regard myself as fairly rational, I do find, in the Age of Trump, that it's increasingly difficult not to see conspiracies here and there. The NSS openly reincarnates the Monroe Doctrine. The U.S. scraps sanctions with Belarus that will specifically allow access to Belarusian potash (potentially offsetting future tariffs on ours?) and Trump is focused on remaking Venezuela, potentially allowing the increased flow of their heavy oil to gulf coast refineries designed to process it (and located somewhat closer than Alberta), negating the U.S.'s current dependency on Western Canadian Select used in its place. The U.S.'s proposed ‘peace’ with Russia would potentially offset current U.S, dependency on a wide range of Canadian minerals. Yikes. If Trump wanted to increase U.S. leverage over Canada, this seems an ideal way to proceed. And we seem to be sleepwalking into the future. We will never be the 51st State, but maybe something worse?
Incompetent,entitled,gold standard pension. That’s the federal government employees and managers. Young men and women are more aware of this than boomers care to admit. The quality of service is horrendous. The Prime Minuster talks a good game,talk doesn’t pay the bills or win any games. Liberal party says that Piollievre is playing silly political stunts. They are very adept at pointing fingers,not remotely good at getting anything done,for the good of the country. Only out for themselves,is Pierre any better I wonder?
Is Darryl a drummer? His kit was the backdrop for his pod-casting chair.
Thank you for this. I like Daryl Bricker a lot (and I've actually interacted with him in other contexts).
The observation about Trump "doing it for us" if we don't get our house in order was unsettling. My reading of Trump is that he really doesn't care that much about Canada. But he is inclined to bully those whom he doesn't respect...
Nonetheless, I think that many around him might have more threatening ideas in mind. And would like to see those implemented, not because they are bullies, but because they believe in things like "manifest destiny".
As has often been the case of late, I strongly agree with Matt Gurney's assessment of Canadian complacency. It is a huge problem.
As for Ottawa, well. I think that reducing the federal public service by 16,000 (or 40,000) is not enough. We have to rethink it.
Accountability is a must. As is efficiency and a sober assessment of what we can get rid of (or reduce in expense). I'me even of the view that this should include a reduction in OAS.
The one thing I haven't heard you or anyone else speak of is tax reform. I think our system is riddled with too many loopholes. I also happen to believe that the Harper government's decision to reduce the GST to five percent was a huge mistake.
We need the extra revenues and, in my view, raising the GST is the best way to collect them.
AC, truly, truly, I mean no disrespect but, unfortunately - even though I agree with all that you say - those tired old bromides will a) not occur; and b) are not nearly sufficient to pull this country out of it's death spiral.
Now, as for "Trump doing it for us" I think that you didn't quite get the reference sufficiently. Think of DJT's comments on Greenland and how he has/is threatening to just take over the territory. In Canada's case, he doesn't need to take us over using military force because, as he noted, he can simply use his economic force [Tariffs anyone? How about more tariffs? How about forcing - e.g. Chrysler - plants to relocate from Canada to the US? And so on and so forth.] to get what he wants. Using the military is messy and costly whereas using economic force is so much "easier." So, Trump will do what he wishes in America's interest (as he sees it) and we will be left with scraps and ultimately forced into the necessary (but too late) fixes.
I above used the phrase "death spiral" to describe Canada and I absolutely stand by it. I do believe Canada is on it's last legs. I absolutely believe that Quebec will be gone reasonably soon and I really, really, really hope that my province of Alberta sees that, notwithstanding the recent MOU, Canada is not going to work out for us and we also have to leave. Please don't misunderstand: it is not that I WANT to go but rather that I believe that we are FORCED to go. We are being forced out by those in Canada who hate our main industry and we are being forced out by those who are causing the death spiral.
Oh, as a retired accountant I absolutely believe that the tax system is an abomination. It won't be reformed as there is too much inertia and too little political will for that to occur. You can blame Harper for reducing the GST but it was a reasonable economic thing to do at the time; all the spending and expansion of the federal government since Harper has irreparably changed things and is simply part of the death spiral.
Thank you for writing "my" excellent answer to AC for me. I strongly disagree with AC on the GST.
a) if Harper did not drop the GST, the Trudeauist "Liberals" would simply have a bigger pool on savings to waste, because waste it they would. (look at Carney's budget of pixie dust, to say it very mildly).
b) I am absolutely against raising the GST. Repeal the 9 bad laws ( Danielle Smith's very polite words) AND repeal the laws Carney enacted FIRST. Stop strangling oil and gas development.
Could there be a limited time, specific purpose GST which would give the extra shot of money to start paying for increasing defense spending? It would stop being collected after a pre-determined date.
Giving a Liberal government additional money is a temptation for them to spend on other, not targeted, money give-aways from the Trudeau era.
We agree to disagree.
The MOU signed by Ottawa and Edmonton was, I thought, a very good signal of the Carney government’s willingness to meet the Smith government halfway. Premier Smith also made concessions.
WRT the GST, it ought to be raised, if we are serious about all of the extra defence spending the government has have pledged to undertake.
As for US power and its ability in particular to use discriminatory economic policies to bring us to heel, well, that may be a battle between a wolf pup and a tiger (them). However, do not underestimate our ability to work with other countries (the EU “big three”, for example) to indulge in reprisals that would hurt the Americans.
Four (or more) “wolf pups” could give even the biggest tiger reason to reconsider.
I “want” NONE of this.
But I believe that we WILL defend ourselves. And if Carney’s government won’t do it, well, governments can still be replaced in our country.