Canadian Defence News

[Army Guy]

I guess there is a little more to all this, past CDS and airforce commander talks about the global eye, sems to add some confusion to all this...

 

GlobalEye is a big defence decision for Canada, but is it the right one? | Watch

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

We drove industry away and they invested in other countries a little infrastructure

We had industry here when Trudeau took over. Now it's drying up and blowing away

Your lies about decades and decades ago doesn't change the simple facts that we face now and that is a direct result of the Trudeau government over the last 11 years

Oh yes I remember now Canada was paradise on earth when Harper left office. NOT. 

Productivity gap with USA has been around for decades and in fact even accelerated since NAFTA. This is because Canadian companies decided to double down on low margin industries and being part if US Companies supply chains where the US prime captures most of the value instead of competing with them. Canadian companies and investors focused on paying dividends rather than growth so corporate reinvestment is not made at the necessary scale. . Government policy focused on short-sighted “jobs” instead of owning IP and terms of service where wealth is actually created so a decades-long bias towards a foreign buyer who keeps 50 people employed instead of a domestic company who expands to employ hundreds. 
 

Also a lot of the so-called “investment that left Canada” was oilsands investment after US shale and fracking caused the bottom to fall out of the expensive oilsands market. 
 

Canada’s sin is not having a sufficiently diverse economy and instead relying on oil, raw materials, finance and being lower-tier suppliers in gUS supply chains   
 

We need to do more things like make world-leading aircraft and fewer things like bragging that we make the seatbelts for America’s world-leading aircraft, because that’s not the brag we think it is.  But it’s a long road ahead and we are only just starting. 

On 5/30/2026 at 12:09 AM, User said:

More of your non-answers.

You just spew BS. 

As opposed to your cowardly tactics to just run away? 
 

Never admit your ignorance? Double down and lie? 

No I don’t do any of those things. 

[BeaverFever]

16 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I guess there is a little more to all this, past CDS and airforce commander talks about the global eye, sems to add some confusion to all this...

 

GlobalEye is a big defence decision for Canada, but is it the right one? | Watch

Check out this one also

 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Oh yes I remember now Canada was paradise on earth when Harper left office.

Actually pretty close.  Despite the worst global recession in almost a century Canada did very well, recovered quickly, went back to balanced budgets. Our banking was strong, our economy was strong and getting stronger as the recovery went on, our debt to gdp was pretty damn good and our gdp per capital was pretty sweet too, nose to nose with the usa's for the most part. 

Wasn't perfect but it was pretty darn sweet. 

10 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Productivity gap with USA has been around for decades

That's to be expected in a high immigration country, but we always kept up with gdp per capita as a ratio... until trudeau

That's a real problem. 

15 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

This is because Canadian companies decided to double down on low margin industries

Nope. Canada just isn't a place that people want to invest in anymore because of the liberal policies.

Investment is actually been fleeing our country in recent years never mind slowing down.

And companies aren't being shy about why. Embrige literally said they would not consider putting money here under the current regulatory environment and that was AFTER mark passed his 'magic fairy dust' bill. 

21 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Also a lot of the so-called “investment that left Canada” was oilsands investment

Nope.  In fact most of it happened after that was a thing. 

21 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Canada’s sin is not having a sufficiently diverse economy

Our sin has having regulation and taxes that drive away business. 

Our NEXT sin is destroying the oil and gas industry growth that we should have had. 

And you can lay both of those things at the feet of the libs for the last 11 years. 

23 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

We need to do more things like make world-leading aircraft

NOBODY IS GOING TO SPEND MONEY HERE. 

The tax system, the regulations, everything about our gov't and way of treating industry drives them away.

You think an AIRPLANE industry will start here? With ottawa having spent a decade wiping out any company it could for environmental reasons?  They would crush it and claim that people need to find alternatives. 

Instead the libs put their investment money into EV battery plants!  Billions! And look at how that's turned out for us. What a freakin' disaster. 

The liberals have killed any chance of new industry coming here and setting up shop. 

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, User said:

You are literally driving away industry when your country bans coal, moves away from coal, but then has no problems selling it all to China to just use there instead. 

This is my point about China, I went back, I see that you have not been the typical leftist celebrating them. 

The point remains though, that the left that pushes climate change alarmism somehow thinks that not burning coal in Canada and shipping it all off to China is somehow saving the planet. 

We are not driving away industry by not burning coal. In fact one of the world’s largest miners of many things including coal, Anglo-American, merged with its Canadian competitor, Teck and is now named AngloTeck (no more “American”) and is relocating its HQ and executives from London England to Vancouver where the majority of executives and board members will be Canadian  

The coal we send to china is primarily metallurgical coal used to carbonize steel, not thermal coal used for electricity generation  

For countries like Canada and USA Burning coal for electricity in 2026 when so many other options exist is retarded and just corporate cronyism and ideological. 

Edited Sunday at 09:14 PM by BeaverFever

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Your lies about decades and decades ago blah blah blah...

Never fact checked yourself again I see.

Manufacturing industries started moving to China in the late 1970s and 1980s and accelerated rapidly into a massive wave during the 1990s and 2000s. Cheap labour was the reason.

1 hour ago, User said:

You are literally driving away industry when your country bans coal

Not as fast as putting labour and human rights first.

 

[CdnFox]

Just now, eyeball said:

Never fact checked yourself again I see.

Manufacturing industries started moving to China in the late 1970s and 1980s and accelerated rapidly into a massive wave during the 1990s and 2000s. Cheap labour was the reason.

 

 

Never afraid to look stupid i see  

Our manufacturing sector grew stronger and stronger until chretien's day

Real Growth of Canadian Manufacturing Since 2000

 

Ohhh lookie, strong growth all through the 70's and 80's   And even the 90s!

Took a big hit with the dot com crash around 2000, took a hit during the recession and was slowly returning but ... not any more. 

As usual you're 100 percent full of shit   What's shocking is you make it so easy to prove you're a liar

 

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Never afraid to look stupid i see  

Our manufacturing sector grew stronger and stronger until chretien's day

Real Growth of Canadian Manufacturing Since 2000

 

Ohhh lookie, strong growth all through the 70's and 80's   And even the 90s!

Took a big hit with the dot com crash around 2000, took a hit during the recession and was slowly returning but ... not any more. 

As usual you're 100 percent full of shit   What's shocking is you make it so easy to prove you're a liar.

LMAO...

But wait...there's more...

Edited Sunday at 09:27 PM by eyeball

[BeaverFever]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Actually pretty close.  Despite the worst global recession in almost a century Canada did very well, recovered quickly, went back to balanced budgets. Our banking was strong, our economy was strong and getting stronger as the recovery went on, our debt to gdp was pretty damn good and our gdp per capital was pretty sweet too, nose to nose with the usa's for the most part. 

Wasn't perfect but it was pretty darn sweet. 

The unemployment rate for example was higher than today in the midst of a trade war.  Productivity was still crappy. We were already years past the financial crisis.
 

Trudeau took office in November 2015 it’s not realistic to suggest the collapse in economic indicators are the result of anything he did. As everyone knows, 2015 is the year that oil prices fell to record lows and the oilsands collapsed and never recovered. That’s what that’s about. 
 

The rest of your post is just a fact free diatribe of things you wish to be true   Just saying “nope” to politically inconvenient facts doesn’t make them untrue  

 

 

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

NOBODY IS GOING TO SPEND MONEY HERE. 

Yes Billions of investment is pouring in there’s a whole other thread about this

 

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You think an AIRPLANE industry will start here?

LOL we already have one and new money is pouring in. See the part in the other thread about airbus. You gotta follow the actual news more and spend less time absorbing propaganda. 

Edited Sunday at 09:27 PM by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Never afraid to look stupid i see  

Our manufacturing sector grew stronger and stronger until chretien's day

Real Growth of Canadian Manufacturing Since 2000

 

Ohhh lookie, strong growth all through the 70's and 80's   And even the 90s!

Took a big hit with the dot com crash around 2000, took a hit during the recession and was slowly returning but ... not any more. 

As usual you're 100 percent full of shit   What's shocking is you make it so easy to prove you're a liar

 

Ok so in your earlier post everything was great until Trudeau came along and it was “almost paradise” before that. Now you’re admitting it’s been shit during the Harper years right after you denied my claim that it’s been shit since NAFTA. 
 

What your chart shows is thatbsince the dawn of the tech age in late 90s, thatbis where growth occurs. Manufacturing is not where economic growth is. Apple isn’t rich because it makes phones. They outsource that to contractors in places like China and third world countries. They’re rich because they own the patents and the software that goes into the phones. That’s where the money and the power is.  
 

Chasing low skill factory jobs is a sucker’s game and Canada played it for too long. 

[User]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

No I don’t do any of those things. 

Reminder of what a cowardly, lying, POS @BeaverFever is:

 

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

LMAO...

But wait...there's more...

Ummm....  you realize that shows that canada's increased and that china's growth had nohting to do with us, right?  

LOLOL YOU LITERALLY JUST POSTED A CHART THAT PROVES YOU WERE WRONG!! OH  my GOD how do you always manage to do that!   

Your chart shows that canada had steady slow growth and that china's had nothing to do with us and didn't actually reduce ours at all!!!   

I know... math is hard for you   ROFLMAO!!!!

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Ok so in your earlier post everything was great until Trudeau came along and it was “almost paradise” before that.

Well we almost paradise thing was actually your statement but I love that you're now trying to argue with me that your claims were wrong  

But it is true that we did pretty good under harper and we did far worse under Trudeau. As I said things were not perfect under harper but they were pretty good

16 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Now you’re admitting it’s been shit during the Harper years right after you denied my claim that it’s been shit since NAFTA. 
 

No it was never shit under harper's term. It was actually quite good. There was the recession which was global but we weathered it extremely well, far better than most countries and on the whole we did quite well.

I'm afraid you're listening to the voices in your head if you think I said that we did shit.

17 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Chasing low skill factory jobs is a sucker’s game

So your argument now is that the only manufacturing jobs out there are low-skilled factory jobs?

Is that your final answer? I wanted to give you a chance to change your opinion before you wind up looking stupid again

[eyeball]

36 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Ummm....  you realize that shows that canada's increased and that china's growth had nohting to do with us, right?

Nope, both graphs taken together shows what I said that; Manufacturing industries started moving to China in the late 1970s and 1980s and accelerated rapidly into a massive wave during the 1990s and 2000s. 

As I said cheap compliant labour and shitty human rights was why. As you can also see no one in the West was immune.

Your graph simply shows you'd rather ignore that and argue about something else. Why is...just you being you as usual.

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

No I  not all over the map.
 

We don’t know that there WILL be E7orders or P8 orders and the clock is ticking. There are still Globaleye orders  and 6500 orders amd no ticking clock.  C17 is a little different as it was always a low volume production which they slowed considerably to spread it out, so different so a complete different arrangement with suppliers. By contrast 737NG was a high volume commercial aircraft with most of the production being for airlines. Those high volume suppliers have since moved on to the 737 MAX  and other aircraft types and have limited capacity to produce custom parts for random one-off orders of a discontinued model  

 

Come on don’t be so naive the US has some of the most POLITICIZED  procurement around. Re-read what I said:  USAF cancelled it but CONGRESS forced them to buy at least 7. 
 

Want another example?  Airbus MRTT won the USAF’s new tanker transport competition so Boeing despite having an inferior aircraft complained based on the argument “you never said we had to be the best, just that we had to meet the minimums”. So USAF was forced to hold a new competition which  Boeing won with an objectively inferior aircraft on the basis that they were slightly cheaper. Now they are stuck with this crappy gremlin-plagued plane that even if it worked properly which it doesn’t would still be inferior to the Airbus MRTT which is proven and  in widespread NATO service.  And at the end if the day it’s not clear whether Boeing will be significantly cheaper in the end once all the delays and fixes and work-arounds are factored in. 
 

NATO countries drop E-7 Wedgetail plans

The withdrawal of US from the programme last July has led to major changes in the replacement effort, the Netherlands MoD said.

 

https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/nato-netherlands-e-7-wedgetail/?cf-view

 

NATO eyes Swedish-Canadian jet for AWACS role in shift away from Boeing

 

 

 

VIENNA — NATO’s Support and Procurement Agency has selected Sweden’s Saab and Canada’s Bombardier to replace the alliance’s aging fleet of Boeing E-3A Sentry airborne warning and control system aircraft with the GlobalEye platform, according to French defense publication La Lettre and confirmed independently by the German press agency DPA. 

 

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/04/24/nato-eyes-swedish-canadian-jet-for-awacs-role-in-shift-away-from-boeing/

A minute ago you were complaining Carney is moving too slowly. Now you’re complaining that he is moving too quickly?

 

Strategic autonomy and national sovereignty ABSOLUTELY are factors in making rhese kinds if decisions.  The fact that the Canadian defence industry has been allowed to whither away is even more reason to invest in it. And it’s not just about buying Canadian its also about strengthening our allies by buying their equipment also. All of this makes NATO stronger. The fact that USA doesn’t want any of us making our own weapons and wants us to instead be completely dependent upon importing made in USA gear at their discretion just proves this isn’t about strengthening NATO is about making us more dependent on USA. 

 

I understand that so I am not sure what the problem is here. I  not the one complaining about it. 
 

Yet the problem with the cyclones wasn’t the aircraft it was the shitty service and support from Sikorsky which the CONSERVATIVES inherited soon afterwards and were responsible for managing throughout their 10 years in office. 
 

Specifically the contract had grossly inadequate provisions for spare parts,  a lot of  the service was outsourced to Sikorsky rather done by RCAF and they let Sikorsky get iff Scott free when it comes to post-delivery support bug fixes etc. Throughout the program Sikorsky missed milestone after milestone without consequence and never received the penalties spelled out in the contract for doing so. Imagine you bought a car and the sale agreement obligated you to bring it to the dealership for tire and oil changes instead of doing it yourself and every time you did they kept your car for weeks and didn’t return your calls.

 

I will point out that EH101/Merlin, Seahawk and NH90 all had similar or WORSE problems when they were new, Cyclone’s teething pains were not unusual in that regard. Maritime helicopters are constantly exposed to cold, wet, salt and vibration and that causes wear and the need to redesign components on new aircraft after they enter service. But unlike Cyclone, those other aircraft all received prompt and timely support from the manufacturer to solve those issues while Sikorsky just slow-rolled Canada and its puny fleet as they focused on their massive worldwide Blackhawk/Seahawk fleet and civilian aircraft. And then Sikorsky discontinued the Cyclone so we were stuck with a unique aircraft that was only a tiny unimportant part of their business.  And that also makes future upgrades difficult if not impossible 
 

As a flying machine and as a sensor platform the Cyclone is quite good and far more capable than the smaller lighter Seahawk that US uses. The problem has always been service and maintenance and parts availability and failure to address the expected teething problems in a timely manner 

 

 

US air force will be forced to come up with another solution as the E-7 according to them has problems....but the global eye according to the Ex CDS and air force commander, says the global eye lacks range, and airborne time...where the E-7 does not....what exactly the US found problems with i don't know....But the global eye seems like a mid term solution and not the final word on the topic..Don't rely on what i say , I'm just rep[eating what other subject experts are saying.

Strategic autonomy and national sovereignty are words that are hundreds of years old and we are just now discovering them....turn the clock back 2 years and all of that we had given to the reserves to secure, because regular forces were over tasked...SO please lets not get to dramatic about the need to start looking like a nation that cares about those two words...Canada's defense industry is almost non existent and for good reason, we as a nation might buy stuff every 40 to 50 years....business can not rely on Canada to keep them busy or employed, and everyone knows once trump is gone from office Canada will slip back into it's regular routine...

that is a matter of historical record...One might also say that the vast major of military industry's in other nations also cashed in on peace bonds, they to were struggling to make ends meet...Now that trump is light a flame under everyone , military manufactures are busy wait times are some times 5 to 10 years out...

This are the type of service agreements are now common, take the MSVS, the truck that was suppose to be for the reserves, but managed to be pulled into the regular force, Military mechs could not change a light bulb it needed to go to a dealer downtown...for many reasons lack of military techs , no spare parts, warranty, and there are many more examples...and no one really knows why they do this... 

By the time we sign a contract most of the bugs have been worked out the EH-101 was a political one just as the F-35 was....That contract should have been canceled and those helos returned for not making the delivery schedule and should have went with something proven like anything but the one we purchased...Cyclone was a one off helo, never buy a one of EVER....

[BeaverFever]

17 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

US air force will be forced to come up with another solution as the E-7 according to them has problems....but the global eye according to the Ex CDS and air force commander, says the global eye lacks range, and airborne time...where the E-7 does not....what exactly the US found problems with i don't know....But the global eye seems like a mid term solution and not the final word on the topic..Don't rely on what i say , I'm just rep[eating what other subject experts are saying.

What the Globaleye lacks is air to air refuelling but that is already being worked on. Yes the radar has smaller are but is higher definition and can see things like drones and low flying helicopters that e7 cannot. Plus it can track surface targets such as ships and vehicles which e7 cannot.   In addition they are already in the advanced stages of teaming with MQ9 so another good match for Canada 
 

Here is how chatgpt summarizes the USAF’s problems with E7:

 

The short answer is: the USAF didn’t really run into the same kind of technical “the airplane doesn’t work” problem Australia did in the early Wedgetail years. Australia absolutely did have major problems at first—but they solved them over a long development cycle. The USAF’s issues were different: cost, schedule, configuration drift, and doubts about survivability/relevance.

Here’s the breakdown.

1. Australia already paid the “development pain”

Australia was the launch customer for the E-7A. Early on they had real technical trouble:

• getting the Northrop Grumman MESA radar and mission system working together
• software maturity
• integrating all the communications/data links
• achieving promised radar tracking performance

That caused years of delays before the Royal Australian Air Force fleet became operational. Once fixed, Australia ended up with a very capable platform and became the reference customer.

So the USAF was not discovering a brand-new aircraft—they were buying a mature one.

 

2. The USAF wanted a different E-7 than Australia’s

This is where friction started.

The U.S. version needed:

• U.S.-specific crypto/COMSEC
• different battle-management software
• U.S. datalink and network integration
• survivability equipment
• integration into the USAF’s broader command-and-control architecture

That sounds incremental, but in defense procurement “just add U.S. systems” often means:

• new testing
• new certification
• software rewrites
• integration risk

The UK has run into a similar issue—assuming it was basically “Australia’s aircraft again,” then finding obsolescence and redesign needs because time passed and systems changed.

 

3. Airframe timing complicated things

Australia bought when the base 737 NG family was current.

The USAF came later:

• production timing changed
• supply chains shifted
• configuration management got harder
• price increased

Reuters reported the USAF’s rapid-prototype contract for two aircraft at ~$2.56B including development/support.

That’s not just “buying two Australian Wedgetails.”

 

4. USAF doctrine shifted: survivability became the big debate

This was probably the biggest reason.

The USAF increasingly questioned whether a large radar aircraft can safely operate in a China-focused fight:

• long-range air-to-air missiles
• anti-radiation targeting
• broad ISR coverage

Pentagon leaders publicly described concerns that E-7 would be less survivable in a contested environment, while arguing space-based AMTI and distributed sensors may eventually do part of the mission.

Australia’s calculus is different:

• smaller force
• regional needs
• Wedgetail already proven in service
• doctrinal comfort with airborne battle management

So:
Australia: “This works well for us.”
USAF: “It works—but is it still the right answer for the next war?”

 

5. The USAF’s E-3 replacement urgency made expectations harsher

Australia could bring Wedgetail in gradually.

The USAF has aging Boeing E-3 Sentry aircraft and a much larger mission set:

• homeland defense
• NATO support
• Indo-Pacific
• global tasking

That makes schedule slips and cost growth politically painful.

 

Bottom line

The USAF’s issue was not “Australia got a good aircraft and America got a bad one.”

It was:

Australia’s early problem:

• radar/software development and integration

USAF’s later problem:

• adapting the mature aircraft to U.S. requirements
• cost growth
• supply chain/timing
• and especially doubts about survivability against China

The irony is that the USAF generally agrees the Wedgetail is far more capable than the aging E-3. The debate became whether a crewed AEW&C aircraft remains the best long-term answer at all.

 

Edited Sunday at 11:52 PM by BeaverFever

[User]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Not as fast as putting labour and human rights first.

How is shipping your coal off to China to burn and make your products better for human rights and labor?

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The unemployment rate for example was higher than today in the midst of a trade war.  Productivity was still crappy. We were already years past the financial crisis.
 

Trudeau took office in November 2015 it’s not realistic to suggest the collapse in economic indicators are the result of anything he did. As everyone knows, 2015 is the year that oil prices fell to record lows and the oilsands collapsed and never recovered. That’s what that’s about. 
 

The rest of your post is just a fact free diatribe of things you wish to be true   Just saying “nope” to politically inconvenient facts doesn’t make them untrue  

 

 

Yes Billions of investment is pouring in there’s a whole other thread about this

 

LOL we already have one and new money is pouring in. See the part in the other thread about airbus. You gotta follow the actual news more and spend less time absorbing propaganda. 

Unemployment was high as people returned to looking for work. The labor force participation rate was higher in 2015 than 2025. But unemployment was the same.  That's what you expect in a strongly recovering economy vs an economy losing steam. 

No, we were not years past the financial crisis   As obama kept mentioning.  You don't recover from the worst economic collapse in 100 years in just 3 or 4 years.  It's entirely different than covid where people had their savings from not being able to go out to spend. 

It's entirely reasonable to say that trudeau is responsible, the indicators went from getting stronger and recovering to getting weaker and crashing. 2016 to 2020 should have been a huge banner time for our economy without any gov't borrowing. 

Billions are pouring in but 10's and 100's of billions are leaving.  We're still losing. 

"Despite the rise in inbound FDI, the country recorded an estimated net capital outflow of \(\$62\) billion. This was largely because Canadian businesses and investors chose to deploy more capital abroad than they brought in.Business Investment Drop: Canada continued to face a persistent productivity and business investment emergency. Private business investment in productivity-enhancing assets (such as machinery, equipment, factories, and software) fell, resulting in less capital per worker compared to the U.S. and other OECD nations."

Things are still getting worse 

And now we're the ony g7 in recession. 

Sorry kid, but the money is leaving

Airbus has always been here - how many new aviation companies have started up?  Whats that? None? Hmmmmm. 

 

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, User said:

How is shipping your coal off to China to burn and make your products better for human rights and labor?

It isn't. What I mean is that we'll have fewer trade partners if we put human rights first - which will give investors who aren't concerned about them, pause to consider investing elsewhere.

[Moonlight Graham]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

It isn't. What I mean is that we'll have fewer trade partners if we put human rights first - which will give investors who aren't concerned about them, pause to consider investing elsewhere.

Human rights are infinitely better in China or most any other developing country if we trade with them on account of, you know, people needing jobs and money to afford basic necessities.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Human rights are infinitely better in China or most any other developing country if we trade with them on account of, you know, people needing jobs and money to afford basic necessities.

Yup, that's pitch we were given when we were told cozying up to China would make them more like us.

Now the concern is that it's making us more like them.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yup, that's pitch we were given when we were told cozying up to China would make them more like us.

Now the concern is that it's making us more like them.

Blatant lie. We never cozied up to china. We did business with them and we made it clear that the more they committed abuses the harder it was going to be to do more business with themto top it off will invite the Dalai Lama over for a visit.

And that actually had an effect.

It was your liberals who decided to coz the app which was unnecessary. And suddenly china started pushing us around and the relationship became one-sided.

If you do business and you're not afraid to break those ties if you have to and they know it then you can have an impact. If you do no business they don't care about what you think. And if you become dependent on them you do what they say which is where we are now

Harper and the conservatives had it right. The liberals have it wrong. Little potato sold us down the street to the Chinese and Carney is doubling down on that

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Blatant lie.

Nope, it was Slick Willie who pitched it. He quite explicitly argued that integrating China into the global trading system would push it toward Western ideals like economic freedom, human rights, and democratic openness.

Wall Street and Corporate America roared with approval while organized labor unions bitterly opposed it. Like I said I remember protests against 500 truckloads of local timber a month being shipped offshore.

You people are finally getting woke to it is all but you've been misinformed and gaslit to believe Trudeau was responsible.

But even back then you people would have said yeah it was the left's fault - for being lazy, unproductive, entitled, jointing unions and of course embracing communism.

 

[BeaverFever]

On 5/31/2026 at 5:53 PM, User said:

Reminder of what a cowardly, lying, POS @BeaverFever is:

 

Oh someone is desperate for my attention again!  Soo triggered! 

You are my b1tch and you will wait for me at my pleasure   And then you will reply to me immediately. 

[BeaverFever]

On 5/31/2026 at 9:16 PM, CdnFox said:

Unemployment was high as people returned to looking for work. The labor force participation rate was higher in 2015 than 2025. But unemployment was the same. 

The largest single reason for shrinking labour force is aging population   The boomers were age 51-69 in 2015 and mostly still working, they’re a decade older now and retired. We also have had THREE economic crises back to back:  COVID, the Supply Chain IInflation crisis and now the Trump-cession caused by his trade wars and actual wars. 
 

But look  this is that thing you do that I pointed out:  see how you biased your response is:  The Harper recession ended in 2010, unemployment STILL hadn’t recovered when he left office 5 years later “it’s not his fault there was a recession”.
 

But now that Carney is Pm “it’s his fault that there is a recession”.  

 

You blame Carney for economic crisis he didn’t cause and hold him exclusively responsible for every day that it continues while you don’t blame Harper for 5 years of mediocre economy