First, you acknowledge that Alberta feels aliennated from Canada, that Quebec basically holds us hostage yet you make the comment "Canada's ability to impose negotiations on Alberta" - impose??? Seems to me that is part of the issue - those in the elites in eastern Canada feel able to 'impose' on the west (include Saskatchewan in that model) yet these two provinces contribute (Alberta especially) to transfer payments to Quebec! Yet, Quebec manages to veto pipelines going east with impunity.
I believe the point should be that it is time to take a long hard look at Canada and how it is run and financed and decide if we are going to be a nation that works for the good of all or simply a collection of people with little on the go. We have the energy to run the world and yet we refuse to do anything other than stymie development.
As to a vassal country; look at your history and you will see that Canada was subservient to Britain until WWII when was was declared by Canada independently of Britain. We only really became independent after the war.
You give the feds credit for being "quick to respond" to the President's border and fentanyl concerns. The better question is why did we allow our borders and drug issues to get to the point where our neighboutr has to tell us to smarten up??? You can't believe that this issue suddenly appeared out of the blue yet our politicians, including Carney, continue to say that drugs and border issues aren't a problem just a bit of an issue and just look at Mexico, now there is a problem! Good fences make good neighbours and our fence has been allowed to deteriorate to the point where we accept just about anyone who can get to Canada, feed them, house them and then refuse to deport the criminals that are found amongst them.
The last point I would make is that you use the phrase, that Trump will be president for "presumably, four years" Presumably? Don't start trying to churn up the idea that he will declare himself dictator for life and expect reasonable people to swallow it. I don't like the president, I don,t like some of his policies but Canadians need to keep in mind that the people of the USA elected him and his party and we should stop commenting on his policies like we are somehow holier that he is in all respects. We have a lot of issues in Canada adn a lot of them are due to the current federal government and it is time we fixed things on our side of the fence instead of pointing fingers at the issues to the south.
The Alberta issue can't be overstated. A Liberal election victory will lead almost immediately to secession if Trump makes Alberta a halfway generous offer, and there will be nothing whatsoever that the remainder of Canada could do: Alberta pays our bills, and any kind of force would lead (rightly) to forcible annexation.
As for negotiation, we shouldn't make offers: we should only do what makes sense for Canada for ourselves. That includes cracking down on drug crime, Chinese influence, money laundering, and sketchy immigrants.
Thanks for your comments. I’ll only address one: Canada became autonomous in foreign and defence affairs 1926 at the Imperial
Conference. We then became autonomous in legislative matters with the Statute of Westminster 1931. The declaration of war in 1939 was a function of these developments.
@John Bower The point of this article was to ask us to define important changes in response to the turbulent times we are living in. Your comment seem say that we should not discuss whatever the Americans dish up. They too are experiencing turbulence and who knows where they will be next month, let alone in a few years. Many Canadians, throughout the country, are appalled by some of the things Trump and Musk are doing. One simple example: Donald Trump negotiated and signed the USMCA treaty eight years ago and now, presto, he scraps it. How does Canada deal with a neighbour like that? Why would any country sign a treaty with that country now?
One thing perhaps we can agree on. Canada needs to make some fundamental changes. After intense negotiations, the British colonies negotiated and created a grand vision of a coast-to-coast federal nation. In those days we were tiny clusters of population across a huge territory. Regional differences have been there since day one. At that time, Alberta did not exist. Oil sands were largely unknown. Quebec was already a foundational fact.
Today, both are important to our continued existence as a country.
To have a useful discussion, it doesn't make sense to start with "My issues are paramount and non-negotiable and everything else is trivial or utter garbage". We Canadians rose to the occasion to negotiate our differences 158 years ago and we built something remarkable. Can we not rise to that level again?
Insofar as drug seizures are concerned, we cannot make meaningful inroads in this regard, without changing the search & seizure provisions of the Criminal Code and using the notwithstanding clause to prevent judicial nullification. The probative value of the discovered drugs has to be given predominant weight and the importance of protecting the privacy rights of criminals has to be reduced. That is the unhappy tradeoff; and Parliament can and should make if it is truly serious. Or just accept that the social costs are tolerable because the rights of criminals are more important. That's a policy choice/tradeoff.
I totally agree with your last point. It's difficult to take seriously someone who obviously suffers from TDS.
Trump stealing the democracy / orange hitler / dictator for life is a fable that his opposition loves to repeat because they have nothing of substance to offer. It's literally a made-up fantasy.
Moreover, everything points to the fact that the American left were the ones undermining their own country for the last decade and a half and are now projecting big time onto Trump.
The Canadian left basically rehashes the same BS (see Freeland apocryphal story of a 4 year old worried about Trump invading - my money is on "Things that did not happen for $100"). All of that to distract for their abysmal record (I'm struggling to find a stronger word) and make us afraid of the Americans.
I ain't buying it, until tangible proof of the contrary. Anyone believing this drivel is brainwashed.
In juxtaposition to this article, I read The Bureau’s ‘The Carney-Trudeau Nexus: How Financial Elites from Davos & Beijing are Shaping Canada’s Next Election.’
The comparison has definitely clarified my position.
Very good analysis. But I would suggest that our biggest danger is internal, a lack of a realistic levelheaded understanding of our place on our continent and the world. The liberals, under the last Trump administration made us a vassal state, ok. But even a vassal state can negotiate. There is nothing inherently bad to being weak in the face of someone who is 10x bigger, but what is inherently bad is not knowing or understanding it. If you don’t understand the cards you are dealt, how can you possibly understand how to play them.
The Liberals made Canada economically weak and politically divided. The concentration on the US as an export market has been a challenge for a while. Perhaps if Feds hadn't destroyed the energy regulator to appease shallow, student politics caliber climate activists, Gateway and Energy East could have been used as leverage. Maybe the Feds should have caved on Supply Management in order to expedite trade deals with other countries. Most important, if the Liberals had expended as much effort on economic development as they did on identity, Canada might have been more resilient with less debt, lower taxes and higher GDP.
Supply management is a sacred cow that has already lost Canada a free trade deal with the UK; so I would be happier if I knew where the Conservatives stand in this regard. Because my recollection is that they supported a statutory prohibition on ever even talking about it in any bargaining with anyone. And of course the Quebec premier has said that while he might consider a pipeline across Quebec territory (which constitutionally is effortless), he would never concede to touching supply management. So there is an important trade off in play here.
Yes, I have no clue what magical hold this cartel has on our political class. It is like the mafia. I have started seeing supply management as shorthand to corruption. Not money corruption necessarily, but intellectual corruption, putting interest before country.
Supply management in Quebec is cultural and financial corruption. It was founded by people connected to the NY 5 families and they basically pushed it through by threatening Ministers with bodily harm. (Read up on it). It continues as a protection racket and Ottawa chooses to protect it even at the expense of Canada as a country.
Ontario is the linch pin of Canada, it is the "real Canada" and where most of English Canada lives. It will decide how Canada goes and so far it looks like it will choose Quebec over Alberta.
I know….i see it…they are not brutal enough. They don’t see that they can use Trump to beat Quebec down. I live in Quebec, so not very happy to see that, but we really need to come together and we don’t need a weak left flank that is Quebec.
Looking forward, we should redouble our efforts to produce the goods and services that other countries want (including oil, gas and derivatives!). The more we succeed, the less we will have to content ourselves with the bottom dollar our "good friends" to the south will offer us.
We need a leader who will build the team able to do this. I'm not confident that we'll find such a leader in the next election.
I agree. But to build pipelines and actually attract businesses, the Liberal Party would have to admit that Trudeau’s entire climate and O&G agenda was a mistake, never to be repeated. The odds of that happening? Slim to none, given that Carney literally wrote a book on his love for climate initiatives and the green economy.
Even if the CPC wins (if they can), businesses plan for decades, not election cycles. If the Liberals return and just reimpose the same restrictions, caps, and regulatory uncertainty, investors will have taken a loss for nothing. That’s why they won’t even try.
The Liberals killed Northern Gateway outright, didn’t even bother fighting for Energy East when Quebec objected, and let activists delay TMX into oblivion with endless court battles. Kinder Morgan walked—and so did the capital. Canada is now seen as a place where big projects go to die.
Read The Bureau’s ‘The Carney-Trudeau Nexus: How Financial Elites from Davos & Beijing are Shaping Canada’s Next Election.’ It spells it out clearly where Canada is headed.
I think they have done the thinking, they are just wedded to the current model they are willing to go down with the ship.
You have Stephan Harper saying that Canada needs to suck it up and let our children become poorer "for Canada."
Has anyone asked young people or immigrants if they are willing to do that?
Immigrants came here to be better off, not to defend an antiquated version of Canada. Heck, many came to Canada because they couldn't get into the US. Young people will just leave, after all what has Canada done for them.
If we wanted to be poorer, why wouldn't we at least do it where the climate was nicer and coat of living lower. Canada has to be wealthier than the US to make sense.
I know, it is insanity. But I am absolutely convinced that they have no clue what is going on. Not geopolitically, not why we are getting tarifs, they have no clue. And of course because they are losing their minds they sound completely insane. 5 minutes ago is was all generation fairness, now it is, we must hunker down and ….whatever they mean by this. They better wake up soon, this Trump derangement syndrome must pass quickly for all our sakes.
If you look at the Ekos polling, the young aren't buying it. The Liberal surge is an over 50 phenomenon. Their Canada is very different than that of the youth. They could afford homes, they found good jobs or made do with Gen X. They had their Tragically Hip and Expo 67 youth. What's the value proposition for Canadian youth in 2025?
There's a bit of a paradox in this piece in that it acknowledges that Canada isn't politically monolithic, but makes the assumption that the US *is*. I'm not convinced that Trump actually has the necessary internal political support to pursue a lot of his maximalist ambitions. Tariffs on Canadian trade hurts Americans too, and a lot of Trump's support in the 2024 election was related to bread & butter issues like the economy and inflation, not Manifest Destiny and pursuing political vendettas.
Conversely, I don't think the regional interests that might undermine Canadian national unity are quite as strong as supposed. If Danielle Smith tried to unilaterally declare Alberta independence, do you really suppose a majority of Albertans go along with it? Or, does the population of much of the province rise up in outrage, the Lieutenant Governor dismisses her, and the federal government move in to reassert authority with the Armed Forces units deployed in Alberta? Regional interests in much of Canada tend to be loud minorities or at most pluralities who've managed to attain outsized political influence by being the most motivated. As Quebec separatists have found out, their zeal for their most extreme ambitions usually fail to win the necessary public support.
I agree assuming the US is monolithic is just as lazy as assuming Canada is. Both sides are equally guilty. US people assume Canada is a frozen Tundra largely inhabited by Eskimos where they speak French, cut wood and ban guns. Canadians see Americans as rich gun toting yeehaw cowboys ready to steal their resources and daughters.
I heartily recommend American Nations by Colin Woodard for a great primer on North American regional cultures. It covers Canada too.
Smith wouldn't pursue realignment without holding a referendum. A clear majority would satisfy the requirements of the Clarity Act. The probability of either is low.
Sooooo ......., Doug, if Ottawer chose to ban export of our oil and gas to the U.S. and such a ban went on for, oh, say, six months with resulting unemployment of almost everyone in Alberta, what do you think that would do to the odds of a successful referendum?
This is a fantasy scenario. Banning exports of oil to the US would bring at least an equivalent response from the US. As all oil in Ontario and most of Quebec is imported via the US, central Canada would be without gasoline for cars and diesel for trucks within a couple weeks. Once people did walk through the snow to the grocery store there'd be no food for them to buy.
I think that you are right. We have a situation where wealth creation is geographically separated from where the most votes are and vote grubbing politicians have not caught up to that reality. BC and Alta and Sask do not dip into "equalization" but Quebec and even Ontario do...and of course the east coast. Once sovereignty association was recognized as a "thing" open to all provinces, and not just Quebec, we are in a different ball game. Although what might save us is that Trump is simply so mendacious and unreliable that doing a "deal" with him, is too risky. A guy who repudiates treaties or withdraws from agreements is not a very reliable economic partner.
I agree that Trump is - to be incredibly polite - unreliable. For that reason, Trump could start negotiating but it would have to be approved by Congress and signed into law for us to rely on it.
And don't forget someone like JD Vance would if anything continue with it. This isn't just a Trump thing, it's literally already written in their Constitution.
Still probably wouldn’t break 50%. For one thing, not everybody would be out of a job. For another, if such a policy were implemented, it’d be because of a catastrophic political failure on the part of the Alberta government, and they’d probably wind up out on their ass.
Revolutions and separatism rarely are decided by the plebes. The USSR didn't have a referendum and neither did Czechoslovakia. Heck, the Czechs and Slovaks found out watching TV it would split up.
If majority support was required for every major geopolitical move Canada would still be part of the British Empire.
Not sure about that. For example with the encouragement of Trudeau senior’s government thousands of Canadian carpetbaggers went to Quebec to vote no on their independence referendum. I can see a repeat of this with a lot of pro statehood people going to Alberta to vote for their side. Kind of like Liberal federal candidate selection being decided by bus loads of Chinese students brought in to vote on their anointed candidate….
Quebec, a perpetual 'have-not' province dependent on federal transfers, nearly left in 1995. Now take Alberta—the richest province in Canada (per capita). If Ottawa halted O&G exports to fight a tariff war, crippling AB's economy, Western separatist sentiment would explode—especially if Trump offered statehood.
Energy can't be used as retaliation and discussions as such are a waste of time beyond trying to inflame regional divisions.
All of the oil shipped eastwards passes through the US. Cutting off US exports means cutting off most of the supply to ON and QC.
Natural gas has two paths to reach Eastern Canada, one north of the Great Lakes and one to the south. Excess capacity existed on the northern path, but I am unsure how much of it is still online. Energy East proposed converting some of that capacity to move oil as it wasn't being used for natural gas. Eastern Canada now imports a substantial amount of its gas from the US as the Marcellus Shale is far closer than the Western Canadian Sedimentary basin. Attempts to restrain gas supply to the US would likely lead to retaliation holding back US produced gas heading into Eastern Canada. Rearchitecting North American gas flows could not happen quickly.
A similar situation exists with refined product. ON and QC are net importers of distillates. A petroleum trade war could cut off that supply.
Electricity trade is not as simple as it appears on the surface. While Canada is a net exporter, it does import at certain times of day, especially in ON. Recent droughts have made BC a substantial net importer.
Finally, as oil, natural gas and electricity are all natural resources under provincial jurisdiction, federal interference in exports would lead to court battles and massive internal division, not positions of strength when negotiating with the US.
I could see the Feds proposing an export tax on oil and gas, but not Liberal voting electricity, as a foolish alternative to physical export bans. Given market dynamics, most of the export tax would be born by producers instead of American consumers. While that would not increase leverage in a trade war, it would transfer money to the Feds from the western provinces, which is always part of the Liberal agenda.
Why hasn't anyone challenged Trump's ability to impose tariffs via EO? He has the authority to do so under provision of natural security, but fentanyl and migrant trafficking aren't clear threats. I'm sure Congress doesn't appreciate the Executive usurping its powers. The tariffs are also clear violations of NAFTA. Perhaps a better alternative to a trade war is a legal one. Entangling Trump in battles with Congress and various legal challenges would be pure Art of the Deal.
Doug, you note that the feds could place an export tax on oil and gas. True, but only to a limited extent. You accurately state that natural resources are under provincial jurisdiction in the Constitution. That same Constitution also prohibits one level of government from taxing another level of government; therefore, the feds cannot tax the province. Why, you ask, is that relevant?
We in Alberta own the oil (just use oil in this instance) that is underground. That oil is produced by the oil company pursuant to provincial legislation. Suppose that we in Alberta changed the relevant legislation to say that the oil company is our agent in lifting the oil and that the Crown retains title. Suppose further that that oil is allocated to the Crown through Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission and APMC sells directly to the American buyer but title does not transfer until the product crosses the border. [APMC could easily allow oil companies marketing arms to "subcontract" to APMC in negotiating sales.]
In that fashion, Alberta would own the oil until it was in the US and the feds would be prohibited from levying any export or similar taxes on that oil.
Of course, my thought experiment does not encompass freehold production but that is a truly minor part of the industry.
Under the IEEPA, Congress can end any so-called emergency (the basis for the tariffs) with a privilege motion (so can’t be filibustered). So far, it hasn’t done so.
Agree. I wrote my other reply on this issue prior to working my way down to this post. Re, EO's, I believe there are some legal challenges regarding his EO's, and Cda should support those to the extent it is able to do so. However, I'm not optimistic regarding the legal route. Trump is showing that he will fire gov't lawyers that can't be trusted to give legal advice he approves of and there is now talk by Musk of firing judges, however that would work. Putting all that aside, even with a win after months/years in court, there is no guarantee this Administration wouldn't just ignore any court ruling it doesn't like.
I have to mildly object: President Trump has never ignored a court ruling as President. He has fought lots of them, yes. His EO banning Muslim visitors during his first term went through several iterations before it was deemed constitutionally acceptable and only then enforced. It is one thing for him to appeal injunctions issued against his EOs like birthright citizenship -- that's how the U.S. system works. Quite another to imagine that he could use his private army to collect tariffs at the border that the Supreme Court had ruled were beyond his constitutional power to impose and had told US customs officers not to collect. Trump might well swear revenge (through causing a primary opposition in 2026) against any Republican congressman who bucks him on the tariff EO but again that's how the U.S. system works. At least a Republican congressman there *can* say anything against the President or even sue him. Try being a Government MP in Canada saying anything public against a dictatorial PM.
President Biden, on the other hand, did defy the courts that said his EO forgiving student debt was beyond his powers. He forgave the loans with taxpayer money anyway because it was the right thing to do (for his base) and so I'm gonna do it.
The disruptions in the Justice Dept. are unrelated to the ability of Congress using its own lawyers, or a lavishly funded NGO using *its* lawyers to challenge an Executive Order if it wants to. No one in the Executive has the authority to fire a federal judge. If Musk said that, he's trolling. Constitutional disputes between the Executive and the Legislative Branches are expedited through the courts and can go to the Supreme Court quite rapidly -- days even if it was an emergency as the tariffs are said to be. If Congress thinks the tariffs are a bad idea and wants to fight, we'll find out pretty quickly who's word is law. It wouldn't take months or years.
Agree completely. President Trump was nominated and elected the first time because the American people were fed up with being looked down upon and ignored by arrogant connected asshole elites (aka “Laurentians” in Canada) embodied by Hillary Clinton of “deplorable” and “fly-over country” fame. The second time he was elected because he was superb at communicating and understanding the needs of the average American people who wanted their dream back (immigrants, younger and first time voters etc.) The forces that brought this about will not go away when he finishes his second term.
Canada IMO is where the US was prior to President Trumps first term. And right now Canada seems to have a bunch of Hillaries vying to replace the current PM. It’s gotten to the point where-again IMO- the term “Canadian Dream” if it ever existed has become an oxymoron. I exclude immigrants who give up a lot to follow their dream but I suspect that their dream is generally more American than anything else.
Those elites are playing a game iyf chicken with Albertans, quite openly claiming that Alberta won't have the courage to leave an abusive relationship.
Time will tell. So far he’s keeping or trying to keep most of the promises that he made while campaigning. (Totally unCanadian, I know.)
Out of curiosity I checked and there are about 22 US $ million millionaires in the US, 8.5 % of the adult population. and they support both parties. I suspect somewhere between a 55-45 split. By contrast Canadian $US millionaires are 6.8 % of the adult populations, which would be quite a bit higher if measured $ CDN.
After saying he knew nothing about Project 2025.....and then implementing it directly. He's already actively trying to take the vote away from women. Am I on Candid Camera?
The proposed SAVE Act doesn't take away anyone's vote. It just makes it more difficult for married women to register to vote if they took their husband's name but don't have any government ID that proves their US citizenship in their married name. A passport would do but many Americans have no need for passports. Any woman can still register to vote. She just has to work at it if her birth certificate doesn't match her drivers licence. If she gets other bits of paper together to register, then she's good to go. Remember the idea that you have to show any ID at all to register or to vote seems to give liberals in the U.S. a case of hives.
The bill was introduced by a GOP Congressman, not by Trump. The President can't introduce a bill into the Congress because he doesn't have a seat there.
The purpose of the bill is, ostensibly, to crack down on non-citizens voting illegally, which liberals say doesn't happen, just like it doesn't happen that male criminals who say they are women get put in jail cells with women. The liberals agree with you that the real purpose is to suppress the female vote, which tilts Democrat. The hope, supposedly, is that a few percent fewer (married) women will bother to register to vote. But this doesn't seem like a good move for the GOP. Yes, more women over-all vote Dem but the GOP does pretty well with married women, whether they change their names or not. And more married GOP women take their husband's name, so this move would tend to suppress the GOP married women vote more, which seems counterproductive unless the GOP knows their women are more likely to have passports. A lot of Dem women and men are poor minorities who have trouble, it seems, scraping together any ID at all, so yes, this could be a win for the GOP if they give up the paper chase and don't register.
The group of women voters you really want to suppress are the *un*married women, the single childless cat ladies who vote overwhelmingly Democrat. But the SAVE Act wouldn't touch them at all. So I'm kind of skeptical that SAVE really is a voter-suppression tool aimed at women. At minorities, maybe. If it really would tend to suppress the GOP vote as a side-effect of preventing non-citizens from trying to vote, likely the bill will be allowed to die and not pass. It doesn't do what you seem to think it will.
Wow. Trump is the GOP. And it is well known that there is no serious issue with voter fraud in the US; see Barer's comments in 2020. Denialism of reality at its very best. Steps in a journey.....
America and Canada are family, we live together, share fundamental values and largely work together to our mutual benefit. Trump is a bully who has challenged our family ties and seeks to dominate for his benefit. The only effective response to any bully is through strength, physically and mentally. Canada needs to grow stronger both physically and mentally. We need a stronger sense of national conviction, a robust and growing economy and the ability to defend ourselves both within the family and without. So stop squabbling over who owns Canada, (we do), develop our resources, and build a military focussed on protecting our homeland.
He isn't a bully when he holds a gun to your head. That's where we are with Trump. You beg or plead. Good thing is that Trump and his people aren't the most focused or bright so hopefully they can be tricked into letting us go.
I really wish mainstream Canadians had more street smarts than what they witnessed watching John Hughes movies as a kid.
The Art of the Deal reveals that Trump uses bluster and BS as tools to create an atmosphere of noise and confusion in negotiations. It is intended to keep the other party off balance and reacting rather than initiating. Remaining calm and focused on your own strengths is essential. Of course it helps if you actually have some strengths.
One needs to look no further than the current polling in Canada showing a resurgence of the liberal party if lead by an untested and unelected Mark Carney. Even Canadians don’t take their country seriously. If the last 9 1/2 years of inept, incompetent, irresponsible, divisive, hateful liberal rule hasn’t deterred Canadians from supporting the liberals then this country is already doomed anyway. This clearly shows people aren’t paying attention and are only interested in getting “free stuff” from the nanny state regardless of the cost to the nation. This is unsustainable and will in itself cause the implosion of the nation. RIP Canada.
Look at their coalition. It's a band of takers, not makers. Ben Franklin called it 200+ years ago, democracy only works until people figure out they can vote for free stuff for themselves.
Apathy and selfishness are hallmarks of Canadian society. Unfortunately, Canadians went from doers, hard working, selfless and generous to their fellow citizens to insular city dwellers. How do we build a society that actually and sincerely cares and wants to move forward in a productive way? I don't know. We need to borrow from our American neighbours and become more patriotic, I just don't know if Canadians have it in them.
Which is why the Founding Fathers worked so hard at designing the Republic as not a democracy. The people can vote out the government (legislature and executive) but they have very little role in actually running it or making policy. And when you consider that when Franklin expressed his fear of democracy, the only people who could vote were male property owners who you would think had enough skin in the game to not make foolish decisions with the Treasury. When you think about who votes now....
I like the term Matt Gurney put out some time ago and that is we have become a ‘giftocracy’. Too many voters are more concerned about what a party I’d going to give them than the state of the country.
"Oil and gas exports to the United States are the lifeblood of the Alberta economy, and imposing an export tax or even embargo on those resources would significantly impact Albertans."
Given that those O&G exports fund all of the interprovincial equalization payments this statement is borderline stupid. It would significantly impact every province east of Ontario, Quebec most of all. That's why Alberta looks south with some hope. Alberta can either continue to be a slave to Quebec or a rock hard competitor in the USA. Can Canada offer it a better option? It's well past time we grew up.
Quebec sees the national interest as Quebec's interests. It is perfectly willing to let the rest of Canada suffer for its needs, and this has been shown time and time again.
Alberta doesn't trust Ottawa as much as it doesn't trust Washington. Perhaps even more.
Immigrants and young people are not nearly as gung ho about Canada as old stock boomers are. Polling is showing this as is social media. Once the boomers are gone Canada will be a very different place, the only question is how.
In the end young people and Albertans especially need a value proposition to stay in Canada. Fear of change, inertia and "because Canada is awesome" isn't enough for national unity. Especially when the Americans start turning the screws, which I still doubt will happen in a significant way.
This whole episode reminds me of high school. My mother said "study more, you'll do better in life". My response was to impolitely ask her to leave me alone. In retrospect I think I would have turned out better if I had shown some humility and then tried harder for self-improvement. Now I see Canada playing me showing no humility. Trump playing my mother saying shape up and being villanized and scapegoated for his efforts And the future for Canada - more of the same underachievemement mooching off the US. OY VEY.
An entertaining and menacing scenario. It demonstrates the degree to which the people we've elected have failed us. No military, no energy for energy, Quebec a non-partner, a "post nation" image projected--and accepted--by ourselves, polarization in multiple directions and a financial condition worthy of the worst bankrupt. With a population so frozen in fear of Trump that they cannot bring themselves to discuss him rationally.
Many good points in this article, for which I’m thankful to The Line for publishing. Dr. Lagassé is always worth listening to. However, I’m surprised he doesn’t mention George Grant and his contention in Lament for a Nation that Canada became a vassal of the USA in the 1960s, when the Pearson- and then Trudeau-led Liberals decided to replace Canada’s conservative British-Loyalist identity with a fealty to American liberalism.
Mr. Lagasse, you write, "Canadian law would require Alberta to negotiate its secession from the federation."
True, to be certain, but you miss the real point of the Clarity Act in that aspect of things: it requires CANADA to negotiate the secession of a province. Your sentence could therefore be accurately restated as, Canadian law would require CANADA to negotiate the secession from the federation.
You know, sauce - goose, sauce - gander.
And, as we in Alberta are fond of thinking of matters, "Govern yourself accordingly."
In the next federal election how do voters process (become aware of?) the possibilities (scenarios?) and pick the political party that represents the preferred path forward. All this while we live in a world of breathy aspirational rhetoric or three word slogans. Kudos to TheLine for the substantive content ... both the opinion piece and the comments.
Time is up for the vassal state. We should stop being played by the President on fentanyl and migration and insist on fewer guns coming into Canada across the US border. We need to work with our European and British allies to create a new version of NATO and work quickly and efficiently to increase our military capabilities, especially in the Arctic. I believe we will be alright if we can operationalize other already negotiated trade deals such as with the EU and most urgently and importantly eliminate inter-provincial trade barriers once and for ever. My greatest concern is the potential for Western alienation to grow as outlined in your Divide and conquer scenario. The new PM must open and maintain on-going dialogue with his provincial counterparts and work hard on prioritizing inter-governmental relations and equalization in allocating retaliatory tariffs.
I think if you want to stop guns coming into Canada you need to police the border from the Canadian side. No laws are being broken on the American side, so you can't really expect American law enforcement to help you there. What typically happens is that a Canadian smuggler will enter the United States legally, buy guns legally in the U.S., or through an American confederate if the state has a law that gun dealers can sell guns only to residents of the state. Then the Canadian smuggler crosses back into Canada with his treasure. Whether any American state law was broken in the transaction would depend on exactly what firearms were transferred and on the gun laws of that particular state. There is no U.S. law against exporting an ordinary personal firearm, even in large numbers, and people driving out of the States don't go through any American checkpoints, just as people leaving Canada don't go through Canadian checkpoints. Border states are not going to antagonize their own residents by instituting stronger licensing laws just to make things difficult for Canadian smugglers. Our problem, not theirs. And if they did, then every car with Canadian plates would be subject to random search by American cops looking for newly illegal guns. Careful what you wish for. Remember the gun smugglers are mostly the good guys, our own loyal patriotic Canadians, not American scoundrels.
The situation is different with fentanyl and meth and illegal migrants because that contraband is illegal in both countries. Canadian law enforcement could and should make an effort to intercept those shipments passing through Canada before they reach the border. But for guns we're on our own.
I realize that American guns smuggled into Canada is a big sore point but I just don't think the Americans can do much to help us with this, even if they had all the good will in the world. Guns are basically legal in the U.S. Same as you can buy all the over-proof liquor and American cigarettes, or American cheese you want there and it's only a problem if you want to import them into Canada.
A great thought piece for Canadians to start to consider. We are spending a lot of time talking about resisting and fighting Trump, even calling for a European nuclear umbrella in last night's debate. Not sure France and the UK would want to offend Trump for our sake. Along with we will build everything in Canada. All in now for Canada, which is a weaker identity than it has ever been in my lifetime, some 7 decades now. So we need to figure out what we are now, as you point out and what we want to be. Your comments on our present vassal state status are right on and not clearly understood at large. Broad discussion of these facts would help everyone understand what exactly is at risk and what we might retain.
Just a few thoughts on the article:
First, you acknowledge that Alberta feels aliennated from Canada, that Quebec basically holds us hostage yet you make the comment "Canada's ability to impose negotiations on Alberta" - impose??? Seems to me that is part of the issue - those in the elites in eastern Canada feel able to 'impose' on the west (include Saskatchewan in that model) yet these two provinces contribute (Alberta especially) to transfer payments to Quebec! Yet, Quebec manages to veto pipelines going east with impunity.
I believe the point should be that it is time to take a long hard look at Canada and how it is run and financed and decide if we are going to be a nation that works for the good of all or simply a collection of people with little on the go. We have the energy to run the world and yet we refuse to do anything other than stymie development.
As to a vassal country; look at your history and you will see that Canada was subservient to Britain until WWII when was was declared by Canada independently of Britain. We only really became independent after the war.
You give the feds credit for being "quick to respond" to the President's border and fentanyl concerns. The better question is why did we allow our borders and drug issues to get to the point where our neighboutr has to tell us to smarten up??? You can't believe that this issue suddenly appeared out of the blue yet our politicians, including Carney, continue to say that drugs and border issues aren't a problem just a bit of an issue and just look at Mexico, now there is a problem! Good fences make good neighbours and our fence has been allowed to deteriorate to the point where we accept just about anyone who can get to Canada, feed them, house them and then refuse to deport the criminals that are found amongst them.
The last point I would make is that you use the phrase, that Trump will be president for "presumably, four years" Presumably? Don't start trying to churn up the idea that he will declare himself dictator for life and expect reasonable people to swallow it. I don't like the president, I don,t like some of his policies but Canadians need to keep in mind that the people of the USA elected him and his party and we should stop commenting on his policies like we are somehow holier that he is in all respects. We have a lot of issues in Canada adn a lot of them are due to the current federal government and it is time we fixed things on our side of the fence instead of pointing fingers at the issues to the south.
The Alberta issue can't be overstated. A Liberal election victory will lead almost immediately to secession if Trump makes Alberta a halfway generous offer, and there will be nothing whatsoever that the remainder of Canada could do: Alberta pays our bills, and any kind of force would lead (rightly) to forcible annexation.
As for negotiation, we shouldn't make offers: we should only do what makes sense for Canada for ourselves. That includes cracking down on drug crime, Chinese influence, money laundering, and sketchy immigrants.
Thanks for your comments. I’ll only address one: Canada became autonomous in foreign and defence affairs 1926 at the Imperial
Conference. We then became autonomous in legislative matters with the Statute of Westminster 1931. The declaration of war in 1939 was a function of these developments.
@John Bower The point of this article was to ask us to define important changes in response to the turbulent times we are living in. Your comment seem say that we should not discuss whatever the Americans dish up. They too are experiencing turbulence and who knows where they will be next month, let alone in a few years. Many Canadians, throughout the country, are appalled by some of the things Trump and Musk are doing. One simple example: Donald Trump negotiated and signed the USMCA treaty eight years ago and now, presto, he scraps it. How does Canada deal with a neighbour like that? Why would any country sign a treaty with that country now?
One thing perhaps we can agree on. Canada needs to make some fundamental changes. After intense negotiations, the British colonies negotiated and created a grand vision of a coast-to-coast federal nation. In those days we were tiny clusters of population across a huge territory. Regional differences have been there since day one. At that time, Alberta did not exist. Oil sands were largely unknown. Quebec was already a foundational fact.
Today, both are important to our continued existence as a country.
To have a useful discussion, it doesn't make sense to start with "My issues are paramount and non-negotiable and everything else is trivial or utter garbage". We Canadians rose to the occasion to negotiate our differences 158 years ago and we built something remarkable. Can we not rise to that level again?
Insofar as drug seizures are concerned, we cannot make meaningful inroads in this regard, without changing the search & seizure provisions of the Criminal Code and using the notwithstanding clause to prevent judicial nullification. The probative value of the discovered drugs has to be given predominant weight and the importance of protecting the privacy rights of criminals has to be reduced. That is the unhappy tradeoff; and Parliament can and should make if it is truly serious. Or just accept that the social costs are tolerable because the rights of criminals are more important. That's a policy choice/tradeoff.
John, I am full of praise for your clear eyed response to this lazy essay!
I totally agree with your last point. It's difficult to take seriously someone who obviously suffers from TDS.
Trump stealing the democracy / orange hitler / dictator for life is a fable that his opposition loves to repeat because they have nothing of substance to offer. It's literally a made-up fantasy.
Moreover, everything points to the fact that the American left were the ones undermining their own country for the last decade and a half and are now projecting big time onto Trump.
The Canadian left basically rehashes the same BS (see Freeland apocryphal story of a 4 year old worried about Trump invading - my money is on "Things that did not happen for $100"). All of that to distract for their abysmal record (I'm struggling to find a stronger word) and make us afraid of the Americans.
I ain't buying it, until tangible proof of the contrary. Anyone believing this drivel is brainwashed.
In juxtaposition to this article, I read The Bureau’s ‘The Carney-Trudeau Nexus: How Financial Elites from Davos & Beijing are Shaping Canada’s Next Election.’
The comparison has definitely clarified my position.
https://open.substack.com/pub/thebureau/p/the-carney-trudeau-nexus-how-financial?r=9e6zd&utm_medium=ios
Very good analysis. But I would suggest that our biggest danger is internal, a lack of a realistic levelheaded understanding of our place on our continent and the world. The liberals, under the last Trump administration made us a vassal state, ok. But even a vassal state can negotiate. There is nothing inherently bad to being weak in the face of someone who is 10x bigger, but what is inherently bad is not knowing or understanding it. If you don’t understand the cards you are dealt, how can you possibly understand how to play them.
The Liberals made Canada economically weak and politically divided. The concentration on the US as an export market has been a challenge for a while. Perhaps if Feds hadn't destroyed the energy regulator to appease shallow, student politics caliber climate activists, Gateway and Energy East could have been used as leverage. Maybe the Feds should have caved on Supply Management in order to expedite trade deals with other countries. Most important, if the Liberals had expended as much effort on economic development as they did on identity, Canada might have been more resilient with less debt, lower taxes and higher GDP.
Supply management is a sacred cow that has already lost Canada a free trade deal with the UK; so I would be happier if I knew where the Conservatives stand in this regard. Because my recollection is that they supported a statutory prohibition on ever even talking about it in any bargaining with anyone. And of course the Quebec premier has said that while he might consider a pipeline across Quebec territory (which constitutionally is effortless), he would never concede to touching supply management. So there is an important trade off in play here.
Yes, I have no clue what magical hold this cartel has on our political class. It is like the mafia. I have started seeing supply management as shorthand to corruption. Not money corruption necessarily, but intellectual corruption, putting interest before country.
Supply management in Quebec is cultural and financial corruption. It was founded by people connected to the NY 5 families and they basically pushed it through by threatening Ministers with bodily harm. (Read up on it). It continues as a protection racket and Ottawa chooses to protect it even at the expense of Canada as a country.
Ontario is the linch pin of Canada, it is the "real Canada" and where most of English Canada lives. It will decide how Canada goes and so far it looks like it will choose Quebec over Alberta.
I know….i see it…they are not brutal enough. They don’t see that they can use Trump to beat Quebec down. I live in Quebec, so not very happy to see that, but we really need to come together and we don’t need a weak left flank that is Quebec.
And yet again, Sir, you are clear eyed in your commentary.
What's done is done.
Looking forward, we should redouble our efforts to produce the goods and services that other countries want (including oil, gas and derivatives!). The more we succeed, the less we will have to content ourselves with the bottom dollar our "good friends" to the south will offer us.
We need a leader who will build the team able to do this. I'm not confident that we'll find such a leader in the next election.
I agree. But to build pipelines and actually attract businesses, the Liberal Party would have to admit that Trudeau’s entire climate and O&G agenda was a mistake, never to be repeated. The odds of that happening? Slim to none, given that Carney literally wrote a book on his love for climate initiatives and the green economy.
Even if the CPC wins (if they can), businesses plan for decades, not election cycles. If the Liberals return and just reimpose the same restrictions, caps, and regulatory uncertainty, investors will have taken a loss for nothing. That’s why they won’t even try.
The Liberals killed Northern Gateway outright, didn’t even bother fighting for Energy East when Quebec objected, and let activists delay TMX into oblivion with endless court battles. Kinder Morgan walked—and so did the capital. Canada is now seen as a place where big projects go to die.
Until that changes, nobody is coming back.
Read The Bureau’s ‘The Carney-Trudeau Nexus: How Financial Elites from Davos & Beijing are Shaping Canada’s Next Election.’ It spells it out clearly where Canada is headed.
https://open.substack.com/pub/thebureau/p/the-carney-trudeau-nexus-how-financial?r=9e6zd&utm_medium=ios
Yes, I agree. None of the parties have anyone who has done the requisite thinking. Which of course means that whomever we elect will not be prepared.
I think they have done the thinking, they are just wedded to the current model they are willing to go down with the ship.
You have Stephan Harper saying that Canada needs to suck it up and let our children become poorer "for Canada."
Has anyone asked young people or immigrants if they are willing to do that?
Immigrants came here to be better off, not to defend an antiquated version of Canada. Heck, many came to Canada because they couldn't get into the US. Young people will just leave, after all what has Canada done for them.
If we wanted to be poorer, why wouldn't we at least do it where the climate was nicer and coat of living lower. Canada has to be wealthier than the US to make sense.
I know, it is insanity. But I am absolutely convinced that they have no clue what is going on. Not geopolitically, not why we are getting tarifs, they have no clue. And of course because they are losing their minds they sound completely insane. 5 minutes ago is was all generation fairness, now it is, we must hunker down and ….whatever they mean by this. They better wake up soon, this Trump derangement syndrome must pass quickly for all our sakes.
If you look at the Ekos polling, the young aren't buying it. The Liberal surge is an over 50 phenomenon. Their Canada is very different than that of the youth. They could afford homes, they found good jobs or made do with Gen X. They had their Tragically Hip and Expo 67 youth. What's the value proposition for Canadian youth in 2025?
There's a bit of a paradox in this piece in that it acknowledges that Canada isn't politically monolithic, but makes the assumption that the US *is*. I'm not convinced that Trump actually has the necessary internal political support to pursue a lot of his maximalist ambitions. Tariffs on Canadian trade hurts Americans too, and a lot of Trump's support in the 2024 election was related to bread & butter issues like the economy and inflation, not Manifest Destiny and pursuing political vendettas.
Conversely, I don't think the regional interests that might undermine Canadian national unity are quite as strong as supposed. If Danielle Smith tried to unilaterally declare Alberta independence, do you really suppose a majority of Albertans go along with it? Or, does the population of much of the province rise up in outrage, the Lieutenant Governor dismisses her, and the federal government move in to reassert authority with the Armed Forces units deployed in Alberta? Regional interests in much of Canada tend to be loud minorities or at most pluralities who've managed to attain outsized political influence by being the most motivated. As Quebec separatists have found out, their zeal for their most extreme ambitions usually fail to win the necessary public support.
I agree assuming the US is monolithic is just as lazy as assuming Canada is. Both sides are equally guilty. US people assume Canada is a frozen Tundra largely inhabited by Eskimos where they speak French, cut wood and ban guns. Canadians see Americans as rich gun toting yeehaw cowboys ready to steal their resources and daughters.
I heartily recommend American Nations by Colin Woodard for a great primer on North American regional cultures. It covers Canada too.
Smith wouldn't pursue realignment without holding a referendum. A clear majority would satisfy the requirements of the Clarity Act. The probability of either is low.
Sooooo ......., Doug, if Ottawer chose to ban export of our oil and gas to the U.S. and such a ban went on for, oh, say, six months with resulting unemployment of almost everyone in Alberta, what do you think that would do to the odds of a successful referendum?
This is a fantasy scenario. Banning exports of oil to the US would bring at least an equivalent response from the US. As all oil in Ontario and most of Quebec is imported via the US, central Canada would be without gasoline for cars and diesel for trucks within a couple weeks. Once people did walk through the snow to the grocery store there'd be no food for them to buy.
It would never last that long as Canada and Canadians are too indebted to survive without the oil and gas cash cow.
I think that you are right. We have a situation where wealth creation is geographically separated from where the most votes are and vote grubbing politicians have not caught up to that reality. BC and Alta and Sask do not dip into "equalization" but Quebec and even Ontario do...and of course the east coast. Once sovereignty association was recognized as a "thing" open to all provinces, and not just Quebec, we are in a different ball game. Although what might save us is that Trump is simply so mendacious and unreliable that doing a "deal" with him, is too risky. A guy who repudiates treaties or withdraws from agreements is not a very reliable economic partner.
I agree that Trump is - to be incredibly polite - unreliable. For that reason, Trump could start negotiating but it would have to be approved by Congress and signed into law for us to rely on it.
And don't forget someone like JD Vance would if anything continue with it. This isn't just a Trump thing, it's literally already written in their Constitution.
Still probably wouldn’t break 50%. For one thing, not everybody would be out of a job. For another, if such a policy were implemented, it’d be because of a catastrophic political failure on the part of the Alberta government, and they’d probably wind up out on their ass.
Revolutions and separatism rarely are decided by the plebes. The USSR didn't have a referendum and neither did Czechoslovakia. Heck, the Czechs and Slovaks found out watching TV it would split up.
If majority support was required for every major geopolitical move Canada would still be part of the British Empire.
I think I would rather not role the dice on that. I recall how close 1995 was.
Not sure about that. For example with the encouragement of Trudeau senior’s government thousands of Canadian carpetbaggers went to Quebec to vote no on their independence referendum. I can see a repeat of this with a lot of pro statehood people going to Alberta to vote for their side. Kind of like Liberal federal candidate selection being decided by bus loads of Chinese students brought in to vote on their anointed candidate….
Quebec, a perpetual 'have-not' province dependent on federal transfers, nearly left in 1995. Now take Alberta—the richest province in Canada (per capita). If Ottawa halted O&G exports to fight a tariff war, crippling AB's economy, Western separatist sentiment would explode—especially if Trump offered statehood.
I agree with you in that as an Albertan, I would never become an American and consider my self a Canadian first and would move back to BC if
Energy can't be used as retaliation and discussions as such are a waste of time beyond trying to inflame regional divisions.
All of the oil shipped eastwards passes through the US. Cutting off US exports means cutting off most of the supply to ON and QC.
Natural gas has two paths to reach Eastern Canada, one north of the Great Lakes and one to the south. Excess capacity existed on the northern path, but I am unsure how much of it is still online. Energy East proposed converting some of that capacity to move oil as it wasn't being used for natural gas. Eastern Canada now imports a substantial amount of its gas from the US as the Marcellus Shale is far closer than the Western Canadian Sedimentary basin. Attempts to restrain gas supply to the US would likely lead to retaliation holding back US produced gas heading into Eastern Canada. Rearchitecting North American gas flows could not happen quickly.
A similar situation exists with refined product. ON and QC are net importers of distillates. A petroleum trade war could cut off that supply.
Electricity trade is not as simple as it appears on the surface. While Canada is a net exporter, it does import at certain times of day, especially in ON. Recent droughts have made BC a substantial net importer.
Finally, as oil, natural gas and electricity are all natural resources under provincial jurisdiction, federal interference in exports would lead to court battles and massive internal division, not positions of strength when negotiating with the US.
I could see the Feds proposing an export tax on oil and gas, but not Liberal voting electricity, as a foolish alternative to physical export bans. Given market dynamics, most of the export tax would be born by producers instead of American consumers. While that would not increase leverage in a trade war, it would transfer money to the Feds from the western provinces, which is always part of the Liberal agenda.
Why hasn't anyone challenged Trump's ability to impose tariffs via EO? He has the authority to do so under provision of natural security, but fentanyl and migrant trafficking aren't clear threats. I'm sure Congress doesn't appreciate the Executive usurping its powers. The tariffs are also clear violations of NAFTA. Perhaps a better alternative to a trade war is a legal one. Entangling Trump in battles with Congress and various legal challenges would be pure Art of the Deal.
Doug, you note that the feds could place an export tax on oil and gas. True, but only to a limited extent. You accurately state that natural resources are under provincial jurisdiction in the Constitution. That same Constitution also prohibits one level of government from taxing another level of government; therefore, the feds cannot tax the province. Why, you ask, is that relevant?
We in Alberta own the oil (just use oil in this instance) that is underground. That oil is produced by the oil company pursuant to provincial legislation. Suppose that we in Alberta changed the relevant legislation to say that the oil company is our agent in lifting the oil and that the Crown retains title. Suppose further that that oil is allocated to the Crown through Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission and APMC sells directly to the American buyer but title does not transfer until the product crosses the border. [APMC could easily allow oil companies marketing arms to "subcontract" to APMC in negotiating sales.]
In that fashion, Alberta would own the oil until it was in the US and the feds would be prohibited from levying any export or similar taxes on that oil.
Of course, my thought experiment does not encompass freehold production but that is a truly minor part of the industry.
Under the IEEPA, Congress can end any so-called emergency (the basis for the tariffs) with a privilege motion (so can’t be filibustered). So far, it hasn’t done so.
Agree. I wrote my other reply on this issue prior to working my way down to this post. Re, EO's, I believe there are some legal challenges regarding his EO's, and Cda should support those to the extent it is able to do so. However, I'm not optimistic regarding the legal route. Trump is showing that he will fire gov't lawyers that can't be trusted to give legal advice he approves of and there is now talk by Musk of firing judges, however that would work. Putting all that aside, even with a win after months/years in court, there is no guarantee this Administration wouldn't just ignore any court ruling it doesn't like.
I have to mildly object: President Trump has never ignored a court ruling as President. He has fought lots of them, yes. His EO banning Muslim visitors during his first term went through several iterations before it was deemed constitutionally acceptable and only then enforced. It is one thing for him to appeal injunctions issued against his EOs like birthright citizenship -- that's how the U.S. system works. Quite another to imagine that he could use his private army to collect tariffs at the border that the Supreme Court had ruled were beyond his constitutional power to impose and had told US customs officers not to collect. Trump might well swear revenge (through causing a primary opposition in 2026) against any Republican congressman who bucks him on the tariff EO but again that's how the U.S. system works. At least a Republican congressman there *can* say anything against the President or even sue him. Try being a Government MP in Canada saying anything public against a dictatorial PM.
President Biden, on the other hand, did defy the courts that said his EO forgiving student debt was beyond his powers. He forgave the loans with taxpayer money anyway because it was the right thing to do (for his base) and so I'm gonna do it.
The disruptions in the Justice Dept. are unrelated to the ability of Congress using its own lawyers, or a lavishly funded NGO using *its* lawyers to challenge an Executive Order if it wants to. No one in the Executive has the authority to fire a federal judge. If Musk said that, he's trolling. Constitutional disputes between the Executive and the Legislative Branches are expedited through the courts and can go to the Supreme Court quite rapidly -- days even if it was an emergency as the tariffs are said to be. If Congress thinks the tariffs are a bad idea and wants to fight, we'll find out pretty quickly who's word is law. It wouldn't take months or years.
Agree completely. President Trump was nominated and elected the first time because the American people were fed up with being looked down upon and ignored by arrogant connected asshole elites (aka “Laurentians” in Canada) embodied by Hillary Clinton of “deplorable” and “fly-over country” fame. The second time he was elected because he was superb at communicating and understanding the needs of the average American people who wanted their dream back (immigrants, younger and first time voters etc.) The forces that brought this about will not go away when he finishes his second term.
Canada IMO is where the US was prior to President Trumps first term. And right now Canada seems to have a bunch of Hillaries vying to replace the current PM. It’s gotten to the point where-again IMO- the term “Canadian Dream” if it ever existed has become an oxymoron. I exclude immigrants who give up a lot to follow their dream but I suspect that their dream is generally more American than anything else.
And we in Alberta are "... fed up with being looked down upon and ignored by arrogant connected asshole elites ..."
Those elites are playing a game iyf chicken with Albertans, quite openly claiming that Alberta won't have the courage to leave an abusive relationship.
Time will tell. If the LPC is re-elected I expect that the grip on Alberta's throat will tighten substantially.
It's like an abusive relationship. Afraid to leave because of the unknown but at least you known the abuse is predictable.
Canadians are loyal to a fault in general. It's endearing usually but it does lead to Canadians being taken advantage of.
It’s gone from an abusive relationship to a battered woman syndrome…
Amen to that!
He was elected a second time because 77 million Americans are gullible idiots or millionaires. They are now suffering the consequences of it.
Time will tell. So far he’s keeping or trying to keep most of the promises that he made while campaigning. (Totally unCanadian, I know.)
Out of curiosity I checked and there are about 22 US $ million millionaires in the US, 8.5 % of the adult population. and they support both parties. I suspect somewhere between a 55-45 split. By contrast Canadian $US millionaires are 6.8 % of the adult populations, which would be quite a bit higher if measured $ CDN.
After saying he knew nothing about Project 2025.....and then implementing it directly. He's already actively trying to take the vote away from women. Am I on Candid Camera?
I couldn't resist looking this up.
The proposed SAVE Act doesn't take away anyone's vote. It just makes it more difficult for married women to register to vote if they took their husband's name but don't have any government ID that proves their US citizenship in their married name. A passport would do but many Americans have no need for passports. Any woman can still register to vote. She just has to work at it if her birth certificate doesn't match her drivers licence. If she gets other bits of paper together to register, then she's good to go. Remember the idea that you have to show any ID at all to register or to vote seems to give liberals in the U.S. a case of hives.
https://www.newsweek.com/married-women-stopped-voting-save-act-2029325
The bill was introduced by a GOP Congressman, not by Trump. The President can't introduce a bill into the Congress because he doesn't have a seat there.
The purpose of the bill is, ostensibly, to crack down on non-citizens voting illegally, which liberals say doesn't happen, just like it doesn't happen that male criminals who say they are women get put in jail cells with women. The liberals agree with you that the real purpose is to suppress the female vote, which tilts Democrat. The hope, supposedly, is that a few percent fewer (married) women will bother to register to vote. But this doesn't seem like a good move for the GOP. Yes, more women over-all vote Dem but the GOP does pretty well with married women, whether they change their names or not. And more married GOP women take their husband's name, so this move would tend to suppress the GOP married women vote more, which seems counterproductive unless the GOP knows their women are more likely to have passports. A lot of Dem women and men are poor minorities who have trouble, it seems, scraping together any ID at all, so yes, this could be a win for the GOP if they give up the paper chase and don't register.
The group of women voters you really want to suppress are the *un*married women, the single childless cat ladies who vote overwhelmingly Democrat. But the SAVE Act wouldn't touch them at all. So I'm kind of skeptical that SAVE really is a voter-suppression tool aimed at women. At minorities, maybe. If it really would tend to suppress the GOP vote as a side-effect of preventing non-citizens from trying to vote, likely the bill will be allowed to die and not pass. It doesn't do what you seem to think it will.
Wow. Trump is the GOP. And it is well known that there is no serious issue with voter fraud in the US; see Barer's comments in 2020. Denialism of reality at its very best. Steps in a journey.....
America and Canada are family, we live together, share fundamental values and largely work together to our mutual benefit. Trump is a bully who has challenged our family ties and seeks to dominate for his benefit. The only effective response to any bully is through strength, physically and mentally. Canada needs to grow stronger both physically and mentally. We need a stronger sense of national conviction, a robust and growing economy and the ability to defend ourselves both within the family and without. So stop squabbling over who owns Canada, (we do), develop our resources, and build a military focussed on protecting our homeland.
He isn't a bully when he holds a gun to your head. That's where we are with Trump. You beg or plead. Good thing is that Trump and his people aren't the most focused or bright so hopefully they can be tricked into letting us go.
I really wish mainstream Canadians had more street smarts than what they witnessed watching John Hughes movies as a kid.
The Art of the Deal reveals that Trump uses bluster and BS as tools to create an atmosphere of noise and confusion in negotiations. It is intended to keep the other party off balance and reacting rather than initiating. Remaining calm and focused on your own strengths is essential. Of course it helps if you actually have some strengths.
That's the thing. We aren't negotiating as equals. It's not a negotiation when the other party can just take from you what they want.
One needs to look no further than the current polling in Canada showing a resurgence of the liberal party if lead by an untested and unelected Mark Carney. Even Canadians don’t take their country seriously. If the last 9 1/2 years of inept, incompetent, irresponsible, divisive, hateful liberal rule hasn’t deterred Canadians from supporting the liberals then this country is already doomed anyway. This clearly shows people aren’t paying attention and are only interested in getting “free stuff” from the nanny state regardless of the cost to the nation. This is unsustainable and will in itself cause the implosion of the nation. RIP Canada.
Look at their coalition. It's a band of takers, not makers. Ben Franklin called it 200+ years ago, democracy only works until people figure out they can vote for free stuff for themselves.
Apathy and selfishness are hallmarks of Canadian society. Unfortunately, Canadians went from doers, hard working, selfless and generous to their fellow citizens to insular city dwellers. How do we build a society that actually and sincerely cares and wants to move forward in a productive way? I don't know. We need to borrow from our American neighbours and become more patriotic, I just don't know if Canadians have it in them.
Which is why the Founding Fathers worked so hard at designing the Republic as not a democracy. The people can vote out the government (legislature and executive) but they have very little role in actually running it or making policy. And when you consider that when Franklin expressed his fear of democracy, the only people who could vote were male property owners who you would think had enough skin in the game to not make foolish decisions with the Treasury. When you think about who votes now....
I like the term Matt Gurney put out some time ago and that is we have become a ‘giftocracy’. Too many voters are more concerned about what a party I’d going to give them than the state of the country.
"Oil and gas exports to the United States are the lifeblood of the Alberta economy, and imposing an export tax or even embargo on those resources would significantly impact Albertans."
Given that those O&G exports fund all of the interprovincial equalization payments this statement is borderline stupid. It would significantly impact every province east of Ontario, Quebec most of all. That's why Alberta looks south with some hope. Alberta can either continue to be a slave to Quebec or a rock hard competitor in the USA. Can Canada offer it a better option? It's well past time we grew up.
Quebec sees the national interest as Quebec's interests. It is perfectly willing to let the rest of Canada suffer for its needs, and this has been shown time and time again.
Alberta doesn't trust Ottawa as much as it doesn't trust Washington. Perhaps even more.
Immigrants and young people are not nearly as gung ho about Canada as old stock boomers are. Polling is showing this as is social media. Once the boomers are gone Canada will be a very different place, the only question is how.
In the end young people and Albertans especially need a value proposition to stay in Canada. Fear of change, inertia and "because Canada is awesome" isn't enough for national unity. Especially when the Americans start turning the screws, which I still doubt will happen in a significant way.
This whole episode reminds me of high school. My mother said "study more, you'll do better in life". My response was to impolitely ask her to leave me alone. In retrospect I think I would have turned out better if I had shown some humility and then tried harder for self-improvement. Now I see Canada playing me showing no humility. Trump playing my mother saying shape up and being villanized and scapegoated for his efforts And the future for Canada - more of the same underachievemement mooching off the US. OY VEY.
An entertaining and menacing scenario. It demonstrates the degree to which the people we've elected have failed us. No military, no energy for energy, Quebec a non-partner, a "post nation" image projected--and accepted--by ourselves, polarization in multiple directions and a financial condition worthy of the worst bankrupt. With a population so frozen in fear of Trump that they cannot bring themselves to discuss him rationally.
Canada, get your shit together...now!
Many good points in this article, for which I’m thankful to The Line for publishing. Dr. Lagassé is always worth listening to. However, I’m surprised he doesn’t mention George Grant and his contention in Lament for a Nation that Canada became a vassal of the USA in the 1960s, when the Pearson- and then Trudeau-led Liberals decided to replace Canada’s conservative British-Loyalist identity with a fealty to American liberalism.
Mr. Lagasse, you write, "Canadian law would require Alberta to negotiate its secession from the federation."
True, to be certain, but you miss the real point of the Clarity Act in that aspect of things: it requires CANADA to negotiate the secession of a province. Your sentence could therefore be accurately restated as, Canadian law would require CANADA to negotiate the secession from the federation.
You know, sauce - goose, sauce - gander.
And, as we in Alberta are fond of thinking of matters, "Govern yourself accordingly."
Yes, but one doesn’t negotiate with oneself….
In the next federal election how do voters process (become aware of?) the possibilities (scenarios?) and pick the political party that represents the preferred path forward. All this while we live in a world of breathy aspirational rhetoric or three word slogans. Kudos to TheLine for the substantive content ... both the opinion piece and the comments.
Time is up for the vassal state. We should stop being played by the President on fentanyl and migration and insist on fewer guns coming into Canada across the US border. We need to work with our European and British allies to create a new version of NATO and work quickly and efficiently to increase our military capabilities, especially in the Arctic. I believe we will be alright if we can operationalize other already negotiated trade deals such as with the EU and most urgently and importantly eliminate inter-provincial trade barriers once and for ever. My greatest concern is the potential for Western alienation to grow as outlined in your Divide and conquer scenario. The new PM must open and maintain on-going dialogue with his provincial counterparts and work hard on prioritizing inter-governmental relations and equalization in allocating retaliatory tariffs.
I think if you want to stop guns coming into Canada you need to police the border from the Canadian side. No laws are being broken on the American side, so you can't really expect American law enforcement to help you there. What typically happens is that a Canadian smuggler will enter the United States legally, buy guns legally in the U.S., or through an American confederate if the state has a law that gun dealers can sell guns only to residents of the state. Then the Canadian smuggler crosses back into Canada with his treasure. Whether any American state law was broken in the transaction would depend on exactly what firearms were transferred and on the gun laws of that particular state. There is no U.S. law against exporting an ordinary personal firearm, even in large numbers, and people driving out of the States don't go through any American checkpoints, just as people leaving Canada don't go through Canadian checkpoints. Border states are not going to antagonize their own residents by instituting stronger licensing laws just to make things difficult for Canadian smugglers. Our problem, not theirs. And if they did, then every car with Canadian plates would be subject to random search by American cops looking for newly illegal guns. Careful what you wish for. Remember the gun smugglers are mostly the good guys, our own loyal patriotic Canadians, not American scoundrels.
The situation is different with fentanyl and meth and illegal migrants because that contraband is illegal in both countries. Canadian law enforcement could and should make an effort to intercept those shipments passing through Canada before they reach the border. But for guns we're on our own.
I realize that American guns smuggled into Canada is a big sore point but I just don't think the Americans can do much to help us with this, even if they had all the good will in the world. Guns are basically legal in the U.S. Same as you can buy all the over-proof liquor and American cigarettes, or American cheese you want there and it's only a problem if you want to import them into Canada.
A great thought piece for Canadians to start to consider. We are spending a lot of time talking about resisting and fighting Trump, even calling for a European nuclear umbrella in last night's debate. Not sure France and the UK would want to offend Trump for our sake. Along with we will build everything in Canada. All in now for Canada, which is a weaker identity than it has ever been in my lifetime, some 7 decades now. So we need to figure out what we are now, as you point out and what we want to be. Your comments on our present vassal state status are right on and not clearly understood at large. Broad discussion of these facts would help everyone understand what exactly is at risk and what we might retain.