BeaverFever

As if anyone needs any more proof that Trump’s kill orders are not about Drugs or protecting Americans . Explain how peasants who “allegedly” move small amounts of drugs thousands of miles away from US shores must be killed on sight with “leave no survivors” type orders….But Dug kingpins who DEFINITELY smuggled HUNDREDS OF TONS of it into USA get a PARDON after only 1 year in jail ? He must’ve been able to make that half-million “club membership” payment to The Trump family bribe club Trump says he will pardon ex-Honduras president convicted of drug trafficking US President Donald Trump has said that he will pardon the ex-president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted of drug trafficking charges in a US court last year. Trump made the announcement in a Truth Social post on Friday, congratulating the former president on the pardon, saying he was "treated very harshly and unfairly". Hernández was found guilty in March 2024 of conspiring to import cocaine into the US, and of possessing machine guns. He was sentenced to 45 years in prison. In the same post, Trump also said he supported conservative candidate Tito Asfura in the upcoming general election in the Central American country on Sunday. Hernández, a member of the National Party who served as Honduras's president from 2014 to 2022, was extradited to the United States in April 2022 to stand trial for running a violent drug trafficking conspiracy and helping to traffic hundreds of tons of cocaine to the US. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1kpm0rvxepo.amp

It’s really hard to kill yourself snorting cocaine, just ask Don Jr he’s snorted more than his share. Just because I oppose ordering extrajudicial killings of people ACCUSED of illegal acts doesn’t mean I support the acts they’re accused of. Also the claim that they were headed to the US is objectively false considering they are thousands of miles from US shores and in tiny boat that couldn’t possibly travel that far. As usual the only scumbag here is the racist white trash POS known as Deluge. Those are facts. You must not know what those words mean.

It’s not mutiny if the orders are illegal

Fun fact though: while the Ross was a terrible weapon for the everyday soldier in the trenches, it was actually preferred by army snipers due to its high accuracy and they kept the Ross after it was withdrawn from general service. So there are more dimensions to the story. But the Gripen is not the Ross rifle of fighter jets

Im not advocating for 16. I think it needs to be much more than that, just not all 88. Maybe 66 of each for example or 60 F35 and 40 Gripen, whatever makes sense.

Because there’s no upcoming confidence vote and nobody is vacating their seat before the next election so not a big deal Totally different than floor crossings and retirement engineered to affect confidence motions.

I mostly agree but I think the Baby Boomer bloc still controls the narrative in boardrooms and the halls of finance and we didn’t hear of any appetite for changing the big picture until the Trump-Carney era.

The encouraging thing I find from that last response is that we may have finally hit the turning point with Trump’s trade war and Carney’s proposed reforms, of which I hope we see more over the coming years. For the first time, government is at least saying the right things out loud.

(Me): So Canada is just doomed to languish in mediocrity a d while it can make reforms it will only result in incremental improvements (ChatGPT): Short term? Yes — Canada will remain mediocre. Long term? Not doomed, but nothing will change without a shock. Here’s the honest, non-sugarcoated version. 🇨🇦 1. Canada is structurally designed to produce “pretty good, not great” outcomes Everything about the system — capital markets, regulation, business culture, political incentives — pushes companies toward safety, stability, and income, not scale, risk, or innovation. Canada excels at: banking natural resources stable utilities risk-managed industries small, competent firms Canada is terrible at: scaling tech breakthrough commercialization building world-class giants rewarding risk-takers aggressive growth strategies These aren’t accidents. They’re consequences of the institutions Canada built. So mediocrity is baked in. 🇨🇦 2. Canada can reform the edges — but it won’t touch the structural parts Canada can make incremental fixes: tweak SR&ED add grants create new “innovation agencies” lower red tape adjust tax incentives give more money to accelerators create more “superclusters” But these are surface-level. The core problems — risk aversion, protected incumbents, fragmented markets, weak competition, cautious regulators, and conservative capital — are not politically touchable. Because the people who would lose from reform (banks, telecoms, pension funds, bureaucracies, risk-averse voters) are way more powerful than the people who would gain (founders, early-stage employees, scale-ups). This means reforms will remain incremental, not transformative. 🇨🇦 3. Canada lacks a crisis big enough to force change Real structural reform only happens when a country hits a wall: U.S. antitrust reforms → triggered by monopolies Finland’s tech reboot → triggered by Nokia collapsing South Korea’s industrial overhaul → triggered by the 1997 Asian crisis Germany’s labour reforms → triggered by stagnation China’s industrial acceleration → triggered by WTO entry Canada has never experienced a true competitiveness crisis. Instead, Canada: grows slowly avoids recessions keeps living standards high enjoys social stability benefits from resource exports Mediocrity is durable because it doesn’t feel bad enough to provoke action. 🇨🇦 4. Canada’s mediocrity is comfortable for the powerful Banks love the status quo. Telecoms love the status quo. Big incumbents love the status quo. Pension plans love investing abroad. Politicians love short-term stability. Voters love low risk and predictable services. The people with the ability to change things aren’t suffering under the current system. Only would-be innovators and ambitious companies suffer. That creates stasis. 🇨🇦 5. So is Canada doomed? No — but it needs a forcing mechanism Two kinds of shocks can wake Canada up: 🔥 A crisis-driven shock Examples that could force deep reform: A major recession triggered by collapsing productivity A U.S. political rupture that disrupts trade A resource crash A demographic crisis (already beginning) A competitiveness collapse (already underway) Crises make impossible reforms politically inevitable. 🚀 A success-driven shock Canada could also be forced to reform if: A breakout Canadian tech giant shows what’s possible (Shopify almost did this) A foreign competitor smashes incumbents and exposes inefficiencies A visionary federal government uses a majority mandate to push real reforms This is less likely than a crisis-driven shock, but not impossible. 🇨🇦 6. Canada is not doomed — but it will not improve without pressure The status quo will not change because of: white papers think-tank reports incremental innovation policy grants tax tweaks It will only change when maintaining the status quo becomes more painful than fixing it. Canada hasn’t hit that point yet. But the warning signs are here: lowest productivity growth in the G7 shrinking real incomes deteriorating competitiveness declining foreign investor interest demographic drag underperforming capital formation These metrics are slowly pushing Canada toward a reckoning. 🇨🇦 Bottom line Canada is not doomed. It’s just trapped in a comfortable, slow-falling glidepath. Real change will only come when: the glidepath steepens into a crisis or a major external shock (like U.S. political friction) forces the country to wake up or an internal political movement finally decides mediocrity is unacceptable. Until then, yes — Canada will continue to move sideways, slowly.

After reading some recent articles on Canada’s “big picture” long-term economic challenges, I decided to have a conversation with ChatGPT to see what the synthesized overall consensus was on Canada’s problems. Many of these statements I’ve heard before but it was very impactful to see them all tied together in one place It was very enlightening, thought I would share it: (Me): So there are primarily just 2 problems impeding growth of Canadian businesses: 1) “missing middle” investors prevents growth beyond the startup phase and 2) large companies prefer to distribute profits as dividends instead of raising capital for the next growth stage due to management and investor apathy and lack of sophistication? (ChatGPT): Those two problems are very real structural issues in Canada’s business ecosystem — but they’re not the only ones. They interact with several deeper factors. Let me break down what you’re describing, confirm what’s accurate, and add the critical missing pieces economists point to. ✅ 1. The “Missing Middle” Canada is well-known for having: Lots of very small firms (1–20 employees) Many micro-startups (often grant- or angel-supported) Very few mid-sized scaling companies (50–500 employees) This isn’t just anecdotal — it’s repeatedly shown in OECD and Industry Canada data. Why it happens: Risk-averse domestic banks → won’t lend against intangible assets (software, IP) Conservative VC ecosystem → smaller funds, earlier exit preferences Government programs unintentionally steer firms to stay small (e.g., Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) rules, small business tax rate incentives) Talent scarcity due to immigration delays and small domestic labour pools This is Problem #1, and your summary is correct. ✅ 2. Dividend Culture Instead of Growth Investment Canadian public markets have a reputation for: High dividend yields Low reinvestment in growth “Financialized” management culture in large firms Investors that prefer stability to growth This is also true. Many Bay Street investors would rather: Receive consistent 3–6% dividends than see earnings reinvested into R&D, expansion, or riskier growth initiatives. Canadian management culture also tends to prioritize “don’t screw up” rather than “win big.” So yes, this is Problem #2. But — these two alone don’t fully explain Canada’s growth gap. Economists and policy analysts typically highlight five structural factors that interact with those two problems: 🔍 3. Low Competition + High Concentration Canada has unusually high market concentration in: Telecom Banking Airlines Transportation Groceries Energy retail Professional services This reduces: Pressure to innovate Incentives for companies to scale Opportunities for challengers to break in Many potential mid-sized firms never scale because dominant incumbents control distribution or partnerships. 🔍 4. Small Domestic Market → Low Economies of Scale Canada’s market is: 1/10 the population of the U.S. Spread across a huge geography Fragmented by provincial regulation (e.g., different rules for trucking, alcohol, insurance, procurement) To scale, Canadian companies need to expand internationally much earlier and with more risk than American firms. This increases failure rates and reduces domestic scale. 🔍 5. Brain Drain + Management Talent Gap Chronic issues: Strong Canadian technical talent → but weak commercial scaling experience Best founders often move to the U.S. once they hit the “middle” U.S. companies poach senior managers aggressively Lack of repeat founders compared to Silicon Valley or NYC Scaling companies need experienced CFOs, CROs, product managers, and growth leaders — Canada has few. 🔍 6. Regulatory and Policy Friction This includes: Slow approval processes (environmental, construction, infrastructure) Provincial barriers that fragment markets Patchwork subsidies that distort incentives SR&ED that rewards R&D but not commercialization The result? Companies innovate but can’t commercialize fast enough. 🔍 7. Capital Flight Canadian pension funds: Invest massively overseas (private equity, infrastructure) Invest much less in Canadian growth companies CPP, OTPP, OMERS often fund U.S. or European scale-ups instead of Canadian ones. This exacerbates the missing middle. 🎯 So what’s the complete picture? Your two factors are core symptoms: ✔ Missing mid-sized growth firms ✔ Dividend-first, low-growth corporate culture But the full set of intertwined causes is more like: 1. Missing Middle (capital + talent constraints) 2. Dividend-first culture / low-growth corporate governance 3. Market concentration that stifles competition 4. Small domestic market + regulatory fragmentation 5. Limited management scaling talent 6. Slow regulatory & procurement systems 7. Capital flight (pensions + institutions invest abroad) (Me): If this is widely known for decades and accepted across industry why does nobody do anything about it? They just accept it as “the way it is” it’s disgusting (Chat GPT): You’re not wrong — and the frustrating part is that everyone knows these problems, from Bay Street to Ottawa to every founder who’s ever tried to scale a Canadian company. And yet almost nothing changes. Here’s the uncomfortable truth: 🧩 The system stays broken because the people with power aren’t harmed by the brokenness. Let me break down exactly why nothing happens, even though the problems are obvious. 1️⃣ Incumbents benefit from the status quo Big banks benefit from low competition and low risk. Telecoms benefit from protected markets. Pension funds benefit from investing abroad where returns are higher. Big firms benefit from low-pressure, stable markets. Managers benefit from job security and low expectations. The incentives for those players are aligned with not changing anything. Why would Bell, TD, Rogers, Loblaw, or Suncor push for more competition or more risk-taking? They win under the current structure. 2️⃣ Politicians don’t get rewarded for fixing long-term structural issues Fixing the “missing middle” requires: Reforming SR&ED (Scientific Research and Experimental Development incentives) Opening telecom/financial markets to competition Breaking down provincial barriers Reforming capital markets rules Rethinking tax incentives Those changes take 10–20 years to show results. Politicians operate on 2–4 year cycles, and voters rarely reward long-term strategy. So governments announce things like: small-business tax cuts one-off innovation funds photo-op innovation hubs “superclusters” that die quietly …because those sound innovative and pay political dividends immediately. Structural reform does not. 3️⃣ Canadian culture is deeply risk-averse This is the root everyone is uncomfortable acknowledging. Broadly speaking: Canadian investors prefer steady dividends over growth. Canadian banks prefer mortgages over business lending. Canadian executives prefer incremental improvements over bold moves. Canadian employees prefer stable employers over scale-up chaos. Canadian voters oppose anything that feels “risky.” This cultural instinct shapes regulation, policy, and business decisions. We produce good companies, not big ones. 4️⃣ Mid-sized companies don’t exist to lobby for change Here’s the catch-22: Mid-sized companies need better policies to scale. But they can’t scale enough to gain the political weight necessary to demand those policies. So: Large incumbents dominate lobbying. Tiny startups have no lobbying power. The “middle” — the companies that would actually push for growth-friendly reforms — remains too small to matter politically. This is one of the key reasons why nothing changes. 5️⃣ The people who see the problems don’t control capital Founders know the system is broken. Early employees know. Tech workers know. Product managers know. Economists know. Policy analysts know. But the decision-makers are: Bank executives Pension fund boards Large corporate boards Institutional investors Politicians Regulators They do not experience the pain of building or scaling companies under these constraints. So from their perspective, nothing is broken. 6️⃣ Canadian business media reinforces the complacency Canadian business journalism tends to: Celebrate dividend payouts as “good governance” Frame foreign acquisitions as Canadian success stories Criticize government for not protecting domestic industries Frame risk-taking by public firms as irresponsible This reinforces the idea that growth is dangerous and stability is virtuous. 7️⃣ There’s no crisis forcing change In many countries, big reforms only happen when things break: U.S. trust-busting after robber barons Germany’s post-reunification industrial reform Finland’s reform after the Nokia collapse South Korea’s industrial revolution after the 1997 crisis Canada has not had a big enough economic shock to drive change. The economy: Grows slowly Never booms Never crashes catastrophically Just … slightly disappoints forever It’s the classic “frog in warm water.” 🧨 So why does nobody fix it? Because the system is stable for everyone who matters, and painful only for the people trying to innovate. 🟦 If you want, I can also explain: Why U.S. investors don’t step in to fill the gap Whether anything is realistically likely to change Which reforms would actually work but are politically impossible Whether a crisis (housing, productivity collapse, labour shortage) might finally force change Just tell me which angle you want. (Me): The first one (ChatGPT): Here’s why U.S. investors don’t swoop in to exploit Canada’s “missing middle,” even though the opportunity seems obvious from the outside. People assume American VCs, private equity, and growth funds should see Canada as a bargain. But once you look at their incentives, it becomes clear why they mostly stay away. 🇺🇸💸 1) U.S. investors don’t see Canada as a big enough prize For a major U.S. fund, a market needs to be: Big Scalable Easy to operate in Canada is none of these. It’s 1/10 the population of the U.S. spread out across a massive geography. For a big fund manager in New York or San Francisco, Canada feels like: “A small, annoying, heavily regulated version of the U.S., with fewer unicorns, smaller exits, and harder scaling.” If your fund needs 10×–100× returns, Canada doesn’t look like fertile ground. 📉 2) Canadian exits are smaller, so the math doesn’t work U.S. VCs model returns on: IPOs at $5B+ M&A exits at $1B+ High-growth acquirers in the U.S. tech ecosystem Canada: Far fewer acquirers Far fewer billion-dollar exits More companies acquired early for $50M–$200M Those outcomes aren’t worth the risk for big American funds and don’t move their portfolio. A $100M exit is a failure for a U.S. growth fund, but a big win for a Canadian one. 🧱 3) Canada’s regulatory environment is slow, unclear, and fragmented From the perspective of an American investor, Canada seems: Hard to navigate Different rules in every province Slow to approve things Bureaucratic with grants and incentives Complicated with tax credits like SR&ED Example: A U.S. VC investing in a Canadian medtech or fintech company quickly encounters: Health Canada approvals Provincial licensing Interprovincial barriers Unique privacy rules Restrictions on ownership in certain sectors Harder rules = higher cost = “Why bother?” 🏦 4) Canadian banking culture kills scale U.S. growth investors depend on: Venture debt Aggressive lending Lines of credit for expansion Canadian banks: Avoid lending to high-growth companies without hard assets Don’t like startups with cash burn Require founder guarantees Don’t support rapid expansion Often pull credit at the first sign of trouble A U.S. VC can’t invest in a Canadian startup and then rely on the banking system to support it. That’s a dealbreaker. ⚠️ 5) Canadian founders often sell early (too early) U.S. VCs want founders who will: Push aggressively for a $1B+ valuation Refuse the first acquisition offer Sacrifice short-term cash for long-term scale Canadian founders often: Prioritize risk reduction Take the first buyout offer Prefer a $30M–$100M exit over rolling the dice for a unicorn Worry about personal liability and debt (because Canadian banks require personal guarantees) To a U.S. investor, this looks like: “They’re going to sell the moment it gets scary.” That weakens the investment thesis. 📍 6) Distance matters more than people admit Most U.S. funds want portfolio companies that are: Within a 3–5 hour flight In time zones aligned with their other investments In markets where they already know recruiters, lawyers, partners, acquirers, and talent pools Canada is close geographically but far culturally and operationally. Many investors quietly say: “If I want a small market with high friction, I’ll just go to Europe — it’s bigger.” 💼 7) The Canadian public markets are hostile to growth firms TSX and TSXV reward: Dividends Stability Value stocks Mining, real estate, energy They do not reward: Loss-making growth High R&D spend Big bets Scale-first strategies So Canadian startups can’t IPO early like U.S. ones. And U.S. VCs can’t plan an IPO exit on Canadian exchanges. That makes investment much less attractive. 🔍 😎 Canada’s best companies leave early anyway If a Canadian startup shows real promise, what happens? They incorporate in Delaware Move part of the team to the U.S. Run U.S. sales from New York or Austin Seek U.S. customers Eventually move their HQ south Raise from U.S. VCs Grow in the U.S. market Exit in the U.S. U.S. investors don’t need to invest in Canadian companies in Canada, because the best ones move voluntarily. The “missing middle” shrinks because the middle graduates to the U.S. 🧨 So why don’t U.S. investors exploit the gap? Because from their perspective: 👉 The Canadian growth ecosystem is too small, 👉 too slow, 👉 too risk-averse, 👉 too regulated, 👉 talent-scarce, 👉 and has too few big exits to justify the hassle. And when Canadian companies do show breakout potential, they usually move to the U.S. anyway.

As Wark points out, the F-35 should be the expeditionary fleet because that’s where the high end war fighting is. The “defence of Canada” fleet is just constabulary air policing and can be done by Gripens just fine. The F35 doesn’t provide much extra value in that role So we can have 2 fleets and shouldn’t put off Gripens if we can get them sooner while we wait for F-35s. F15EX is even more expensive than F35, not Canada’s bag. The problems with the evaluation that show the F35 so far ahead is that 1) The F35 doesn’t actually perform as well in real life as the evaluation assumes 2) The valuation only considers MAXIMUM capability. We all agree that in an outright war against a near peer like Russia F35 is the best and Gripen is going to be challenged but that’s not the only scenario we should be considering. We can all agree that Ford Mustang is faster than a Honda civic, but if your family only races cars on the weekend and mostly just commuted to work and runs local errands around town on the weekdays you don’t need 2 Ford Mustangs, 1 Mustang and 1 Civic is more than fine. Especially if the Mustang is in the shop half the time for design flaws with no firm resolution date. So to disqualify the Civic as an option because it’s an inferior racecar misses the whole point.

I haven’t heard that in a long time. Modern engines are now reliable enough to make the single engine argument less relevant. Plus USAF has been operating F-16s in Alaska for decades without significant issues.

Which companies? How many millions? If you have any evidence for any of your claims please share.

He’s a pro-china stooge because he doesn’t want a pipeline for exporting oil to china?

It’s not misrepresenting Blondin at all. Wark accurately reflected Blondin’s perspective. Blondin says he is not arguing for a mixed fleet, he’s arguing for 2 fighter fleets, because USA can’t be trusted. Well isn’t that just semantics compared to what Wark and I have suggested? He’s still saying we should acquire BOTH aircraft. And then he says all 88 F35 should come first and then 50-60 4.5 gen aircraft from Europe second That’s just a difference numbers and timing. Like Wark, I’m indifferent to the exact combination and timing and wiling to leave that part to the RCAF to figure out. I have always felt that 88 is too few. At the end of the day he’s still suggesting Canada operate both fighters to de-risk from USA. So call it a “mixed fleet” or call it “2 fleets” we are in agreement that Canada should have more than 88 planes and should operate both fighters Canada should buy F-35s but plan for European fighter jets next, former general says https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-should-buy-f-35s-but-plan-for-european-fighter-jets-next-former/

Have a sense of humour.

Well that was a big nothingburger Some “convoy,” that was almost as limp as PP’s peepee on budget day. A handful of losers on Facebook just don’t have the influence they did during COVID it seems. At least this time nobody stockpiled illegal firearms to fight “UN forces and possibly the.Chinese army” or caused hundreds of layoffs on due to border blockades.

Here’s a good article by Wesely Wark, one of this country’s top security and intelligence experts … The F-35 decision: Canada getting pregnant in the Norway way? https://open.substack.com/pub/wesleywark/p/the-f-35-decision-canada-getting?r=3adb8b&utm_medium=ios Back in 2008, Norway, a staunch NATO ally with a history of close defence cooperation with the US, faced the same dilemma that currently confronts the Canadian government and the RCAF—whether to buy the US F-35 fighter jet or the Swedish JAS Gripen to replace its aging fleet of F-16s. (Our CF-18s are even more aged). The decision was surrounded by intense political controversy, strong campaigns by both aircraft companies (Lockheed-Martin and Saab), and from both governments, anti-US sentiment on the socialist/labour flank of Swedish politics, and efforts to measure the relative economic benefit to Norway. While the decision went in favour of purchasing the F-35 on technical aircraft capability grounds (though the analysis was never released in public), we do have some partial insights into the US governmental advocacy campaign, thanks to the mass Wikileaks/Julian Assange release of US diplomatic cables (“Cablegate”) in 2010-2011. One such diplomatic cable, sent by the US ambassador in Oslo, on September 22, 2008, argued that the Norwegian government decision had entered a critical phase, that public perception was shifting against the F-35, and that high-level US government advocacy was needed.[1] The US ambassador was concerned that any Norwegian decision to buy the Saab Gripen could have a domino effect on pending decisions on fighter jet acquisition by other European countries, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, and could have very negative consequences for bilateral relations, political, economic and military, between the US and Norway. Another revealing cable from Oslo, one that came in the aftermath of the Norwegian decision to choose the F-35 in November 2008, tried to chronicle the decision and offer some lessons for the US.[2] It mentioned a series of visits by US officials in the Fall of 2008 “to make the public case on why the F-35 is an excellent choice, and the private case on why the choice of aircraft will have an impact on the bilateral relationship.” The embassy noted that the Norwegian government decision in favour of the F-35 was accompanied by “unusually strong language (for domestic political reasons) to say the Gripen was uncompetitive.” In a “very relaxed meeting” between the US ambassador and the Norwegian Deputy Defence Minister, the Norwegian official was noted as saying it would be “very helpful” if the US Government publicly stressed the strength of the F-35 and confirmed “there was no USG political pressure to buy the plane.” The ambassador’s cable stressed that the eventual success of the US campaign to sell the F-35 to Norway reflected the technical capabilities of the plane “despite perceived weaknesses in other areas such as the industrial [benefits] package” and followed consistent and sustained US public and private advocacy. He noted that the US campaign tried to walk a careful line between outright pressure on Norway and more diplomatically couched reminders to the Norwegian government of the potential impact of the decision on the bilateral relationship. The ambassador noted that the private advocacy campaign was “much more forceful,” presumably meaning more iron fist and less velvet glove. Is Canada about to get pregnant in its fighter jet decision in the Norway way? Will some combination of the alleged technical superiority of the F-35 for various classified military scenarios, never to be made public, over the Saab Gripen, combined with a public and behind the scenes pressure campaign, bend the decision in favour of going through with the full purchase of 88 F-35 jets (36 more than were bought by Norway)? Canada may not get pregnant in the Norway way, but the circumstances are remarkably similar. (Though don’t expect a Canadian “cablegate” with a glimpse behind the scenes). We just get the very public Pete Hoekstra. [3] What Norway never considered was the possibility of buying both competitor planes and running a mixed fleet of military aircraft. Why not? The reason is straightforward. Norway’s military needs are distinctly different, and much less complex, than those that face Canada. They operate in one well-defined geographic theatre against one identified foe. A mixed fighter jet fleet may be a Canadian strategic necessity in a way it never was for the Norwegians. There is no question that operating such a mixed fleet would be a complex endeavour that would put a strain on pilot supply, maintenance capabilities, infrastructure and basing, and supply chains. Yes, Canada has done it before, but in an age of much less sophisticated, simpler jet fighters. Also in an age when we had more air force pilots and ground crew. But is there a path to a responsible mixed fighter fleet? A former RCAF commander, Yves Blondin, believes there is. He thinks Canada should go ahead with the full purchase of the F-35, despite his concerns around US control of software upgrades and weapons and sensor systems for the planes, but layer in a subsequent purchase in the mid-2030s of a second, European fighter jet like the Saab Gripen. [4] He makes this argument by balancing NORAD air defence needs with a “credible expeditionary capability in Europe.” It’s a beguiling option (although a full f-35 fleet plus an additional complement of expeditionary aircraft would present a very significant, maybe bank-breaking, expenditure). Cost issues apart, the big problem with the Blondin vision of a mixed fleet is that it scrambles the options. If Canada wanted to create a distinctive air expeditionary force to operate in Europe with NATO, the best plane for that purpose would be the F-35, which is already or soon to be operated by key NATO allies. The Saab Gripen, on the other hand, is well suited, arguably better-suited than the F-35 to fulfill an air defence and air surveillance/sovereignty assertion mission in Canada. Faster, longer-range, more serviceable, cheaper, more operationally deployable and reliable in northern airspace, and with a much better industrial benefit package for Canada. Also, it carries all the lethality and sensor capabilities needed. Buy the Saab Gripen in sufficient numbers to fulfill Canada’s air defence needs. Buy the F-35 in sufficient numbers to make a credible expeditionary arm for NATO. Let the experts decide what those numbers should be and how to layer them in on a timetable as we retire the long-serving CF-18 (“Hornets”). Forget US arguments that Canada must fly the same plane as the US for NORAD purposes. We don’t now and never really have (not since the Korean war). Arguments about inter-operability concerns lack all credibility. Part of the challenge of maintaining a mixed fleet could be solved by jointly basing an F-35 expeditionary air arm with a NATO ally. Norway would be an excellent candidate. They are the first country to complete the full acquisition of their F-35 fleet, all 52 of which are now available to the Norwegian air force. They have nearly a decade of experience with the plane. They have available space at Norwegian air bases, with hardened shelters, for a Canadian contingent. Maintenance and infrastructure costs, training and exercising, could be shared. Win-win. Get pregnant that Norway way. Meanwhile, if the Saab offer to build an assembly capacity in Canada is forthcoming, go for it. The industrial benefits package from the F-35 is paltry (as the Norwegians discovered ). Building the Saab Gripen in Canada would not be the Avro Arrow redux, but something much more tried, true, realistic and needed. [1] US Embassy Cable, Oslo, “Norway Fighter Purchase: High-Level Advocacy Needed Now,” September 22, 2008, https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08OSLO522_a.html [2] US Embassy Cable, Oslo, “Lessons Learned from Norwegian Decision to Buy JSF,” December 16, 2008, https://web.archive.org/web/20250323202410/https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08OSLO670_a.html [3] Tonda MacCharles, Toronto Star, “Future of trade talks depend on Canada’s purchase of American fighter jets, U.S. ambassador says,” November 23, 2025, https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/future-of-trade-talks-depends-on-canadas-purchase-of-american-fighter-jets-u-s-ambassador/article_fd0daf89-2d9b-4b96-b391-bf9b6cf1aff8.html; CTV News, “U.S. Ambassador calls F-35s ‘phenomenal success’ as Canada considers Swedish fighter jets,” November 20, 2025, https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/f-35s-are-phenomenal-success-us-ambassador-says-as-canada-considers-swedish-fighter-jets/ [4] David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen, “Canadian General who recommended F-35 deal now calls for purchase of other jets,” March 27, 2025, https://ca.news.yahoo.com/canadian-general-recommended-f-35-080012093.html; Yves Blondin and Justin Massie, “The idea of a mixed fleet of Canadian fighter jets should not take flight,” November 17, 2025, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canadian-fighter-jets-f-35-mixed-fleet-defence/

You really are a nujob if you think there’s a vast worldwide conspiracy of federal and local governments healthcare workers, academia, non-profits, charities, public interests groups - many of whom ferociously fight big pharma on other issues daily like the opioid crisis - whose one and sole obsession is the profit margin of one drug “Like yeah In suing big pharma for billions over the opioid crisis, price fixing, other drugs with unintended side effects and a whole bunch of other things but Im injecting myself, my family and everyone else with a deadly drug because for no particular reason I think it would be neat if that ONE particular drug had good profit margins”. The sheer costs of providing people free covid shots let alone the healthcare costs associated with caring for people who allegedly were harmed by it would far outstrip any direct profit anyone had from investing in that particular drug company. This what I’m talking about your total inability to think critically. Your conspiracy requires someone to believe that not only do drug companies want to make profits but the vast majority of society who believe in vaccines are singularly obsessed with it also to the point they’ll overwhelm their own healthcare system and spend billions of tax dollars and make their own lives hell in the process which is ridiculous. Your clueless ass is also blissfully unaware that many of the drug companies like AZ and J&J making covid vaccines sold them at ZERO profit during the pandemic and sales have crashed since. Also vaccine makers in China, India etc that were produced at zero profit as a public health directive what’s their motive? Moderna and Pfizer wrote off billions in losses after 2022 once vaccine demand dropped off. Yet we’re supposed to believe that tens of thousands of hospitals, governments, healthcare and scientific associations, medical journals etc around the world are all involved in a conspiracy of impossible scale and coordination…..all for the relatively insignificant purpose of improving the profit margins of one new drug when there are plenty of more profitable drugs like ozempic Its just stupid and shows who outnof touch with reality you are.

Actually the problem originates with the demand for the drugs, which is inside the united states, not south of your border.

So now it’s treason punishable by death to even insinuate the president is breaking the law? This must be another one of those magical laws that only applies when Republicans are in power. And let’s be clear Trump is ordering the military to kill unarmed non-combatants on sight far from American shores even as they flee and with no opportunity to surrender, claims that it is perfectly legal are dubious at best, it not like he’s so clearly within the bounds of the law that it’s outrageous to suggest otherwise.

“Canada” doesn’t buy, import or distribute oil. The private companies in the oil industry do, most of which are foreign or US-owed and couldn’t give a flying fck about Canada. Why don’t you ask them? Im sure they’ll tell you that it’s a global market and on any given day they buy it from wherever it damn well pleases them and they ship it to wherever it damn well pleases them and then they’ll tell you you’re a lefty enviro-communist for daring to question them

Dude seriously? Are you American?

Let’s be clear the Democrats in the video reminded service personnel that they have a LEGAL DUTY to disobey illegal orders, they must obey the law and constitution at all times, which every serviceperson knows. That includes illegal orders from the President. It isn’t automatically legal just because the president orders it. Those are simply the facts.

I don’t run away any more than adult runs away from a toddler having a meltdown. You don’t have a family or social life outside of this forum or away from your computer and you don’t get bored from repeating yourself ad nauseam but we successful and intelligent people do.