BeaverFever

As I said every department has its own budget and mandate and governments have to deal with dozens of priorities not just divert all their funding to one or 2 top priorities and ignore everything else. Also note that is funding allocated under a previous budget that precedes the trade war. Carney’s first budget will he released on November 4.

As Americans are learning the hard way, that “foreign aid” mostly involves government buying agricultural products and manufactured goods from its own domestic producers. It’s as much a subsidy program as it is anything else. The USAID office that Trump shutdown was one of the biggest purchasers of American agricultural products Between that, the trade wars, cancelling a shitload of other farm subsidies and running off immigrant farm workers, many American farms are on the brink of collapse thanks to Trump.

Department of Global affairs has its own mandate and its own budget. Each government department has its own job to do and this department l’s responsibilities don’t include supporting domestic farmers.

When a Harper Conservative goes after Pierre Poilievre, you know there’s blood in the water Oct. 17, 2025 at 8:40 p.m. By Althia RajNational Columnist Althia Raj is a national politics columnist for the Star. Follow her on Twitter: @althiaraj The uprising against Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre may have officially begun. Just three months before Poilievre’s leadership review in Calgary, Stephen Harper’s former spokesman is letting it be known that knives should be out. Writing in the Star, Dimitri Soudas accuses Poilievre of “dismantling the principled, serious and credible Conservative party Harper worked so hard to lead and bring to power, one of substance, maturity and integrity.” Soudas, who served as the former prime minister’s communications director, suggests Poilievre is rewriting the legacy of the party, and he reminds the public — and Conservatives — that theirs is a party that is “far greater than any one man,” that was “built to serve the country, not the ego of a single leader.” The Conservative establishment, it appears, won’t remain silent as Poilievre tries to remake the party into a grievance movement — as Republicans were when Donald Trump turned theirs into an outlet for racist, corrupt and conspiracy-fueled authoritarianism. Soudas’s column is the first public sign that those around Harper, long heralded as the guardian of the party, may be unhappy with the performance of Poilievre, his former parliamentary secretary. During the election campaign, there were multiple reports of frustrations behind the scenes from Harper’s camp, despite his public endorsement of the current Conservative leader. In a statement Friday, Harper’s team tried to disassociate itself from Soudas’ comments, saying his words did “not reflect Prime Minister Harper’s views. “Mr. Soudas does not speak on behalf of Mr. Harper,” Anna Tomala, the chief of staff of Harper & Associates told the Star. But privately, many big Conservative names — the party’s elite, if you wish — are disappointed and discouraged by Poilievre’s antics. They muted their complaints when Poilievre was rising in the polls and it seemed certain he would become prime minister; now that he’s not, the rumblings are getting louder. Inside the Conservative caucus, there are also many unhappy members. The more Prime Minister Mark Carney talks about pipelines and crime and rewrites the Justin Trudeau-era legacy, the more these Conservatives are reminded that they may be backing the wrong leader. It’s not just those who see themselves as progressive conservatives — there are also pragmatic conservatives, fiscal conservatives, rural conservatives, Quebec conservatives, Eastern conservative, Western conservatives, and just not-crazy conservatives. For nearly 10 years, these MPs looked across the aisle and thought Trudeau lacked the maturity to do the job. Now they are asked to defend a leader who muses that his former opponent should be jailed, who calls the RCMP leadership “despicable,” who wants to “restore merit” by ending diversity, equity and inclusion policies — despite his own track record of appointing Conservative candidates who could not win nomination races, and displacing an elected MP after losing his own seat last spring. Much as the 2015 election campaign left many New Democrats dispirited after Trudeau gave voice to their issues and ideals better than NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, many Conservatives aren’t upset that they lost. They are upset about how they lost. They feel they didn’t run on their principle. They feel they are represented by a leader that does not represent their values. What are they willing to do about it? Some caucus members were approached by Liberal emissaries this spring about crossing the floor, but ultimately felt they couldn’t make that switch. Intellectually, emotionally, they were not Liberals. Some represent ridings that would be hard to win as a Grit. But six months later, those calculations may have changed, especially for Quebec MPs and those in Eastern Canada. Poilievre is going down a darker path. Can they win their riding in spite of him as leader? Defection to the Liberals, however, is not the only option. Much like Chuck Strahl once led a group of Canadian Alliance MPs who were disenchanted with Stockwell Day’s leadership to sit in the House of Commons as their own parliamentary grouping, these Conservatives could form their own caucus. That would signal disappointment with Poilievre, and could spur more of an effort to defeat him in Calgary next January. A new leader would no doubt welcome those dissenters back into the Conservative fold. But most Conservative MPs feel Poilievre’s leadership review — his confirmation — is all but sealed and delivered. Some delegates have yet to be selected, but the location choice of Calgary, the simultaneous Ontario Progressive Conservative convention, and the makeup of the current membership seem like insurmountable obstacles to those who oppose his leadership. And unlike the revolt that led to Erin O’Toole’s removal as Conservative party leader after the disappointing 2021 election campaign, Poilievre has no leadership rival actively organizing against him the way he organized against O’Toole. It’s mainly why the movement to push Poilievre out the door has so far had few legs. No one wants to stick their necks out for fear of having Poilievre refuse to sign their nomination papers, essentially ending their political careers. And everyone, in and out of the Conservative caucus, knows Poilievre won’t go without a fight. Would he even contest the leadership of the party again if he lost the leadership review? If Conservative MPs were waiting for a white knight before showing some resolve, that person hasn’t materialized. Leadership options may not present themselves until Poilievre is out the door and with him the MAGA rhetoric that he is espousing. What they and grassroots Conservatives have been given by Soudas now, though, is a push for moral clarity. They may not have the numbers yet to defeat Poilievre in January, but there is now a suggestion that many more feel like they do, and that if they don’t act, the legacy of their party will be reshaped in a manner they find unrecognizable. https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/when-a-harper-conservative-goes-after-pierre-poilievre-you-know-theres-blood-in-the-water/article_927fbc57-9b7f-4c0a-a638-1fc504ca0204.html

I’m a former senior aide to Stephen Harper. Pierre Poilievre is dismantling the principled, trustworthy Conservative Party we tried to build By Dimitri Soudas Contributor Dimitri Soudas is a political analyst for Radio-Canada. He was a director of communications and senior advisor under Stephen Harper and later executive director of the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservative Party that was shaped by the nation-building of Sir John A. Macdonald, the moral conviction of John Diefenbaker, the bold ambition of Brian Mulroney, and the steady discipline of Stephen Harper is far greater than any one man. It is a party rooted in history, principle, and purpose, a party built to serve the country, not the ego of a single leader. No individual, no matter how loud or popular, has the right to rewrite that legacy or distort it into something it was never meant to be. Leader Pierre Poilievre is dismantling the principled, serious and credible Conservative Party Harper worked so hard to lead and bring to power, one of substance, maturity and integrity. As a senior aide to Prime Minister Harper, I had the privilege to witness first-hand his leadership style: serious, principled, steady and deeply committed to the country’s long-term interests. He was the embodiment of what Canadians should expect from a national leader, governing with discipline, competence and a profound respect for Canada’s institutions. He brought credibility to the Conservative movement, not through theatrics, but through thoughtful policy-making, fiscal prudence, and strategic vision. He was never swayed by short-term headlines or the chaos of the news cycle. Instead, he focused on results: balanced budgets, trade expansion, national security, and pragmatic federalism. Harper spoke less, but when he did, it mattered. He built a unified party that reflected the broad spectrum of conservative values, from fiscal responsibility to national unity, without sacrificing seriousness or integrity. In an era of rising populism and political noise, Harper remains a reminder of what real leadership looks like: thoughtful, focused, principled, and unwavering in service to the country. Harper was able to unite fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, progressive conservatives, libertarian conservatives, Red Tories and Blue Tories into a serious, policy-driven coalition grounded in discipline, pragmatism and national interest, a legacy now being unravelled by Poilievre’s politics of spectacle and division. This week, Poilievre accused Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of committing what he described as the worst possible offence for a head of government, violating the Criminal Code and escaping justice. He claimed that Trudeau’s free vacation from the Aga Khan was a clear-cut criminal breach and that the RCMP deliberately chose not to lay charges. Poilievre went further, declaring that Trudeau should have been criminally charged and sent to jail. He went as far as accusing the RCMP leadership of being “despicable” and actively shielding the Liberal government from prosecution. In a rule-of-law democracy, no opposition leader should ever call for a prime minister or any political rival to be jailed. It undermines confidence in our justice system, our federal police and ultimately the Crown. That kind of rhetoric isn’t strength, it’s recklessness and it shows a leadership approach that remains rooted in grievance rather than governance. Months after losing the federal election, Poilievre seems not to have learned the lessons of his electoral defeat. For all the fiery slogans and viral clips, Canadians saw through the performance. What they needed was a prime minister-in-waiting. What they got was a man addicted to opposition, stuck in partisan combat, incapable of transformation and unwilling to rise above the instincts that had always held him back. Voters wanted maturity, reassurance and vision. He gave them grievance. He ran as the angry Question Period debater, not the steady hand of a G7 nation. The result? Swing voters waited for growth that never came. His message was reduced to punchlines. “Carbon Tax Carney” and “Sneaky Mark Carney” may have earned social media points, but it insulted the intelligence of voters craving real dialogue on housing, inflation, crime, immigration, climate and affordability. As Carney put forward a detailed, albeit debatable, vision, Poilievre delivered slogans and sneers. Canadians rightly asked: if this is how he acts in opposition, how would he behave in power? Worst of all, Poilievre failed to build a team. A party rich with talent was never showcased. No foreign affairs lead. No visible finance minister. No credible plans for trade, immigration, or defence. It was a one-man show and when the curtain rose, there was no cast, just more spotlight on him. The most baffling part? Trudeau’s record was wide open. Canadians were ready to hear a compelling case. But Poilievre couldn’t deliver one. He had the opportunity to prosecute a decade of Liberal failures, and instead leaned on hyperbole, exaggeration and recycled sound bites. The contrast never sharpened. The plan never appeared. He delivered none of it. His latest comments show once again he has failed to make the leap from critic to leader. Canadians are tired of the anger. The mockery. The volume. They need calm, confidence, and answers. Yet, despite warnings from advisers, polls, and “common sense,” he is still giving them attacks, blame and fury. In the last election, Canadians didn’t reject conservative ideas. They rejected Pierre Poilievre. Months later, there’s little evidence he has reflected, adapted, or grown. If anything, he seems more committed than ever to the very approach that cost him credibility with the voters he most needed to win. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/im-a-former-senior-aide-to-stephen-harper-pierre-poilievre-is-dismantling-the-principled-trustworthy/article_7a2f717f-2e67-4e70-aa5b-5153c0cb980b.html

The Liberals have been talking to him for a few years about at least a Cabinet role, and it was something he had mulled. He had advised the LOC on economic issues on multiple occasions including most recently in 2024 when Trudeau was still the presumptive leader. The leadership race was a party referendum on continuing the Trudeau left-wing leadership (represented by Trudeau’s longtime deputy PM Freeland) or pivoting to a more right wing “business Liberal” leadership.

Nonsense this is just baseless Liberal Derangement Syndrome talking

Hilarious. Trump despised Trudeau and to you that was proof Trudeau was a failure with USA. Trump, LIKE EVERY LEADER respects Carney and somehow you think that makes him Trump’s stooge. Trump says nice things about most if not all leaders including Xi. of China. Does that mean Xi is Trump’s stooge? Trump respects Carney because Carney is highly respectable. He likes him personally because he is personally likeable. Nowhere dod Trump say Carney is his stooge or he agrees with Carney’s policies or that Carney is doing what Trump wants

OMG. WAIT MEMES AREN’T ACCURATE????!!

But for army “defence of Canada” just means aid to the civil power and arctic sovereignty there is not going to be high intensity land warfare against another country on Canadian soil. Unless they’re going to specifically train for guerrilla / insurgency warfare to resist US occupation there’s very little combat power required for this function. Yeah that’s what I was hunting for, tracked IFV. If we are truly going to be “interchangeable” with allies we need something like CV90 or Lynx but there’s no mention of tracks and barely a mention of LAVs so Im not sure it’s even on the roadmap. The new LAV prototypes look cool but I wonder if they’re heavy enough. The LAV’s European cousin, the 8x8 Boxer, is heavier, more powerful and better armour. There is also a new dedicated Brimstone overwatch variant proposed that can carry 8 Brimstone missiles and can allegedly strike targets up to 20km away

Thanks for reminding us about the great job Biden was doing before Orange man came along and wrecked it

Wow there is a lot of content at the above link but in summary it’s all about massive restructure and recapitalization of the army to prioritize “High Value War Fighting” and being “interchangeable” with allies instead of just “interoperable”. Interestingly while there is a lot of ink spilled about long range precision fire, artillery, tanks, etc. there’s only one very small reference to potential LAV replacement. Also no direct reference to increasing overall force size. I’ve long thought the army should be organized into an expeditionary force and a domestic force instead of 4 paper “divisions” for each region of Canada. That makes sense.

Canadian Army launches bold modernization and restructuring initiative October 9, 2025 - Defence Stories Estimated read time – 2:30 The Canadian Army has entered a pivotal moment in its history. Lieutenant-General M.C. Wright, Commander of the Canadian Army, recently unveiled a sweeping modernization and restructuring initiative designed to transform the Army into a force ready to meet the demands of today’s volatile global security environment. At the heart of this transformation is Inflection Point 2025, a strategic blueprint that acknowledges a stark reality: the Army we have is not the Army we need. The strategy outlines a generational shift in how the Army is structured, equipped, trained, and sustained. Responding to a changing world The modernization effort is driven by the increasing risk of high-intensity conflict, rapid evolution of warfare technologies, and the impact of climate change. Canada also faces unprecedented challenges to its sovereignty and security due to geopolitical competition in the Arctic. In this context, the Army must be prepared for major combat operations—large-scale, joint, and combined arms engagements against peer adversaries. This marks a significant shift from decades of focus on providing support to coalition operations. Caption Restructuring for operational effectiveness To meet these demands, the Canadian Army is restructuring into four integrated formations, each aligned with operational needs and designed to enhance agility, scalability, and readiness: Defence of Canada Division: The dedicated homeland defence force and the backbone of national mobilization Manoeuvre Division: The frontline for land combat, providing fully equipped, deployable forces for major combat operations Support Division: The foundation of Canadian Army base and institutional support, with direct links to the national supply chain Training Formation: Responsible for delivering individual and collective soldier training, and preparing leaders through professional military education This restructuring shifts operational leadership to the divisional level, allowing Canadian Army Headquarters to focus strategically on safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The transition will begin in 2026, guided by an upcoming Canadian Army Modernization Order and Master Implementation Directive. Investing in people and capabilities With recent increases in size and strength, the Regular Force now stands at approximately 22,000 soldiers, the Reserve Force includes about 20,000, and the Canadian Rangers number nearly 5,000, with room to grow. Over the next two years, soldiers will be equipped with new modular assault rifles, night vision devices, drones, as well as operational clothing and personal equipment designed for comfort and performance. Current modernization efforts include nearly 50 major capital projects, such as: Enhanced command and control, integrating computers, communications, cyber, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting (C5ISRT) Long-Range Precision Strike (LRPS) capabilities Ground-Based Air Defence (GBAD) systems Domestic Arctic Mobility Enhancement (DAME) platforms Indirect Fires Modernization (IFM) A culture of adaptation LGen Wright emphasized the need for a clear and strong identity within the Army—one rooted in discipline, service, respect, fitness, and a fighting spirit. This transformation also includes fostering innovation and digital excellence, along with the One Army concept, integrating members of the Regular and Reserve forces, Canadian Rangers, and civilian members of the Defence Team. The message is clear: modernization is not optional. It is essential to defend Canada’s interests at home and abroad. As the Commander concluded, “The change starts now.” For more information, visit Canadian Army Modernization. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/maple-leaf/defence/2025/10/canadian-army-launches-bold-modernization-and-restructuring-initiative.html

What rock are you living under? He speaks French in literally every public appearance since his public debut earlier this year including a French language debate and responding to reporters’ French questions in French. Seriously, what a question. That said it’s long been known and admitted by him that his French is not great and people including him generally rate it a 6/10. He’s able to understand and be understood, with some small grammatical errors and heavy anglo accent. But Harper’s French was similarly not great at first and it improved over time. Ive already noticed Carney’s French has improved somewhat.

LMAO everything you say is exactly what the brownshirts and black shirts said in the 1930s. You’re not even a real person you’re just a bunch of old fascist slogans on autoplay

But how would someone in the stands be able to tell they are observing “the best possible product”? So an evaluation in gymnasium shows that player A can jump 2 inches further than player B in standing long jump. That doesn’t OBJECTIVELY translate to player A being superior to player B. It only means player A is better suited to NFL style of play where height for a receiver matters more than agility and stamina . NFL lineman are not objectively superior to CFL linemen and most who come north from the NFL can’t hack it without significant weight loss and physical reconditioning. Even players at other positions who come to CFL from NFL call the pace of the CFL game “exhausting” and “ like playing at high altitude” and usually need aerobic training and need to trim down. In summary I think the “superior product” theory is vastly overblown - NFL players are optimized for NFL game and CFL players are optimized for CFL game and unless someone can show me OBJECTIVELY through something like errors and fumbles and the like I don’t think there’s much argument for it. The above said I do sort of accept at face value that players from the Canadian amateur football system are unlikely to be as competitive as those who come from the American system given how big football is in USA and how limited it is here in Canada and that the mandatory Canadian quota and cap on US players probably waters down abilities. I would actually be ok with eliminating the cap. It wouldn’t bother me one bit if a team had 100% American players. That would a far better rule change than the ones they just implemented.

I have a wife, kids, a great job, a cottage and plenty of real world friends. If you think I would want to live on an Internet forum the way empty-life losers like you do you’re living in a fantasy world. I come here when I’m bored and have time to kill. That’s all anyone with a full and rewarding life would ever care to do. LMAO just the fact that you think “integrity” and “courage” are defined by arguments with random strangers on Internet forums shows what a desperate tuned-out loser life you have. Do yourself a favour, unplug for a while and try living in the real world for a change.

You have been relegating to troll posts now and lame “no, what you said back at you” comebacks

Listen loser unlike you I have a very full and rewarding life with real people that is way more respectful than internet arguments with strangers. You should try it sometime, if you’re ever able to develop a personality people can actually stand to be around. So you’ll get my answers when I damn well feel like wasting precious minutes of my full and rewarding life with the likes of internet losers like you. Which, at the risk of oversharing, is usually when I’m killing time in a waiting room or something. Or sometimes when I’m taking a nice long dump, which feels especially fitting when dealing with crap you people post.

I am not discussing hypotheticals. Many are here legally. And anyway the only way to determine that when snatched from their homes and workplaces is with a day in court BEFORE they’re deported to some torture chamber in a country they’re not even from. It’s a stupid question asked by a stupid person. OF COURSE non-citizens, illegal or otherwise don’t have THE SAME rights as citizens IN ANY COUNTRY. The dumbass who asked the question seems to think that means they have ZERO rights, which is false.

You are such a dumbass troll you can’t argue with facts or logic so just post cheap insults. Aren’t you embarrassed?

I don’t do any of that actually. Once again you prove yourself to he nothing but another dumb racist uneducated fascist LMAO. You must be real proud to have spent the time coming up with that come back! “DUUH I’m so smurt”! Admit it, you’re another high school dropout aren’t you?

Nice try. We’re not talking about border patrol watching someone climb over a wall, we’re talking about people being snatched up off the street or out of their homes after living in the USA for years or even decades, many of them in USA legally. You’re being completely dishonest by pretending this is about people caught climbing over the wall you know it. Bullshit. What lie? What question? You right wing nutjobs overuse the word “lie” to refer to any statement you don’t like. LOL words have no meaning to you people. I haven’t told a single “lie” and there’s not a single question in any of your responses to me so doesn’t that make YOU the liar?

Yeah because they’re acting like gestapo. If you honestly believe that criticizing their unnecessary gestapo tactics necessarily means supporting the problem they’re allegedly trying to address you’re more simple-minded than I gave you credit for.

I’m not “equating” them dumbass. In democratic system, which you’ve been clear that you hate, a punishment only comes after a fair trial and conviction, stupid. How do you determine if someone is in the county illegally if they don’t have a chance to prove they’re innocent of that accusation? You fascists are so stupid.