Zeitgeist

Ford is doing that on energy.

Canada needs to dump the virtue bluster that depends on American largesse for its defence and prosperity. We need to understand the cost of true independence and pay it or we join the U.S.. We can’t have delusions of our own importance and grandeur. Again, there’s an opportunity here for economic union, but the best we can hope for right now is a restoration of Harperite Canada, because Canadians are furious and Trump keeps doubling down. Apparently people are bypassing cheap US goods in supermarkets right now that are suddenly in over-supply due to lack of sales. Canadians are defiant and willing to pay higher prices.

Well he’s forced Canada to get its priorities straight. I’m not giving up on Trump yet. Sadly, many people already have. Trump has to pivot and mend fences fast, however. The markets are responding to his rhetoric and approach with crushing blows.

Trump isn’t all wrong. A federal government needs to put its citizens first. In fact, creating win-win situations with other countries is almost always in the interests of the citizens because it builds trusts and opportunities. It becomes a problem when the costs of seeking to gain an advantage over another country or interest group damages the relationship such that the costs of reparation or abandoning the relationship completely are higher than the short-term advantage gained. That’s where Trump is missing the boat. Poilievre has to flesh out his vision and should probably use different language from Canada First. Devil is in the details. I trust Poilievre on resource development, lowering the cost of housing, reducing woke nonsense, and restoring Canadian pride over anything the Liberals have on offer now. Again, let’s see what the new Liberal leader does from now until the federal election. I already know where Poilievre stands.

I’m not into America First in the sense of zero-sum. I agree that Canada First could be construed that way. I think PP’s point is that the Canadian government needs to serve Canada’s interests primarily, but I agree that what’s good for Canada generally is good for the world. I think the question is whether the wishes of the citizens in a nation should take precedence over the interests of outside influences. Democracy means that they should. Otherwise we have lack of accountability and the purpose of a federal government is undermined.

Chretien had it right on Canada’s international relations. Multilateral but occasional opting out. However to be able to do that effectively requires more hard power and economic independence than we currently have.

What do you mean by internationalist? China-led developing countries? UN Human Rights policy with regard to Indigenous? International climate agreements and stakeholder capitalist ESG criteria? I think Canada should be very specific and transactional in international relations and agreements. Otherwise we risk working against the interests of Canadians. Yes to NATO; it depends to UN stuff and Davos stuff. Multilateralism except when it’s in our interests to go it alone. In almost all cases Canada should act in coordination with other countries, but there may be cultural or constitutional reasons for exemptions, such as allowing Indigenous to seal hunt, etc. Sovereignty requires exceptionalism in exceptional circumstances.

We should have liberalized trade, but if our biggest trading partner becomes belligerent and we don’t have the economic development and diversity to fall back on, or the military to defend our sovereignty, we’re back where we are now. Again, let’s see Carney in action and go from there.

If Doug Ford spoke French he would be a fantastic PM. He’s an astute politician who comes across as genuine and strong, whether or not you support all his policies, which are basically Red Tory. I can see him being Ontario’s Premier until he retires from politics.

Yeah but I like the fact that PP has had to win support through the power of ideas and debate. I think even Trudeau recognizes Poilievre’s oratory strengths. Carney has a bit of yesterday’s man about him. He does bring connections and reputation, which he will have a chance to apply until the election, but I don’t know if his goals are going to be the right goals for Canada. We really need Canada First, not Davos first. Starmer is cut from the same cloth as Carney, so again, there are opportunities for relationship-building with Britain and Europe, but I don’t know what Carney’s long term vision is for Canada except as advancing UN sustainability and ESG goals.

Yeah he was at his best last week. Again though, Trudeau has done a lot of damage to Canada and his government is at least 50% responsible for why Trump has shown so much disrespect for the Canadian PM and our sovereignty. This wouldn’t have happened under Harper because he wouldn’t have shifted the country in such a radical left direction. He restored the Royal in Canada’s institutions, whereas Trudeau brought you Post-National State, admiration for the Chinese dictatorship, and fascistic rhetoric towards opposition during the pandemic, not to mention the Emergencies Act and freezing of bank accounts. Trudeau is too drunk with his own posturing and currying favour with global interests. The endless shaming of “settler colonial” Canada is perhaps irreversibly embedded in our national narrative. Carney will use more conservative rhetoric but won’t govern much differently from Trudeau. Only PP has had a longstanding commitment to making the necessary adjustments for strengthening Canada. Carney’s advantage is his international audience, but I’m not sure that attention will be great attention. Carney will have until the federal election to show us what he’s about.

Well the Toronto through Peterborough route rather than along the lakeshore creates a passenger-only route where it’s easier to create track allowing for high speeds and freeing of the freight lines to the south. It also means that Ottawa is on the line instead of Kingston. Really the critical HSR is Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. Everything else can be expanded over time. If I knew I could hop on a train after work on a Friday and be in my hotel room in Montreal by 9pm, I would start thinking about investing in Quebec and really embracing the culture there. I could see Quebecers doing the same in Ontario. It helps end the Two Solitude regionalism problem for Canada, which sometimes feels like a bunch of countries loosely connected. The CPR made Confederation possible because the railway made it possible to settle the West. The Trans-Canada Highway and St. Lawrence Seaway have played similar roles for nation building. Right now I tend to go to Cleveland or Pittsburgh for weekend getaways and Trader Joe’s runs, mainly because I know Ottawa is a 5 hour drive I don’t want to do for just a weekend. Montreal is even farther. In fact, I often choose New York City over Montreal because I figure, if I’m going to make a big drive for a long weekend, what’s another 90 minutes on top of the 6 hour drive to Montreal if I can go to a bigger city with more options. A 3 hour train ride to Montreal changes everything. It gives Canadians more Canadian travel options. It only works if we do it right and go for a truly high speed option. If it’s 4 or more hours Toronto to Montreal, that won’t inspire much change in behaviour.

Well I’ve always thought that Britain has more moral authority than the US, but Britain like Canada seems to struggle to uphold its independence in the face of international pressure to abandon its cultural roots and norms. The U.S. has more strength to go it alone. Canada really needs to back its own cultural identity and back its independence with greater military and economic might. Ukraine is simply another venue for Canada to defend democratic values, thereby reaffirming democratic self-determination everywhere.

I just don’t think it’s in anyone’s interests to have massive rearmament internationally. We may not have a choice in the West as China expands its reach. Canada does have to expand its military significantly. It’s hard to tell what kind of world order Trump is trying to establish, other than to cut the costs of America’s international involvement. He’s probably thinking that re-engaging Russia including re-establishing economic trade will prevent BRIC dominance and loss of the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency. He is smart to get other Western countries to foot more of the security costs for the West. He’s also smart to raise questions about the kinds of values we are defending. Russia understands this, as they have taken an anti-woke stance which is certainly better for local cultural protection and domestic fertility rates. In that regard Canada has to dump the radical left nonsense yesterday, which is why the Liberals need to go and Canada needs to shift right just to come back to centre and sensible policy. The problem with Trump’s 51st state rhetoric is that it’s preventing Canada from making an important course correction in the culture wars, as Canadians are rallying behind the current government, which happens to be the most radical left Liberal government in history. Trump has underestimated Canada’s national pride and international influence. He should speak directly to Canadians about his respect for Canadians and their historic contributions, as well as assure them of respecting our sovereignty. Fix that relationship, open up the prospect of an economic union in North America between sovereign countries that expands opportunities for the citizens of both countries, but emphasize the importance of Canada pulling its weight and paying its fair share in NATO. Be honest on trade unfairness rather than point at red herrings like fentanyl coming from Canada or a $200 billion trade deficit (it’s more like $60 billion and they buy discounted oil from us). Canada needs to get real but so does the U.S. I don’t think the Liberals are the ones to do it, but the Conservatives may not get a chance to lead if Trump doesn’t stop pissing off Canadians.

It’s interesting because I’m critical of the West’s involvement in Ukraine, as well as NATO’s expansion east. I think Russia should’ve been embraced early on as a security partner following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and I think the war in Ukraine is the result of broken trust due to broken promises. However, Putin is clearly a quasi-dictator in a de facto oligarchy who is seeing what he can get away with militarily. Not sharing intelligence with Ukraine means that Ukraine loses defensive capability. Trump blew it on that score and the world won’t forget it. While a diplomatic solution should’ve been sought between Russia and Ukraine early on, and we shouldn’t have given Ukraine a false sense of its hard power against Russia, we can’t now leave Ukraine at the mercy of an aggressive invader. Trump has been a weak negotiator with Russia. On the other hand, Trudeau is using neo-con language in his description of Putin as a bloodthirsty liar. I don’t want to see Canada become captive to a dubious proxy war that will align Canada against Russia long-term, as we have been allies in the past and there are cultural connections. Russia and Ukraine are also very similar to each other, and Ukraine’s history is highly interwoven with Russia’s, including with regard to territory. What must never be lost in this situation is the importance of local democratic self-determination. People need to decide in all the different parts of Ukraine who they want representing them and which country they are in. We understand this in Canada in our acceptance of referendums. The U.S. should support these basic democratic principles. Otherwise many countries could end up where Ukraine is, including Canada. Ukraine, like Canada, needs to be able to defend its democratically chosen pathway, as long as it isn’t at the expense of other democracies. The reality is that parts of Ukraine may democratically choose to be part of Russia. Basically we should support the democratic self-determination of Ukraine’s regions. UN blue helmets might be able to play an important role in this, including assuring that fair elections take place.

This is all the more reason why Canada needs to enhance its military with the ability to control it unilaterally and exclusively if NATO falls apart or the U.S. removes itself from the alliance. Basically we need to be able to defend our coasts and border with first strike capability to incinerate any attacking country AND engage in NATO missions. It seems that France figured that out. At least they have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Canada needs to equip itself to act unilaterally and support its geopolitical stances with hard power. That will require serious air and sea capabilities and bases in the far north. It’s expensive but essential for true independence. It’s an investment in the future that we will appreciate as our population begins to rival the biggest countries in Europe. We always have to be ready to raise the drawbridge. You only need to be able to destroy a significant part of the world once to deter aggressors.

The rest of the country matters very much, but don’t forget that the Quebec-Windsor corridor is one of the most significant economic zones in the West after the Boston-Washington corridor. We have to consolidate the strength of our wealth-generating areas by connecting them. In fact, it’s part of our nation-building because it enhances the movement of people, goods and services, just like removing interprovincial trade barriers. Otherwise we continue to orient ourselves south, economically, culturally, and perhaps eventually politically, but Canada would be overpowered by Washington in any political union. Think of it this way: Let’s become as unified and strong as we can as a country before we seriously consider further economic union and integration with the U.S. Further connecting Canada West and East, Ontario and Quebec, creates a significant economic and political bulwark against foreign influence. The Maritimes are similarly bicultural. The West can benefit from this large market to the east through new east-flowing pipelines. It can also draw talent from the well-educated and highly skilled workforces of central Canada. I would also suggest greater union between Alberta and BC through more resource and transport infrastructure, as well as removing trade barriers, to further unify these regions which can be very different politically. Greater union neutralizes the left and right-wing political extremes. Otherwise Alberta remains oriented towards and dependent on Texas while BC continues down the path of orientation towards Seattle and Cascadia. The West should be thinking about exporting resources towards Pacific Rim countries as well as eastern markets in Canada and domestic refining, including for export purposes to markets in Europe. All of this east-west oriented trade puts the country on more solid footing and makes us less dependent on the U.S. It gives us far more bargaining chips in trade negotiations.

Then you don’t appreciate how Canada was formed. The success of Canada was always about the union of the Canadas, English and French. The ideal was always a completely mixed bicultural Canada. There’s a special relationship between Quebec and Ontario. It was all New France going back to the Jesuit missionaries at Ste. Marie Among the Hurons. The bullet train unties and strengthen the connections between the most populous, oldest major settlements in Canada. It’s actually culturally significant. Alberta can do one, as well, maybe eventually to Vancouver. In a proper economic union with the U.S., we could connect to Buffalo and Detroit. It doesn’t make sense to do a bullet train across the country. Planes are more efficient at those distances.

I don’t think Canadians won’t notice a gradual loss of its auto sector, which is a significant part of our economy, especially in Ontario, and has been for a very long time. If we lost our existing auto plants to the U.S., the U.S. would lose the Canadian market for American-only made cars full stop. That’s why what Trump is doing is so stupid. The trade in autos is currently balanced between the two countries. Messing with that good, long established supply chain could do lasting damage in both countries. I don’t think the answer for Canada at this point is to simply look for another dominant trade partner. I think the answer is to have more domestic production for our own market and non-US markets. It will take time, but we already have the infrastructure and parts suppliers. The retooling for all the current USMCA partners would be unnecessarily expensive to both producers and consumers. It’s stupid.

The good news is that talks are in play between Canada and Mexico and other countries to find substitute markets. I can see new industries arising from these new partnerships. This is the time for Magna to start making complete cars in Canada, possibly in partnership with Mexico. If the U.S. wants to cut out Mexico and Canada, we can enhance north-south shipping and alliances with Central and South America. We just need one or two models: Canadian takes on the Accord and Civic, maybe a crossover vehicle to start with. My guess is that these cars would be very popular in Canada and internationally. Our lower dollar makes us a cheaper jurisdiction than the U.S. for production. If Sweden can have Volvo and Saab, there’s no reason Canada can’t. We’ve done it in the past with Bricklin and McLaughlin (Buick). Really the U.S. auto industry is also the Canadian auto industry, and it has been so for well over a century, but Trump doesn’t seem to know this history.

Trump's big miscalulation is thinking that he can somehow separate production from consumer purchasing. Canadians are currently buying just as many cars from the US as we sell to the US. If the Canadian manufacturing plant that sells those cars packs up and moves south, Canadians won't simply stop buying that particular model, they will stop buying cars made by that company. In fact, if the tariffs result in plant closures and job losses, there will simply be a blanket boycott of American products. Of course our exports to the U.S. would suffer too, but eventually we would find other markets, including for the oil that Americans buy from us at a discount. We may end up with a higher cost of living, but we will be far less dependent on the U.S. market, and we will replace at least some of the U.S. production that sells into Canada with Canadian production for our own market and export markets. I can see this as an opportunity for much greater trade with Central and South America. All the citrus we used to buy from Florida would come from farther south. We could export into growing economies like Brazil and Chile. We could sell far more of our natural gas and oil to Europe and Asia. This will effectively raise energy prices in the U.S. and lower them in Canada, as we refine and distribute cheaper domestic supply through new refineries and pipelines to Eastern Canada. I also think we should end all military procurements from the U.S. Dump the F-35's and look at European jets, subs, etc. Produce as much as we can domestically. Canadians will pay the higher prices for everything if it means defending our sovereignty and national pride. Trudeau's assessment of Trump's tariffs are quite accurate. They're largely coercive, inflationary, and damaging to the U.S.'s international image. The U.S. is no longer seen as a trusted partner, because they will pull up stakes for purely selfish reasons that are actually counter-productive to U.S. interests long term. I think at this point we let the Yanks play this out. Tourism to the U.S. will tank. U.S. exports will tank. Our exports to the U.S. will likely tank too, but unlike the U.S., we have the potential of many tariff-free partners for trade, whereas the U.S. has multiple countries, including allies, ready to boycott U.S. goods and seek other markets. Canada should embrace the challenge. We're a much bigger country than just a half century ago. We have a strong domestic market. Originally I had thought we could enter into an economic union with the U.S. with free movement of goods, services, and people between the two countries. I think there may be too much distrust towards Trump for that kind of productive arrangement sadly. Canada is going to go through an austere period of rebuilding, as it did in the 90's, but when we come out the other side, and we will, the country will be stronger, more independent, and far less gullible towards foreign influence.

I want facts when I watch or listen to news. If opinion is included, ideally a variety of perspectives that capture the various arguments are presented. At that point the listener or viewer has the information, agency, and critical thinking to determine whether action is needed and what kind. There’s nothing wrong with the feel-good inspirational philanthropic segments that most news broadcasts include that are about charity and are relatively apolitical. A healthy democracy demands a free press and trusts citizens to make informed decisions. CBC editorializes too much, and when it does so, the range of “acceptable views” is distinctly left and centre left. It didn’t used to be so obvious or monolithic.

The problem with HSR in the West is that since it wouldn’t be interprovincial it’s not very federal, and the time it would take on HSR to travel between Vancouver and Calgary, on an interprovincial train, would be long enough to keep most travellers using planes. I do think Calgary to Edmonton is a no brainer, and I’m sure it could get some federal funding Repeated studies have shown that the Quebec-Windsor corridor is the most financially viable one for HSR, especially Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. Quebec City is an obvious tourist destination. Extending to Kitchener-Waterloo has a clear business case. Hamilton does too, but that would be a separate spur that could eventually connect to Niagara and Buffalo. It’s relatively cheap to extend from K-W through London to Windsor because the land is flat and the existing corridors are straight, making high speeds possible without expensive diversions.

Social justice in the sense of Marxist redistribution schemes or simply calling attention to plights and proposed solutions? There’s a big difference between identifying a problem and ways of describing and fixing a problem versus advocating for one definition of and solution to a problem. The first approach is called journalism; the second is called political activism. CBC has blurred those lines far too often. If you want an activist CBC, pay for it. I don’t want a penny of our taxes funding radical narratives.

You’re not wrong. The CBC really can be that voice of civilization in the wilderness. I love the music on CBC radio generally, and there are good cultural pieces on it. I’m not for losing the CBC, but it needs to drop the woke shit.