Not much to say about BC politics except that the electorate deserves it.
One thing that’s funny though is trying to figure out who’s the bigger clowns these days - the politicians who suddenly have become completely different people, repudiating the positions they held through multiple elections, OR the voters who believe them.
Yep the "bigger clown" the electorate deserves it. Will the voters never learn you get who you vote for! When a politician shows you who they are believe them. When a politician tells you who they are tune them out as they continually change their message to suit the moment.
It’s tragic that the average person lacks the understanding to know that retaliatory tariffs will increase Canadians cost of living and hurt Canada even more than the us tariffs alone. A wise person would let the us hurt themselves with their tariffs rather than also impose pain On Canadians. But it would appear our leaders lack that wisdom and basic economic knowledge.
Of course we should. Britain and Germany were each other’s biggest trading partners right up until WW 1 started. Even during the bitter naval arms race, the Royal Navy used armour from Krupp’s steel mills in its battleships.
What you have to understand is that “Canada” doesn’t buy anything from “The United States” as sovereign entities. Rather, Canadians and Americans buy from each other as private individuals (which includes corporations) making private economic decisions which in aggregate keep us all surviving. The Canadian government might want to interfere with that trade using its state power but you yourself can’t tell everyone living in Canada not to trade with Americans. Indeed there are many people, traders, living in Canada who aren’t even citizens, or who remain also citizens of the country they were born in, and who don’t want to join your Canadian Crusade against their suppliers and customers on the other side of the border.
We all say Trump’s tariffs will eventually run out of gas because they will hurt Americans. We shouldn’t turn around and do the same thing to ourselves.
Canadian companies will do their thing. You do you, but if it says "Made in USA", it stays on the shelf. Trump has made the US Canada's enemy.
If they fix it, all will be forgotten, but Americans are so stupid they're saying price hikes are "patriotic". We're not dealing with rational American leadership anymore.
Yet you argue that Canadians should accept price hikes from our retaliatory tariffs as “patriotic”, too. That’s the whole point of tariffs: to encourage domestic production and production even though it is more expensive or of poorer quality. If domestic production was better or cheaper, we wouldn’t need tariffs. Canadian customers would just leave the crappy over-priced imported stuff on the shelves. Only when the imported goods are cheaper and better do you need to tariff them.
But go ahead. Buy Chinese over American if you want to. Just don’t tell me I have to, and don’t tariff things I want to buy just because you want to spite the Americans.
I believe I covered that in "You Do You". I didn't say it will encourage domestic production. I think it will discourage people from buying things specifically made in the US. I don't have a problem with that under the circumstances that we had no involvement in creating. Our relationship with the US is on hold...if not finished. Best get used to that idea.
I consider tariffs on US products a reminder that they declared an economic war on us. I don't know if that's patriotic. Feel free to discuss with the people in power whether responsive tariffs are a good idea.
As far as I'm concerned, since the US does nothing about gun smuggling, every single private vehicle coming into Canada with US plates should have a full Customs inspection looking for weapons..... because we need to defend our border too.
Sure. As long as you search Canadian vehicles, too, because the gun-smuggling is done by Canadian gangs driving, of course, their own Canadian cars. The American gun sellers do pickup, not delivery. Less risk for them. They can make their money selling legally. Let our criminals take the risk in crossing the border.
It’s not the same. Don’t buy from US if alternatives are available and work to find alternative markets for our products. The US needs our aluminum, but if we find other markets there won’t be much to buy.
The cynicism of a provincial government using the current US/Canada relations to cover for its past mistakes and avoid any solid plans for the future should be mind-boggling, but unfortunately my reaction was 'yeah, not surprised.'
What does sovereignty mean in the context of the asymmetric relationship between not only B.C. and the Americans, but Canada as a whole? It means it's complex and nuanced. You don't get to simply dictate the terms according to your own parochial priorities, especially when you are the very junior partner. The broad terms used in a throne speech, resembling a Grade 8 reader on WW2, can be ignored out of hand for the empty rhetoric that it is.
Eby's reaction seems similar to the response of the EU leaders: we were doing just fine tending to our own ideologically informed fiscal priorities while the U.S. underwrites the security for the continent. Now it seems the U.S. is no longer willing to do this without something material in exchange. Every American administration has said as much for thirty years. The risk to Canada that the U.S. would call in its marker, has been building for as long.
Matt Gurney noted something similar when he reported on comments from a panel member at the recent security conference in Halifax. The rules-based international order exists by threat of force (i.e. U.S. battle groups), not by appeals to moral imperatives. Didn't Thucydides say as much? It's an old problem. Why is anybody shocked we are subject to the interests of great powers? In reality, I suspect our governments know this full well. As Mr. Shaw suggests, the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothing by our polticial incumbents isn't a show to the Americans, it's a plea to the Canadian electorate that they haven't been fiddling while Rome burns.
"...U.S. underwriter the security for the continent."
This is confusing to me.
NORAD was set up to protect the U.S. from rockets. We have the real estate in between, a much better place for them to be shot down before they reach America.
The Chinese threaten the northwest passage, and there's evidence of Russian subs patrolling the same. What has the U.S. done or said?
We have evidence of cables being cut mysteriously on the east coast. What has the U.S. said or done?
We have experience with political and election interference from malign actors including the Chinese and Russians. I don't even recall a word of concern from the U.S.
The U.S. underwrites security for themselves and benefits to anyone else are coincidental. (They start the odd fight as well.)
sji, you ask, "What has the U.S. done or said?" a number of times.
Well, I offer three thoughts for you.
First, given that these actions are in nominally Canadian territory, what has Canada done? Pretty much nothing.
Second, we don't know what the government to government communication has been so neither you nor I can comment about that (non? substantive?) communication.
Third, given that these items were in nominally Canadian territory, would we, as Canadians, have been outraged if the U.S. had decided "to do" something in our territory?
"first": Canada has done appallingly little, and a source of great shame for us. This doesn't change a thing about the coincidental, self-interest of the U.S. not giving a crap about us.
"second": If the U.S. HAS done anything, and said nothing (kinda not like the U.S.), perception = reality.
"third": Again, so what? Doesnt change a thing about the coincidental, self-interest of the U.S.
They have never protected us from anything. Quite the opposite, they've had to be dragged kicking and screaming in to the last two global conflicts about freedom, but manufactured a few (Gulf of Tonkin?) conflicts about ? (WMD?) and demanded we all go kill with them.
Actually NORAD was set up before there were ICBM rockets. It was to defend the shared airspace of Canada and the United States from Soviet manned bomber aircraft which had the potential of being intercepted and shot down by the combined air forces of Canada and the United States. There was no guarantee that a bomber coming over the Pole was intending to attack New York and not Montreal. Yes, aircraft we shot down would likely have crashed somewhere in our boreal wilderness or even in an Ottawa suburb. So what? The nukes don’t explode in crashes. If we had invested in faster interceptors, like the Arrow, we could have made interceptions much farther north, but we chose not to, buying Voodoos instead.
Had we decided to stay neutral and not allow the U.S. to build radar in our north or integrate ours with theirs, do you really think the United States would have waited until a bomber was over Lake Michigan on course for Chicago before hacking it?
When ICBMs replaced the bomber threat there was never a credible defence against them, still isn’t. The Americans would not have been destroying Russian rockets letting the debris rain down on our precious wilderness. Rather, NORAD was to give the U.S. leadership a few precious minutes to organize a retaliatory strike before the warheads landed on the U.S., and on Canada, either targeted or as “shorts.”
The geopolitical reality is that Canadian real estate lies between the US and Russia. The US was never going to let it stay neutral, especially if Canada decided it couldn’t be bothered to protect its own air space.
Rockets vs manned bombers, to your point, the real estate lies between, and the result is the same. Whether we protect our sovereignty adequately or not (and we don't), the American "umbrella", if it protects us, protects us coincidentally. There is no largesse or benevolence protecting us, other than in the convenient spin after the fact.
Regarding a bomber attacking Montreal... unless there's a weapons facility they want to destroy, or an armoury, I can't imagine why. There is no strategic reason to attack Canada, unless it improves the likelihood of success over the americans. Nuclear holocaust renders the acquisition of our desirable resources a bit moot.
The bromance between russias murderous oligarch and america's new king suggests to me america's aggression towards allies is more about destabilization, and an (awkward) justification of brute force.
Are you to young to remember the Cold War? Canada during the Cold War was a military ally of the United States in NATO. If the USSR had decided on a nuclear strike against the cities of the United States there would be no reason to spare Canadian cities, especially if Canadian forces in Europe had used the tactical nuclear weapons we operated there to stop a Warsaw Pact breakthrough in West Germany.
Nuclear attacks on cities weren’t meant to destroy specific targets like “armouries”, but yes, CFB Valcartier would count as one. The point was to kill civilians. Any city big enough for a bomber or ICBM to find and hit would have been a target.
The NDP always wanted Canada to abandon both NATO and NORAD on the theory that in a shooting war between the US and the USSR both sides would leave Canada alone if we didn’t have forces in Europe and didn’t let the Americans fly into our airspace to shoot down Russian bombers. Sort of like Switzerland. (But unlike the Swiss, we don’t hold all their invested money for them.)
Who knows? Maybe they were right but it was never proposed as a serious policy option by the adults in the room.
Are we sure that even Canada itself has sovereignty over the land we call British Columbia? The NDP seems to be giving away that sovereignty. Funny for the, to be thumping the tub about Canadian sovereignty.
Dollar for dollar retaliation is the dumbest possible way we could react - but it plays well to the plebes who don't fully understand how tariffs work, and it makes for stirring speeches - so we are likely to be stuck with this policy response no matter how badly it would harm our economy, simply because it enables our "leaders" to APPEAR to be doing something.
Ever since Trump started talking about across-the-board tariffs, Canadian politicos have been trying to convince him that putting these tariffs in place will harm his economy rather than help it.
...which is true - arbitrarily putting an extra tax on items you HAVE TO import is typically destructive to your own economy, if not immediately, then for certain in the long run. But of course the corollary is that for Canada to place equal tariffs on ourselves will be equally damaging.
The best analogy I have heard is that our neighbour has decided to begin aggressively punching himself in the nose. Should our reaction be to also begin vigorously punching our own nose? How does this "defend" us against his actions?
Our neighbour is disrespectful, insulting, threatening our sovereignty with economic war. I'm thrilled to sacrifice a little in my household to hit back as hard as possible. Politicians making political capital out of it...? whatevs.
I'll be very pleased to see the cost of living go up here if it means americans will pay more for what they buy from us. We should make their bs 51st state policy fever-dream hurt as much as possible.
If it is dollar for dollar on product for product then it is dumb and would be a knee-jerk reaction. But there are US products that are not critical. Just the tendency of Canadians to not buy American products already has the Governor of Kentucky concerned as we are their biggest buyer of bourbon. We find products we can get from others or products that are not critical and hit them with tariffs, not products that we are dependent upon.
David Eby is a scoundrel. That BC citizens would reelect him and the hideous NDP is a function of leftist media capture and a few other questionable goings on. Let’s hear about David Eby’s advisor that Sam Cooper has warned us about being connected to interference.
Based on the recent info from Elections Canada about the number of ineligible foreigners who were able to vote in Federal elections, and BC being one of the beating hearts of drugs, money laundering and gangs, how do we even know who “barely” elected him?
Eh?! Don’t have much patience for Eby rhetoric. Also no solutions, no policies or changes. Never any mention of his border with the US and the Pacific Ocean. He’s distracting from the hell on the streets from all the drugs,and safe supply
There is no question it is the threat of open economic war with a former partner that has abandoned all its allies to form a relationship Putin. The US as we know it is gone unless; and it's highly unlikely, the GOP realises what they've done, decides in 2 weeks that it's not what they want and impeaches him, his entire cabinet, and the VP effectively stating a new election must be held. That's not likely to happen. So the US is gone, and across the country we'd better get our heads out of our asses and deal with reality.
I volunteered for the CP of BC but Rustad has blown it, I hope temporarily:
Canadians are absolutely different, AND quietly and resolutely patriotic, AND more sophisticated than "love it or leave it."
To understand our nuance? Not being demonstrative is not the same as not feeling. (Think of the confusion between extroverts and introverts.)
We have a healthy skepticism of pedestals and the "exalted hero." We are more critical customers and constituents by about 20% (as measured by my former cross-border firm.) We can say, "sure my country is messed up, but it's MY messed up country."
We are more collective in our thinking, more inclusive, and more collaborative, less top-down in our management style. (It's always been a curious statistic to note how over-represented Canadians are in US and global C-suites.)
We are not timid. (I, and others who came from the Toronto area to work in management in my former co were given training to be less direct and more circumspect. We were too blunt on controversial topics.) We are more comfortable and capable discussing the past, race relations, politics; we are better at candour with respect. In the U.S. there are too many topics that are simply avoided, to "go along to get along", and nothing gets better.
We are tough. It's no accident that Letterkenny and Shoresy were written and produced here. This is not an easy country and for many things we have today, we had to agree to work together instead of look for heroes to do it for us.
We will sacrifice. I can't tell you how many times an American was surprised that I and my colleagues had no intention of living permanently in the U.S. Amazingly, a substantial number of Americans seem to think we're all hoping to get in permanently. They know very little about us and will be surprised at our reaction.
I find your comment describing - notice what I am saying --> a large portion of Canadians <-- very well and pretty close to how also I find us to be. We must admit to ourselves that there is also a large portion of Canadians who fit this description only partially, if at all, and this portion is increasing.
I disagree with your saying that "We have a healthy skepticism of pedestals and the "exalted hero.""; e.g. the cult of the TrudeauS, and the continued existence of some other national sacred cows that have caught the mange and foot-and-mouth disease and are becoming increasingly detrimental.
It is true that "(It's always been a curious statistic to note how over-represented Canadians are in US and global C-suites.)", but that is a function of Canada's size and the culture of slow, lethargic, risk-averse business environment which the feds and provinces have suffocated in red tape. So energetic talented doers, creators, professionals get the heck out of Canada, and usually do not return.
That's quite different from the research I've seen.
The reason Canadians, who are collaborative, more collective, and less top-down in our management style, are over-represented in C-suites is because this approach get better results, leading large communities.
An order of magnitude more americans, per capita, did a stint in the military, which teaches them a top-down, autocratic management style. Many believe this is necessary for the work of defence. Whether that's true or not I don't know but I can say this from experience... top-down autocrat leaders create a culture of risk aversion, with poor communication, and little useful information reaching the top.
I have no reason to doubt the research you mention. My experiences agrees with what you are describing in your response. I want to expand on two items. a) Many talented Canadians sought work outside of Canada due to lack of opportunities at home, thus expanding the talent pool for management in other countries; if they stayed at home, they would not get chosen for jobs and promotion in other countries. That is in addition to the suitable style. b) A top-down, autocratic management style is necessary for military units directly involved in combat and in units supporting combat units, that part is true. However, for the rest of it, the management style does not have to be autocratic and can largely be influenced by the personality of the leaders, as long as the discipline is maintained and results are delivered. Your last sentence is simply true.
Yes, and I'm an example. To be clear, I didn't seek opportunities outside Canada; I was approached and recruited and that happens often.
It makes intuitive sense that militaries, especially in combat, must rely on a simple top-down approach to command and control, given the circumstances.
Even so, Peter Drucker suggested (for business) the truth, the useful, strategic information is found close to or at the front lines. This is one of the reasons culture is worth so much $ to the bottom line. A collaborative/consultative approach to leadership makes for better decisions and a positive culture where more, unfiltered information reaches the strategy team.
Just like Covid, the governments will use tough times to rack up the rhetoric so they can increase taxes. Eby and Trudeau, just back from giving up the Charlottes to a tribe, will try try the same trope. My frustration grows every time he opens his mouth.
He is responding to the current moment with the compassion and seriousness that is required. No one can know what the future holds, particularly right now and the electorate is uneasy. Many are asking for stronger leadership and steady hands that recognize the potential for difficult times ahead. Eby is providing that.
Not much to say about BC politics except that the electorate deserves it.
One thing that’s funny though is trying to figure out who’s the bigger clowns these days - the politicians who suddenly have become completely different people, repudiating the positions they held through multiple elections, OR the voters who believe them.
Yep the "bigger clown" the electorate deserves it. Will the voters never learn you get who you vote for! When a politician shows you who they are believe them. When a politician tells you who they are tune them out as they continually change their message to suit the moment.
It’s tragic that the average person lacks the understanding to know that retaliatory tariffs will increase Canadians cost of living and hurt Canada even more than the us tariffs alone. A wise person would let the us hurt themselves with their tariffs rather than also impose pain On Canadians. But it would appear our leaders lack that wisdom and basic economic knowledge.
What drives this is the classic politician's dilemma.
"I must APPEAR to be doing something"
"You're taxing your consumers? Well, no one out-taxes us!!!"
I think we should hit back as hard as we can.
So keep buying from our enemy?
Of course we should. Britain and Germany were each other’s biggest trading partners right up until WW 1 started. Even during the bitter naval arms race, the Royal Navy used armour from Krupp’s steel mills in its battleships.
What you have to understand is that “Canada” doesn’t buy anything from “The United States” as sovereign entities. Rather, Canadians and Americans buy from each other as private individuals (which includes corporations) making private economic decisions which in aggregate keep us all surviving. The Canadian government might want to interfere with that trade using its state power but you yourself can’t tell everyone living in Canada not to trade with Americans. Indeed there are many people, traders, living in Canada who aren’t even citizens, or who remain also citizens of the country they were born in, and who don’t want to join your Canadian Crusade against their suppliers and customers on the other side of the border.
We all say Trump’s tariffs will eventually run out of gas because they will hurt Americans. We shouldn’t turn around and do the same thing to ourselves.
Canadian companies will do their thing. You do you, but if it says "Made in USA", it stays on the shelf. Trump has made the US Canada's enemy.
If they fix it, all will be forgotten, but Americans are so stupid they're saying price hikes are "patriotic". We're not dealing with rational American leadership anymore.
Yet you argue that Canadians should accept price hikes from our retaliatory tariffs as “patriotic”, too. That’s the whole point of tariffs: to encourage domestic production and production even though it is more expensive or of poorer quality. If domestic production was better or cheaper, we wouldn’t need tariffs. Canadian customers would just leave the crappy over-priced imported stuff on the shelves. Only when the imported goods are cheaper and better do you need to tariff them.
But go ahead. Buy Chinese over American if you want to. Just don’t tell me I have to, and don’t tariff things I want to buy just because you want to spite the Americans.
I believe I covered that in "You Do You". I didn't say it will encourage domestic production. I think it will discourage people from buying things specifically made in the US. I don't have a problem with that under the circumstances that we had no involvement in creating. Our relationship with the US is on hold...if not finished. Best get used to that idea.
I consider tariffs on US products a reminder that they declared an economic war on us. I don't know if that's patriotic. Feel free to discuss with the people in power whether responsive tariffs are a good idea.
As far as I'm concerned, since the US does nothing about gun smuggling, every single private vehicle coming into Canada with US plates should have a full Customs inspection looking for weapons..... because we need to defend our border too.
Sure. As long as you search Canadian vehicles, too, because the gun-smuggling is done by Canadian gangs driving, of course, their own Canadian cars. The American gun sellers do pickup, not delivery. Less risk for them. They can make their money selling legally. Let our criminals take the risk in crossing the border.
It’s not the same. Don’t buy from US if alternatives are available and work to find alternative markets for our products. The US needs our aluminum, but if we find other markets there won’t be much to buy.
The cynicism of a provincial government using the current US/Canada relations to cover for its past mistakes and avoid any solid plans for the future should be mind-boggling, but unfortunately my reaction was 'yeah, not surprised.'
What does sovereignty mean in the context of the asymmetric relationship between not only B.C. and the Americans, but Canada as a whole? It means it's complex and nuanced. You don't get to simply dictate the terms according to your own parochial priorities, especially when you are the very junior partner. The broad terms used in a throne speech, resembling a Grade 8 reader on WW2, can be ignored out of hand for the empty rhetoric that it is.
Eby's reaction seems similar to the response of the EU leaders: we were doing just fine tending to our own ideologically informed fiscal priorities while the U.S. underwrites the security for the continent. Now it seems the U.S. is no longer willing to do this without something material in exchange. Every American administration has said as much for thirty years. The risk to Canada that the U.S. would call in its marker, has been building for as long.
Matt Gurney noted something similar when he reported on comments from a panel member at the recent security conference in Halifax. The rules-based international order exists by threat of force (i.e. U.S. battle groups), not by appeals to moral imperatives. Didn't Thucydides say as much? It's an old problem. Why is anybody shocked we are subject to the interests of great powers? In reality, I suspect our governments know this full well. As Mr. Shaw suggests, the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothing by our polticial incumbents isn't a show to the Americans, it's a plea to the Canadian electorate that they haven't been fiddling while Rome burns.
"...U.S. underwriter the security for the continent."
This is confusing to me.
NORAD was set up to protect the U.S. from rockets. We have the real estate in between, a much better place for them to be shot down before they reach America.
The Chinese threaten the northwest passage, and there's evidence of Russian subs patrolling the same. What has the U.S. done or said?
We have evidence of cables being cut mysteriously on the east coast. What has the U.S. said or done?
We have experience with political and election interference from malign actors including the Chinese and Russians. I don't even recall a word of concern from the U.S.
The U.S. underwrites security for themselves and benefits to anyone else are coincidental. (They start the odd fight as well.)
sji, you ask, "What has the U.S. done or said?" a number of times.
Well, I offer three thoughts for you.
First, given that these actions are in nominally Canadian territory, what has Canada done? Pretty much nothing.
Second, we don't know what the government to government communication has been so neither you nor I can comment about that (non? substantive?) communication.
Third, given that these items were in nominally Canadian territory, would we, as Canadians, have been outraged if the U.S. had decided "to do" something in our territory?
Re:
"first": Canada has done appallingly little, and a source of great shame for us. This doesn't change a thing about the coincidental, self-interest of the U.S. not giving a crap about us.
"second": If the U.S. HAS done anything, and said nothing (kinda not like the U.S.), perception = reality.
"third": Again, so what? Doesnt change a thing about the coincidental, self-interest of the U.S.
They have never protected us from anything. Quite the opposite, they've had to be dragged kicking and screaming in to the last two global conflicts about freedom, but manufactured a few (Gulf of Tonkin?) conflicts about ? (WMD?) and demanded we all go kill with them.
False friends.
Actually NORAD was set up before there were ICBM rockets. It was to defend the shared airspace of Canada and the United States from Soviet manned bomber aircraft which had the potential of being intercepted and shot down by the combined air forces of Canada and the United States. There was no guarantee that a bomber coming over the Pole was intending to attack New York and not Montreal. Yes, aircraft we shot down would likely have crashed somewhere in our boreal wilderness or even in an Ottawa suburb. So what? The nukes don’t explode in crashes. If we had invested in faster interceptors, like the Arrow, we could have made interceptions much farther north, but we chose not to, buying Voodoos instead.
Had we decided to stay neutral and not allow the U.S. to build radar in our north or integrate ours with theirs, do you really think the United States would have waited until a bomber was over Lake Michigan on course for Chicago before hacking it?
When ICBMs replaced the bomber threat there was never a credible defence against them, still isn’t. The Americans would not have been destroying Russian rockets letting the debris rain down on our precious wilderness. Rather, NORAD was to give the U.S. leadership a few precious minutes to organize a retaliatory strike before the warheads landed on the U.S., and on Canada, either targeted or as “shorts.”
The geopolitical reality is that Canadian real estate lies between the US and Russia. The US was never going to let it stay neutral, especially if Canada decided it couldn’t be bothered to protect its own air space.
Rockets vs manned bombers, to your point, the real estate lies between, and the result is the same. Whether we protect our sovereignty adequately or not (and we don't), the American "umbrella", if it protects us, protects us coincidentally. There is no largesse or benevolence protecting us, other than in the convenient spin after the fact.
Regarding a bomber attacking Montreal... unless there's a weapons facility they want to destroy, or an armoury, I can't imagine why. There is no strategic reason to attack Canada, unless it improves the likelihood of success over the americans. Nuclear holocaust renders the acquisition of our desirable resources a bit moot.
The bromance between russias murderous oligarch and america's new king suggests to me america's aggression towards allies is more about destabilization, and an (awkward) justification of brute force.
Are you to young to remember the Cold War? Canada during the Cold War was a military ally of the United States in NATO. If the USSR had decided on a nuclear strike against the cities of the United States there would be no reason to spare Canadian cities, especially if Canadian forces in Europe had used the tactical nuclear weapons we operated there to stop a Warsaw Pact breakthrough in West Germany.
Nuclear attacks on cities weren’t meant to destroy specific targets like “armouries”, but yes, CFB Valcartier would count as one. The point was to kill civilians. Any city big enough for a bomber or ICBM to find and hit would have been a target.
The NDP always wanted Canada to abandon both NATO and NORAD on the theory that in a shooting war between the US and the USSR both sides would leave Canada alone if we didn’t have forces in Europe and didn’t let the Americans fly into our airspace to shoot down Russian bombers. Sort of like Switzerland. (But unlike the Swiss, we don’t hold all their invested money for them.)
Who knows? Maybe they were right but it was never proposed as a serious policy option by the adults in the room.
Are we sure that even Canada itself has sovereignty over the land we call British Columbia? The NDP seems to be giving away that sovereignty. Funny for the, to be thumping the tub about Canadian sovereignty.
Dollar for dollar retaliation is the dumbest possible way we could react - but it plays well to the plebes who don't fully understand how tariffs work, and it makes for stirring speeches - so we are likely to be stuck with this policy response no matter how badly it would harm our economy, simply because it enables our "leaders" to APPEAR to be doing something.
Ever since Trump started talking about across-the-board tariffs, Canadian politicos have been trying to convince him that putting these tariffs in place will harm his economy rather than help it.
...which is true - arbitrarily putting an extra tax on items you HAVE TO import is typically destructive to your own economy, if not immediately, then for certain in the long run. But of course the corollary is that for Canada to place equal tariffs on ourselves will be equally damaging.
The best analogy I have heard is that our neighbour has decided to begin aggressively punching himself in the nose. Should our reaction be to also begin vigorously punching our own nose? How does this "defend" us against his actions?
Our neighbour is disrespectful, insulting, threatening our sovereignty with economic war. I'm thrilled to sacrifice a little in my household to hit back as hard as possible. Politicians making political capital out of it...? whatevs.
They all do, and all always will.
How exactly does paying a tariff when you buy an American product “hit back” at America?
What it does is send more money to Ottawa, that’s all. Think of it as a new tax.
So.. you want to pay more tax because Trump is making Americans pay more tax? How does that make sense?
I can explain...
I'll be very pleased to see the cost of living go up here if it means americans will pay more for what they buy from us. We should make their bs 51st state policy fever-dream hurt as much as possible.
If it is dollar for dollar on product for product then it is dumb and would be a knee-jerk reaction. But there are US products that are not critical. Just the tendency of Canadians to not buy American products already has the Governor of Kentucky concerned as we are their biggest buyer of bourbon. We find products we can get from others or products that are not critical and hit them with tariffs, not products that we are dependent upon.
Seventeen years covering BC politics? Rob, my condolences.
I was a sceptic about about how loony Canada’s left coast was. No more. Another case of patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel.
I read today in the CTV news digest that 27% of Canadians view the US as an enemy country. The Communist Party of China must be ecstatic.
Time to buy common shares of US Pacific Northwest and Southern lumber companies 😎
The smart money probably already has, on Election Day last November even before the polls closed.
When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.
David Eby is a scoundrel. That BC citizens would reelect him and the hideous NDP is a function of leftist media capture and a few other questionable goings on. Let’s hear about David Eby’s advisor that Sam Cooper has warned us about being connected to interference.
Based on the recent info from Elections Canada about the number of ineligible foreigners who were able to vote in Federal elections, and BC being one of the beating hearts of drugs, money laundering and gangs, how do we even know who “barely” elected him?
"That some BC citizens barely elected him..."
Fixed.
Eh?! Don’t have much patience for Eby rhetoric. Also no solutions, no policies or changes. Never any mention of his border with the US and the Pacific Ocean. He’s distracting from the hell on the streets from all the drugs,and safe supply
Half the Allied cargo ships? Really? Perhaps half the replacements for Canadian merchantmen sunk.
There is no question it is the threat of open economic war with a former partner that has abandoned all its allies to form a relationship Putin. The US as we know it is gone unless; and it's highly unlikely, the GOP realises what they've done, decides in 2 weeks that it's not what they want and impeaches him, his entire cabinet, and the VP effectively stating a new election must be held. That's not likely to happen. So the US is gone, and across the country we'd better get our heads out of our asses and deal with reality.
I volunteered for the CP of BC but Rustad has blown it, I hope temporarily:
Canadians are absolutely different, AND quietly and resolutely patriotic, AND more sophisticated than "love it or leave it."
To understand our nuance? Not being demonstrative is not the same as not feeling. (Think of the confusion between extroverts and introverts.)
We have a healthy skepticism of pedestals and the "exalted hero." We are more critical customers and constituents by about 20% (as measured by my former cross-border firm.) We can say, "sure my country is messed up, but it's MY messed up country."
We are more collective in our thinking, more inclusive, and more collaborative, less top-down in our management style. (It's always been a curious statistic to note how over-represented Canadians are in US and global C-suites.)
We are not timid. (I, and others who came from the Toronto area to work in management in my former co were given training to be less direct and more circumspect. We were too blunt on controversial topics.) We are more comfortable and capable discussing the past, race relations, politics; we are better at candour with respect. In the U.S. there are too many topics that are simply avoided, to "go along to get along", and nothing gets better.
We are tough. It's no accident that Letterkenny and Shoresy were written and produced here. This is not an easy country and for many things we have today, we had to agree to work together instead of look for heroes to do it for us.
We will sacrifice. I can't tell you how many times an American was surprised that I and my colleagues had no intention of living permanently in the U.S. Amazingly, a substantial number of Americans seem to think we're all hoping to get in permanently. They know very little about us and will be surprised at our reaction.
I was born a Canadian and I will die a Canadian.
I find your comment describing - notice what I am saying --> a large portion of Canadians <-- very well and pretty close to how also I find us to be. We must admit to ourselves that there is also a large portion of Canadians who fit this description only partially, if at all, and this portion is increasing.
I disagree with your saying that "We have a healthy skepticism of pedestals and the "exalted hero.""; e.g. the cult of the TrudeauS, and the continued existence of some other national sacred cows that have caught the mange and foot-and-mouth disease and are becoming increasingly detrimental.
It is true that "(It's always been a curious statistic to note how over-represented Canadians are in US and global C-suites.)", but that is a function of Canada's size and the culture of slow, lethargic, risk-averse business environment which the feds and provinces have suffocated in red tape. So energetic talented doers, creators, professionals get the heck out of Canada, and usually do not return.
That's quite different from the research I've seen.
The reason Canadians, who are collaborative, more collective, and less top-down in our management style, are over-represented in C-suites is because this approach get better results, leading large communities.
An order of magnitude more americans, per capita, did a stint in the military, which teaches them a top-down, autocratic management style. Many believe this is necessary for the work of defence. Whether that's true or not I don't know but I can say this from experience... top-down autocrat leaders create a culture of risk aversion, with poor communication, and little useful information reaching the top.
I have no reason to doubt the research you mention. My experiences agrees with what you are describing in your response. I want to expand on two items. a) Many talented Canadians sought work outside of Canada due to lack of opportunities at home, thus expanding the talent pool for management in other countries; if they stayed at home, they would not get chosen for jobs and promotion in other countries. That is in addition to the suitable style. b) A top-down, autocratic management style is necessary for military units directly involved in combat and in units supporting combat units, that part is true. However, for the rest of it, the management style does not have to be autocratic and can largely be influenced by the personality of the leaders, as long as the discipline is maintained and results are delivered. Your last sentence is simply true.
Yes, and I'm an example. To be clear, I didn't seek opportunities outside Canada; I was approached and recruited and that happens often.
It makes intuitive sense that militaries, especially in combat, must rely on a simple top-down approach to command and control, given the circumstances.
Even so, Peter Drucker suggested (for business) the truth, the useful, strategic information is found close to or at the front lines. This is one of the reasons culture is worth so much $ to the bottom line. A collaborative/consultative approach to leadership makes for better decisions and a positive culture where more, unfiltered information reaches the strategy team.
Well, at least the snow is gone and it's +9C. Can't have everything.
Just like Covid, the governments will use tough times to rack up the rhetoric so they can increase taxes. Eby and Trudeau, just back from giving up the Charlottes to a tribe, will try try the same trope. My frustration grows every time he opens his mouth.
He is responding to the current moment with the compassion and seriousness that is required. No one can know what the future holds, particularly right now and the electorate is uneasy. Many are asking for stronger leadership and steady hands that recognize the potential for difficult times ahead. Eby is providing that.
Oh puleeze....get a grip.