Carney Articulates The New World Order In Davos

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Yes, as I have said, the US has been our largest trade partner but, also as I said, we need to look elsewhere so we are not so reliant on one customer or source.

Third-world countries don't have a lot of money. We export 4% to China and about 4.5% to the whole EU. The UK is 3.74% and Japan is 2%. There aren't a whole lot of other destinations for anything other than raw materials and agricultural products. And the EU, China, Japan and UK and make things a lot cheaper than us. That's the problem we have with diversifying trade for anything other than raw materials and agriculture.

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

And yes, we have resources but that is because we really do not make anything in Canada anymore.

And aren't going to as long as business and industry face massive bureaucratic roadblocks and a hugely expensive regulatory environment.

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

And yes, we have work to do but, as you am sure you realize...none of this happens overnight.

No, but none of it has started. No one is even planning a pipeline or a major port expansion in BC or the Atlantic coast.

 

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I do not think exporting cars to anyone but the US has ever been discussed, expected or even though about....that is a non issue.

 

[I am Groot]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Correct but, when you are primarily a buyer and not a producer, you will always be at the whim of the store.

It should be the buyer who is in the drivers seat. Bu we've focused so much on China that they can, if they choose, cut off a massive chunk of our medicine overnight, if they chose. Plus, applying any kind of tariff to them draws retaliation which makes us squeal and give in. Even if it's just on canola.

[ExFlyer]

Just now, I am Groot said:

It should be the buyer who is in the drivers seat. Bu we've focused so much on China that they can, if they choose, cut off a massive chunk of our medicine overnight, if they chose. Plus, applying any kind of tariff to them draws retaliation which makes us squeal and give in. Even if it's just on canola.

Yup....but when you have little to offer in return..then you are just a consumer. As I said, we produce so little, we sold ourselves to others many decades ago.

We cannot add tariffs unless we want to do without or pay more and well, you know what happens when prices go up.

[Zeitgeist]

18 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

This was, I assumed, what Carney and the government wanted. It is and was utterly predictable. Taunt Trump in public in front of your and his peers, and he'll get you for it. Everyone knows that.  

The question is, why did Carney decide to taunt him in public like that when he knew there would inevitably be retaliation.

I don’t think Carney taunted Trump at all.  He stated facts and charted a path out of the coercion.  Everything Trump is doing and saying to hurt Canada and allies says more about him than them. He actually demonstrated essential courage at the right time and cleared a path for others by “removing his sign from the window.” It had to happen.

At this point Canada should continue to pursue new markets.  India is the next big deal.  It’s got a fast-growing middle class and tech sector.  Economically and politically, India meshes with Canada better than China and has much potential growth.

Edited January 24 by Zeitgeist

[I am Groot]

19 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I don’t think Carney taunted Trump at all.  He stated facts and charted a path out of the coercion.

There is no such path when you sit next to the US, not for a country with a massively overregulated, hollowed-out economy, already deep in debt.

You would need to start rebuilding our industry, our manufacturing capacity, and with our tax burden, our expensive energy, our regulatory burden and bureaucracy, nothing we naje us kujekt going to be able to compete with the same thing made in China, Japan, the US, or the EU.

19 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

At this point Canada should continue to pursue new markets.  India is the next big deal.  It’s got a fast-growing middle class and tech sector.  Economically and politically, India meshes with Canada better than China and has much potential growth.

Not a lot of options there  As for India, India's trade agreements all seem to have a major requirement to allow more Indians to work in your country. India makes something like $135 billion in remittances from its overseas workers and expatriates every year.

 

Edited January 24 by I am Groot

[Zeitgeist]

5 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Well as of today...China is discussing and willing to trade as opposed to Trump that says he will put a 100% tariff on Canada because of our dealings with China...(regardless of the fact he said it was good just a v[couple weeks ago)

We are at Trumps whims right now...it that OK by you??

I am not , in any way saying China is better but...it is one avenue that we need right now.

Yes.  Though different countries have different political traditions, democratic or authoritarian, that doesn’t mean that they can’t and don’t change.  Money goes where the growth and certainty are. If we can make mutually beneficial deals with countries THAT STICK TO THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, then we should make those deals. Just because the U.S. has played fair and China hasn’t at different times doesn’t mean those roles can’t reverse.

Trump is pushing the West closer to China when he sets up radical and coercive trade barriers with allies, because there are only so many customers out there.  The original and positive goal of trade expansion was to create new markets for goods and ideas by trading with developing countries that would eventually have the means to import more stuff.  That is happening, and it needed to happen faster, so some tariffing was and remains necessary.

When you impose high tariffs on allies with which you have quite balanced trade (e.g. Canada-US), that can only be interpreted as a form of coercion, which Trump has proudly stated publicly it is. Canada has to look elsewhere than the U.S. and reduce US leverage over Canada. Blaming Canada for trying to defend its economy and sovereignty adds insult to injury. Canadians must never forget this mistreatment, because it can happen again.

Once Canada diversifies markets, grows its domestic market, and boosts its military, the U.S. won’t be able to damage us to the degree they are now, but here’s the rub: Canadians won’t trust Americans as they once did. Relationships are worth more than a few extra bucks, which people quickly learn when the going gets tough. Kicking people when they’re down is low, and there are many historic examples.  It’s what separates a liberator from a tyrant.  At his age, it would serve Trump well to think about his legacy.

Edited January 24 by Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

There is no such path when you sit next to the US, not for a country with a massively overregulated, hollowed-out economy, already deep in debt.

You would need to start rebuilding our industry, our manufacturing capacity, and with our tax burden, our expensive energy, our regulatory burden and bureaucracy, nothing we naje us kujekt going to be able to compete with the same thing made in China, Japan, the US, or the EU.

Not a lot of options there  As for India, India's trade agreements all seem to have a major requirement to allow more Indians to work in your country. India makes something like $135 billion in remittances from its overseas workers and expatriates every year.

 

Yes and no.  Canada has much cheaper access to energy than the U.S.   Energy, resources, and a highly educated population make Canada an ideal economy in many ways, but we’ve overregulated and relied on selling off our resources to other countries instead of manufacturing the finished products ourselves.  Not always.  We used to manufacture all kinds of appliances, military hardware, trains, you name it.  The capacity remains but we need export markets.  Our smaller population has made it economical to specialize rather than do everything.  That can change.

The biggest challenges ahead aren’t so much developing markets and foreign manufacturing, though those problems remain.  It’s automation, leveraging AI, low fertility rates, the ongoing problem of sustaining the population with mass immigration, and cultural challenges resulting from clashing cultures (e.g. forms of Islam, totalitarian capitalism) and other technology (e.g. transhumanism, surveillance, etc.).

In some ways Trump is bringing old solutions to old problems. I do think we need to restore pride in our history and cultural traditions, which Trump seems to understand. Carney still seems to be flogging the DEI and “settler colonial” narratives. He’s right about diversifying our markets and forming new strategic partnerships.

Edited January 24 by Zeitgeist

[I am Groot]

40 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yes and no.  Canada has much cheaper access to energy than the U.S.  

But with government carbon taxes, both industrial and residential users now pay higher rates than in the US. On average.

40 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Energy, resources, and a highly educated population make Canada an ideal economy in many ways, but we’ve overregulated and relied on selling off our resources to other countries instead of manufacturing the finished products ourselves.

Overregulated, to put it mildly. When it takes 14 years from application to permit to start a major natural resources project investers go elsewhere.

40 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 We used to manufacture all kinds of appliances, military hardware, trains, you name it.  The capacity remains but we need export markets.  

If by 'the capacity remains' you mean we could build factories to do this,  yes, but we couldn't do them as cheaply as China, so we would have to put tariffs on Chinese goods to keep them alive.

40 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The biggest challenges ahead aren’t so much developing markets and foreign manufacturing, though those problems remain.  It’s automation, leveraging AI,

It's productivity, which sucks, and is largely because employers see no need to invest in high tech equipment or train new employees when they can just import cheap foreign labour.

40 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

low fertility rates,

To a degree, this is because of mass immigration and foreign workers.

40 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

cultural challenges resulting from clashing cultures (e.g. forms of Islam,

Islam needs to be challenged and forced back into its box. But I see no likelihood of that happening under a cowardly Liberal government.

40 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

In some ways Trump is bringing old solutions to old problems. I do think we need to restore pride in our history and cultural traditions, which Trump seems to understand. Carney still seems to be flogging the DEI and “settler colonial” narratives. He’s right about diversifying our markets and forming new strategic partnerships.

Carney is Trudeau v2 on most 'woke' subjects.

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

But with government carbon taxes, both industrial and residential users now pay higher rates than in the US. On average.

Overregulated, to put it mildly. When it takes 14 years from application to permit to start a major natural resources project investers go elsewhere.

If by 'the capacity remains' you mean we could build factories to do this,  yes, but we couldn't do them as cheaply as China, so we would have to put tariffs on Chinese goods to keep them alive.

It's productivity, which sucks, and is largely because employers see no need to invest in high tech equipment or train new employees when they can just import cheap foreign labour.

To a degree, this is because of mass immigration and foreign workers.

Islam needs to be challenged and forced back into its box. But I see no likelihood of that happening under a cowardly Liberal government.

Carney is Trudeau v2 on most 'woke' subjects.

You’d be surprised how expensive power can be in the U.S., and generally they’re less taxed   We have more abundant supply.

Yeah productivity depends on businesses investing in equipment like robotics and leveraging AI, new machinery, quality workforce.  How do you get companies to invest in themselves?  Tax credits, government funded training, centres of excellence, deregulation, etc.

By capacity, yes I mean know-how and infrastructure. You’d be surprised how much was moff-balled in places like Hamilton when companies like Cameco shut down. Our whole energy and transportation grid in Ontario, including the St Lawrence Seaway, is geared up for mass production.  Yes some tariffs on offshore production are necessary and many jobs in manufacturing aren’t coming back due to automation.

Creating jobs is going to be tough and we’re going to have to figure out how to pay people and give people purposeful occupations.  In any event, unless we miraculously reverse fertility rates or have mass immigration, our population will decline and we’re looking at de-growth.  These are the kinds of problems we should be tackling.  The woke mind virus is partly responsible for our situation. Our cultural values need to be more traditional.

Edited January 25 by Zeitgeist

[SpankyMcFarland]

8 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I hope everyone is aware that the US deals with China. Far more than Canada could ever dream of.

"In 2024, the United States and China engaged in approximately

$658.9 billion to $660.7 billion in total goods and services trade"

 

China deals with the US for more than we could ever hope for.

"U.S. Imports from China (2024😞 Ranged between $438.7$  billion (US) and $462.6 billion"

 

And the hard over conservatives here are raging at the pittance of a deal Carney made with China.... and the pittance we trade with the US.

How do the Trumpsters rationalize that?

[SpankyMcFarland]

14 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Creating jobs is going to be tough and we’re going to have to figure out how to pay people and give people purposeful occupations.  In any event, unless we miraculously reverse fertility rates or have mass immigration, our population will decline and we’re looking at de-growth.  These are the kinds of problems we should be tackling.  The woke mind virus is partly responsible for our situation. Our cultural values need to be more traditional.

So if fertility rates stay down would you like to see an increase in immigration?

[Army Guy]

6 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I don’t think Carney taunted Trump at all.  He stated facts and charted a path out of the coercion.  Everything Trump is doing and saying to hurt Canada and allies says more about him than them. He actually demonstrated essential courage at the right time and cleared a path for others by “removing his sign from the window.” It had to happen.

At this point Canada should continue to pursue new markets.  India is the next big deal.  It’s got a fast-growing middle class and tech sector.  Economically and politically, India meshes with Canada better than China and has much potential growth.

This is not Canada's first rodeo with trump and we should already know what he likes and what he does not....DO you think this speech has done anything for the nation....and if so what has it done except put us back in the sights of trump...which is now threaten too put 100 % tariffs on all Canadian goods, if we keep this Chinese deal....that's what you call courage...I call it not knowing your opponent...want to poke the bear do it on an ice flow with polar bears your going to get better results...Carney is playing with everyone's future here...being able to beat his chest is for his enjoyment, being able to deal with trump is what he is getting paid for....and he is failing...

One would have to ask a couple of questions , is the Chinese deal worth 100 % tariffs.....or is standing up to trump more important than our economy....It is not like China has treated us well in the past...Canadian have such short memories... covid ring any bells.....and we still have not taken any action on those shortfalls , like producing more of our own medicine, medical supplies....lets not even talk about Chinese tariffs... and we still have not diversify our trade with them...

This summer we are going to be talking about Cusma , can't wait to see those deals....

Dealing with just about anyone but China would be better 

[I am Groot]

Another good post from X. No, it's not all crazy people.

From Sandra Watson Parcels

Carney’s proposed “strategic partnership” with China represents a fundamental misreading of the current security environment. This isn’t about trade protectionism; it’s about recognising asymmetric competition that’s been underway for decades.

At Davos, Carney framed this as a trade diversification issue without acknowledging that China has been the primary revisionist actor actively eroding the liberal international order (LIO) That omission is telling. China’s soft power strategy (economic coercion, elite capture, infrastructure dependencies) has systematically undermined this order while Western states pursued engagement policies based on false assumptions of convergence.

The Biden admin and allies finally began countermeasures: reshoring critical supply chains, technology controls, alliance reinforcement. But they’re playing catch-up against decades of Chinese strategic positioning. Time asymmetry matters in great power competition.

Trump’s more confrontational approach, whatever its flaws, reflects the urgency of this moment. The window for preserving Western strategic advantage is narrowing. US hegemonic stability, for all its imperfections, underwrites Canadian security and prosperity. Carney’s positioning reads like reactive spite rather than strategic calculation.

Alienating your primary security guarantor over a trade dispute isn’t statecraft. It’s dangerous and short-sighted, conflating economic opportunity with strategic alignment.

To be clear: selective economic engagement with China, with robust safeguards (tech transfer controls, critical infrastructure exclusions, supply chain resilience) is rational policy. A “strategic partnership”? That’s something entirely different. The question isn’t whether Canada trades with China. It’s whether we understand the difference between transactional commerce and strategic partnership with a revisionist power.

[I am Groot]

Also from X

James E Thorne.

 

Carney Can’t Have It Both Ways.

“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

In Davos, Mark Carney invoked the Melian Dialogue to warn that middle powers risk ending up on the menu. Yet the irony of his own performance was hard to miss: he spoke like Athens while presiding over something much closer to Melos.

Canada must drop Davos theatre. Confronted with Trump’s Greenland gambit, a 100 per cent tariff threat, and a new National Security Strategy that weaponises trade, Ottawa cannot afford one more round of slogan‑heavy multilateralism and moral posturing.

The age of performative politics and virtue signalling is over; this is the era of the Trump doctrine. Carney, more than most, should recognise the shift. As Trudeau’s economic adviser, he was present at the creation of a model that traded hard leverage for international applause while Canadians faced stagnating productivity, unaffordable housing, and eroding clout in Washington.

His Davos talk of “rupture” and middle‑power coalitions risks sounding like a refined version of that same globalist script. While his speech aroused nationalism in many parts of Canada, it did the country a disservice by implying that Ottawa enjoys far more power and room for manoeuvre than it actually does in a harsher Realpolitik world. Canada is not Athens; it is, uncomfortably, closer to Melos.

He now needs to be honest with Canadians: the relationship with the United States is priority number one. Carney must come clean, drop the happy talk, and start implementing a serious strategy of economic sovereignty with the US as its main driver.

If he wants to lead Canada through this storm, he cannot have it both ways. He must move from panels to power politics: build a tough, explicitly transactional relationship with Washington; ensure any deal with China clearly satisfies Trump’s stated national security concerns; and accept that on defence and intelligence Canada is a junior partner that must bargain accordingly.

At home, he needs to stop hiding behind an overgrown bureaucracy, abandon the illusion that climate policy can double as industrial strategy, and confront the depth of alienation in Alberta, which increasingly sees Confederation as a mechanism for enriching eastern elites while treating the West as a carbon colony.

The choice is stark. Either Carney abandons his globalist reflexes and defends Canadian sovereignty with hard instruments of statecraft, or he becomes Trudeau with better lines – a Melian orator in an Athenian world that has run out of patience for beautiful speeches from the weak.

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

This is not Canada's first rodeo with trump and we should already know what he likes and what he does not....DO you think this speech has done anything for the nation....and if so what has it done except put us back in the sights of trump...which is now threaten too put 100 % tariffs on all Canadian goods, if we keep this Chinese deal....that's what you call courage...I call it not knowing your opponent...want to poke the bear do it on an ice flow with polar bears your going to get better results...Carney is playing with everyone's future here...being able to beat his chest is for his enjoyment, being able to deal with trump is what he is getting paid for....and he is failing...

One would have to ask a couple of questions , is the Chinese deal worth 100 % tariffs.....or is standing up to trump more important than our economy....It is not like China has treated us well in the past...Canadian have such short memories... covid ring any bells.....and we still have not taken any action on those shortfalls , like producing more of our own medicine, medical supplies....lets not even talk about Chinese tariffs... and we still have not diversify our trade with them...

This summer we are going to be talking about Cusma , can't wait to see those deals....

Dealing with just about anyone but China would be better 

Truth is, Trump tries to screw over Canada whether or not we make a deal with China, so make the deal and many others. 

Yeah the Canadian PM must be able to say whatever the fck he wants about anyone like any other citizen.  It’s a free country that has free speech.  What’s the point of having a country if we can’t live our lives the way we want to?   That’s the point of a military, to defend those democratic values.  Who cares what Trump or any King or Emperor thinks ?  The head of state is not God and must not be treated as such.  We are all individuals of equal value before God, prince and pauper the same.

Carney has his issues but he’s our PM and we have to respect and defend that office as Canadians. We elected him.  Speaking out at Davos was an important line in the sand that needed to be drawn, and Carney, a Canadian PM, was the one that drew it.  I’ll grant him that great moment of statesmanship.  What gets done as a result of these world debates only time will tell.

Edited January 25 by Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

6 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

So if fertility rates stay down would you like to see an increase in immigration?

Important question. The immigrants have to have values similar to our own. Their integration must not become an excuse for dismissing the important French-English origins of the country with their concomitant faiths and values.   That alignment is a lot more important than people understand, I think. No one goes to France and expects the French to give up their way of life, nor should Canadians.

Edited January 25 by Zeitgeist

[Moonlight Graham]

Carney did his job well at Davos.  The only hope for the rest of the western world to stand up to Trump is by doing it together.  Alone we're all screwed.

We can look toward China and India as a hedge, but they aren't our friends or allies.  The countries that believe in democratic values need to stick together.  The US has tapped out.

[Moonlight Graham]

6 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

So if fertility rates stay down would you like to see an increase in immigration?

A problem we're having with low birth rates and depending on high immigration is that we're going through a recruitment crisis in the military.  There's not enough young citizens who want to join.  Most migrants come here aged 18+, and it takes years to get permanent residence and citizenship.

And when you have a country that embraces dual citizenship and has a high immigrant population, what would happen if the US were to invade?  Who is going to defend us?  How many of the dual citizen immigrants are going to flee back to their country of origin instead of staying to fight?  Who knows.

If we went to war with India or China. which country are the immigrants from those countries going to support?  We really don't know.

IMO you're either in or you're out.  No in-between.  You have to be 100% in, not citizens of convenience.

[Barquentine]

15 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Our smaller population

Coupled with our huge geography. We need to get to 100 million, but we all know the problems in getting there.

 

15 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

clashing cultures

Very little culture clash in Canada. It's mostly an imaginary problem conjured up by the right to inflame their base.

 

14 hours ago, I am Groot said:

To a degree, this is because of mass immigration and foreign workers.

No. Immigrants have more kids. It's an inverse correlation. Richer countries have lower birth rates.

[Barquentine]

5 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

what would happen if the US were to invade?  Who is going to defend us?

Why even ask that question? As if anything we could do would save us.

[Barquentine]

9 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Carney must come clean, drop the happy talk, and start implementing a serious strategy of economic sovereignty with the US as its main driver.

Except NOBODY can negotiate with a m0ronic toddler. Post-Trump some normalcy will return. Of course the US will always be our biggest trade partner. That's no reason for us not to diversify.

[Barquentine]

16 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Trump is pushing the West closer to China

The West is already deeply invested in trade with China. That started long before Trump and grows as China grows. Even US-China trade increased last year.

All this tariff and political sh!t will only improve when Trump is gone or rendered impotent.

[Zeitgeist]

10 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

A problem we're having with low birth rates and depending on high immigration is that we're going through a recruitment crisis in the military.  There's not enough young citizens who want to join.  Most migrants come here aged 18+, and it takes years to get permanent residence and citizenship.

And when you have a country that embraces dual citizenship and has a high immigrant population, what would happen if the US were to invade?  Who is going to defend us?  How many of the dual citizen immigrants are going to flee back to their country of origin instead of staying to fight?  Who knows.

If we went to war with India or China. which country are the immigrants from those countries going to support?  We really don't know.

IMO you're either in or you're out.  No in-between.  You have to be 100% in, not citizens of convenience.

The very important point that Trump forgets when he raves about the “freeloading” members of NATO is that most of NATO’s work has been doing cleanup or defence for American foreign policy.  Why should we be enemies of India or China?  Why should we assume that just because the U.S. is in a pissing contest with China, we should be too?  Canada can have good relations, much better relations with other countries, than the U.S. currently has.  Don’t forget that, at least on paper, China’s ideological foundation is anti-imperialist.  In fact, China was quite isolated and isolationist until Nixon broke some of that ice in the 70’s, a move that did make China a better country than it once was, because as ideas entered China, people there began to think about better ways to live.  That was the positive side of globalization. The trade imbalances and top-down globalist pressure became issues later on. Yes China is a security threat, but in reality, every great power is a potential security threat to Canada.  We should know this by now, especially now.

Maintaining open and productive relations with countries like China can be an important source of security for Canada, as long as we’re careful and critical about the ways in which we trade and partner on issues.  The maple leaf has generally positive associations as a symbol of peace, stability, and human rights. The Stars and Stripes right now are much more contentious internationally. We’ve jumped on US bandwagons, not always in our interests.  We’ve done the same for Britain.  Canada should make sure that we have and defend our own foreign and trade interests.  However, we’re going to have to work hard to become less dependent on the U.S. economy and military.  It’s a hard road in the short run, but it’s a worthwhile trajectory for securing our sovereignty.

It doesn’t mean we stop working with the U.S. on many matters.  Of course.  Canada has to step up its military contributions to NATO, but we should never kowtow to Washington or Beijing or any foreign power.

Edited January 25 by Zeitgeist

[ExFlyer]

4 hours ago, Barquentine said:

The West is already deeply invested in trade with China. That started long before Trump and grows as China grows. Even US-China trade increased last year.

All this tariff and political sh!t will only improve when Trump is gone or rendered impotent.

Trump want to impose 100% tariff on Canada because we made a deal with china even though he said that was a good thing for Canada

Whats wrong with dealing with China consider the US t"otal trade in goods and services between the US and China is estimated to be over $650 billion for 2024, with goods trade dominating at approximately $582-$688 billion. The US holds a significant trade deficit with China, importing over $438 billion in goods while exporting roughly $143-$199 billion"

Why is that never elaborated upon when Trump does hos bullying?

Edited January 25 by ExFlyer

[Zeitgeist]

5 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Coupled with our huge geography. We need to get to 100 million, but we all know the problems in getting there.

 

Very little culture clash in Canada. It's mostly an imaginary problem conjured up by the right to inflame their base.

 

No. Immigrants have more kids. It's an inverse correlation. Richer countries have lower birth rates.

Only 20% of Canada is comfortably habitable, meaning that the land mass actually available for settlement in Canada is significantly smaller than the lower 48 states. It’s roughly the size of France, which is a country that has probably overpopulated through immigration and that was at its peak at around 60 million people.  Mass immigration has created messes in places like the Banlieue in Paris.  I wouldn’t grow Canada’s population to beyond around 60 million.  More than half of those new immigrants to Canada will settle in the Greater Golden Horseshoe in Ontario (70% of 20 million new people actually).   About two thirds of the remainder will settle in Vancouver, Montreal, and Calgary, so let’s call it about another 1.5 million people per major city (another 5+ million in Toronto).  What would our quality of life look like in places like Southern Ontario and BC’s lower mainland with an extra 60 million Canadians under the Century Project of 100 million Canadians, effectively increasing the populations of these areas by 3 times?  Where are these new people going to live, Kapuskasing? The quality of life in Canada would collapse along with anything we considered quaint or beautiful.

At 60 million people, Canada would have a large enough market to produce just about everything in every sector if we ever had to raise the drawbridge on trade and security.  We could justify producing our own armaments for every military branch, maintain a few domestically owned automakers, produce enough variety of foods and goods to satisfy the domestic market, but also sell to the rest of the world where it’s economical to do so.  I think that’s the sweet spot for Canada: big enough but not too big.

Oh, and enough deterrent nuclear arms to destroy all enemies once.  You only need to be able to do it once over.  I envision drones along the border backed by satellite weapon systems, missiles and aircraft, nuclear subs in the Arctic, etc.

Edited January 25 by Zeitgeist