Six British Prime Ministers in Seven Years

It seems difficult to think of Britain as a stable place when yet another prime minister resigns two years into their government. Sir Keir Starmer joins a growing list of prime ministers who could not govern. The Labour leader was thought to be a tonic to the chaos of the Conservatives who were still reeling in the aftermath of Covid as well Brexit. The British economy has not been the same since breaking with the European Union.

Britain has had a long history of Game of Thrones tussles. The Reform Party, who are growing in elected members, are peeling off people who feel displaced and are motivated by that. It has led to boisterous protests. There has been violence at times. In Canada, governing parties usually get two tern between 8 to 10 years in length before they run out of steam. This applies to both provinces and federal governments. It is rare to get a third term. Only the exceptional campaigner and popular politician can do it. It also helps to have a weak and embattled opposition.

Starmer had a landslide two years ago only to score on his own goal repeatedly. Picking an ambassador to the U.S. linked to Epstein as well as financial shenanigans likely took him down in the polls in trust. Having Trump in office and the prickly relationship hurt Starmer in a way it didn't hurt Trudeau or Carney.

In the months after Trump was re-elected, support for Trudeau actually went up. However, the die was cast and his own Liberal party, was looking to someone who might be able to get a deal with the U.S. or at the least, have a plan to broaden the economy. To that end, the Liberals turned to Mark Carney and his support has not been this high for a leader in many a year.

I think the economy following Brexit and Covid has dragged Britain down quite a bit. In Canada, the reaction to the convoy of protestors was more negative towards them than supportive. There were a variety of parties in power at the provincial level when Covid hit. It is hard blaming any one of them without hurting your own party. Ontario has the same Premier Doug Ford because he seems to know how to navigate the tough times and has collaborated with the federal government to the benefit of his province.

What hurt Starmer was probably not making decisive actions early and the ones he did have haunted him like the ambassadorship. The staff in his office were very much needed to vette appointments, manage the party and set up a vision that was achievable and could help the people who had given them a mandate. The resignation today of Starmer is an awful result for a party 14 years out of office. The victory they had two years ago was the biggest win for Labour in decades.

Starmer ought to have known to avoid some of the pitfalls ahead of him. Free event tickets are never really free and the very active media are going to always ask how you got then. Starmer and his ministers ought to have known on free Taylor Swift tickets. Or free glasses or clothes or whatever. None of those things by themselves defeat you. It is the accumulation. And the appointing of an ambassador with such questionable ties. 

I think what made his own party mad enough was not picking a direction and committing to it. He didn't make the case for cuts to in budget to leverage an economic jump, he didn't look to reform tax across the board, he didn't look at defence needs or establish a response to growing Russian threats. Instead, he and his party reacted slowly and befuddled to crime stories, suffering and stagnant economy stories and in total confusion to Trump. It isn't like Carney hasn't had problems like this in Canada. However, he has acted quickly and on things like defence whereas Trudeau said Canada would never reach 2% of GDP on spending even though it has committed to it. Likewise, Trudeau committed to carbon pricing without it showing it brought down emissions or was able to meet Canada's energy needs.

As mentioned previously here, Canada doesn't have an age problem in politics like many nations. We generally have a time limit in our heads of two terms. An exceptional leader or political party that renew itself can extend that time. The Liberals did this by changing leaders and shifting. The Canadian public showed a willingness to do this. And the Liberals won an election and later a majority as a result. Perhaps Carney trips up and faces the same timeline as Starmer for popularity.

Canadian can only look on in shock at the revolving door at the Game of Thrones in the UK. We just don't have this type of turnover. And while we could have two provinces vote on separation, there doesn't seem to be much of an appetite for it if the polls are to be believed. In some ways, there has been more unity than we have seen in some time. Part of it is as a result of Trump, some is sport such as World Cup and Olympics and some could be a sense of common purpose.

A leader appears to be in waiting in Britain. Perhaps that helps Labour find a direction without heading to an election. The biggest momentum in recent years has been Reform Party which seems committed to a rupture in the status quo. It remains to be seen whether the UK really wants that. Perhaps this summer the country will finally find the stability it has lacked for years. 

Canada About to Increase Fighter Purchase to Two Different Fighters

Be careful when military sources say that certain military purchases are not what some in military want. There is a strong chance that they are paid lobbyists or hope to be be paid lobbyists of chosen companies. To that end, military people will make specifications exactly matching Boeing, General Dynamics and a host of U.S. supplier. They will encourage complete integration and training with U.S. to the point that policies match. In other words, self serving in that they get a commission for setting the table for billions in military bids.

Not all military are like that. But fair to be concerned that when billions will be added to military budgets, you will find yourself buying $250 hammers. Ronald Reagan's people found that out when they plowed money into new equipment. It is discouraging and causes people to lose faith. In 2003, there will military advisers saying Canada should go to war despite our own intelligence questioning weapons of mass destruction. 

Stephen Harper took out a full page ad in the U.S. saying Canada should be fighting. Funny, how Poilievre today doesn't talk about this finest moment of his party. We really do need to do our own due diligence. Britain has still not full recovered from this breech of trust for their involvement in Iraq. They have literally eaten up prime ministers and invited chaos in the years since.

Over 50 countries operate more than one category of fighter jet aircraft. If you listen to critics in Canada, the consensus is that Canada should buy more F-35s if the budget is there for it. Remember again these same people are often paid lobbyists. The truth is that the F-35 is the most expensive option on the table. If Canada wants another option for NATO and other work, the Gripen from Sweden offers both a cheaper option as well as an industrial program for Canada.

The sole-sourced aircraft that Canada recently purchased (Poseidon) was uncompetitive. The military assured that no other choice, timetable or price was better. They said this is the one we wanted. No other choice will do. We are the experts. Trust us. But how can when the system is so gamed and when so many former military lobbyists get handsomely paid? This happens so routinely in every country that you come to realize what Eisenhower meant when he talked about the military-industrial complex. He didn't trust their motivations and desire for money.

On the other side of the equation is politics and economics. Some politicians are okay with military contracts so long as they help their communities. They don't care about the cost to taxpayer or if the equipment is on time or even the right equipment. Just as long as money is spent in their area. Safe to say that only a few provinces benefit from the bulk of spending on ship construction.

The reason some countries build their own weapons is because they sometimes find that other countries won't sell them what they want or need. Case in point is Israel and Ukraine. Each of those countries created industries to build them weapons when other countries refused to sell to them. However, some military equipment takes too long to develop and too much to build. Submarines fall in that category. Canada has generally bought submarines from nations that build them. However, the U.S. has vetoed some of our choices if they involved technology the Americans didn't want us to have or threatened their traditional dominance. This is the case of when we tried to buy nuclear submarines in 1987.

The F35 jets make Canada even more dependent on the U.S. and they still are not offering the best version of the aircraft there is. We have been part of the process of building the jet for 30 years and the Harper government attempted to sole-source the purchase with no details. It was widely rejected by the public. Even when it was cancelled in favour of a new bidding process, the military procurement refused to hear from other bidders. Sometimes it was hard to tell who the military and Conservative staffers were. Military were paid to lobby for the F35. The whole thing is a fiasco.

The military basically uses the specifications of the F35 as the basis of their choice. It is an excellent aircraft but sole-sourcing it and then taking money to lobby and as a commission means taking the taxpayer for granted and self enrichment. The relaxed attitude about sovereignty threats from the United States causes some worry. This isn't an idle statement considering the arrests of Canadian military in Quebec recently who looked to overthrow the government. The push to buy 40 or 50 more F35s after the initial 88 has to be questioned.

So here are the facts. The Canadian government has invested a lot of time and money into the F35. However, the aircraft is very dependent on the U.S. for servers, updates and training as well as parts. Any or all could be under threat when not based in Canada. The CF18s had a substantial repair and update contracts in Canada. The F35s require heavy American involvement on a regular basis. The "we are friends" argument feels a lot more hollow when we are fighting all the time to get our goods like aluminum and steel in the market and are called a security threat.

The F35 is like a Ferrari. It is very expensive to operate. Not surprisingly, many Ferrari owners have another car to do things like ship at IKEA. Canada could probably use another aircraft to do that. It isn't the first time we have used other aircraft either. Back in the 50 years ago, we updated our fighters and used older fighters for other tasks until they were retired. If more than 50 other countries do it, why can't Canada? And why is there horror that it is impossible for use to do and that we should go and buy more F35s? Oh, and untendered too.

It now seems highly probable that Canada will likely get most of the F35 order and then put in an additional order for Saab Gripens as part of a NATO industrial strategy. According to the Globe and Mail, the Canadian government is looking to go with two fights with Lockheed-Martin and Saab. How many jets? Well, to put it into perspective, Canada has generally ordered just under 140 fighters at a time delivered over years. The F35s Canada has ordered is 88. To put that in perspective, the UK ordered 60. Australia ordered 72. Japan has an order of 147.

Canada has one of the most significant orders for the F35 in the world. It is one reason the U.S. is angry we have not committed to buying them right away. Keep in mind that the U.S. has treated Australia like crap even after they have taken possession of all 72 aircraft. And you have to wonder if they ever get their nuclear submarines when the U.S. can't even produce enough themselves.

Expanding who Canada buys its military equipment from makes sense given the fact that the U.S. is so unreliable. As much as we can, we should buy in Canada and use Canadian steel and Canadian aluminum. Having American companies complain when we don't use their steel and aluminum is rich. We have a lot of ships and with U.S. steel tariffs, it makes sense we use what we have in Canada.

Most NATO countries predict that by 2029, Russia will be in a position to move against a member country. Most intelligence reports indicate it is the Baltic area that faces the biggest danger. Canada has thousands of military people in Latvia and there have already been Russian incursions into the territory. Unlike the present U.S., Canada seems more committed to NATO than any time in the past decades. At one point prior to the Berlin Wall coming down, Canada had up to four squadrons of fighters based in Germany.

A decision is likely coming soon. It isn't likely before July 1 as the trade deal reaches a new phase at that point. So far any concessions have been met with no quid pro quo. Announcing a purchase of 140 F35s might gain nothing and still have the U.S. demanding more. Why not add to your industrial base and ally with NATO friends. Create an export market for Ukraine to have fighters. Have an aircraft that is not the sports car you have to take out for the regular work. The United States under normal circumstances shouldn't care what NATO aircraft that Canada buys. At some point Canada will make a decision. It seems weird that the purchase might be linked to the Gordie Howe Bridge but we exist in strange times.

Royce Koop Seeking Conservative Nomination in Winnipeg South Centre

 

University of Manitoba professor and Winnipeg Sun columnist has indicated he will be seeking the nomination for the Conservatives for Winnipeg South Centre. The riding is presently held by the Liberal under Ben Carr, son of the last Jim Carr, former MLA and MP from the area. Carr was recently re-elected in 2025. The riding has been one of the most consistent federal Liberal riding for nearly five decades. The next election is, at best, three years away now the Mark Carney has a majority.

By all accounts, Koop has been a well liked professor at University of Manitoba. He has degrees from all over Canada and has taught at many Canadian  universities. When he wrote at the Free Press, there was insightful analysis. His columns in The Sun and sometimes National Post are all opinion pieces. His focus pretty much all the time is the Liberal party and why it is bad for Canada. He also writes for the conservative digital news service call The Hub. Just this week, Conrad Black, a frequent contributor said Trump is a good president and his name in the Epstein Files is irrelevant.

Koop is known as a fairly partisan conservative. His Sun columns and podcasts with Kevin Klein have been focused against the NDP in Manitoba and the Liberals in Ottawa. As an academic he is well aware of the micro and macro of the political economy. He knows how the Westminster system works. He is well aware of the ideology of every political party in the country. Knowing all this, his political opinion of things overlooks the failures of his own party and focuses on the failures of the other guys.

It it is unclear if there is competition for the nomination for the federal riding. The last candidate for the Conservatives in the riding was Royden Brosseau, an engineer and businessman, who hasn't indicated that they will run again. Joyce Bateman won for the Tories in 2011 but lost to Jim Carr the following election. It has been a very Liberal since the 1980s even through many Conservative governments.

The Conservatives have felt this riding, with a mix of wealth and high education, has been ripe for the plucking for decades but have continually come up short. And by a long ways most of the time. And some of the right who campaigned in the riding have often shown a level of racism and anti-Semitism dating back to the Reform party. Given the  Jewish strength in the riding, conservatives often think they take the the seat. But that assumes a monolithic viewpoint of Jewish Canadian votes. It dismisses Jewish roots in a spectrum of views rather than single issue politics.

Royce Koop will likely face challengers for the nomination which is might might fight off being more right of center. He will then have to show the riding he can represent all the people that live there. There are many government workers, artists and small business people who live in the riding. Many will be ever alert to threats to health, education and and areas they feel passionate about.

The lesson learned from Pierre Poilievre's defeat in his own riding is that many people in the Ottawa area were afraid of slash and burn policies that could affect their jobs and workplaces. It is possible that if Trudeau had still been in power in 2025 in the election, even Winnipeg South Centre would have turned blue. However, the Liberals turned to Carney and the Trump changed the election into an existential threat. That threat still hangs over Canada.

I suppose the benefit of Koop getting the nomination early is that he can get a feel of the riding. You can bet they will be reading his columns, watching podcasts and so will his opposition. If Carney nose dives in the polls, it is possible this seat can turn over. But it is likely it will only be a narrow window and the community will be watching like hawks the whole time.

Loudmouth Lutnick

Howard Lutnick is a billionaire who routinely mouths off about Canada in his Trump role as Commerce Secretary. He and Jamieson Greer, the trade representative are sold on tariffs and manufacturing in the U.S. and this approach has been for every country in the world. Some countries rushed to make deals only to find Trump changes the deals.

Both Lutnick and Greerson have pretty much said the deal Canada must accept is that their auto manufacturing must move to the U.S. and that we buy cars from America and no where else. This, and pretty much every other industry, are to move to the U.S. and we buy from them or risk punishment. There is absolute fury in the administration that Canada went to China and made a deal to end the ban canola and other ag products and quota for EV automobiles in Canada. Strangely enough, Trump is going to China soon. How will his deal be different than Canada's?

Lutnick might be trying to impress Trump now so he can get a pardon later for behavior kinked to Epstein. This isn't just an idle observation. He seems to only disclose when under oath and Congress is about to question him again. It often seems that most of the cabinet and political appointees perform for an audience of one. It is all about Trump.

Canada had not risen to the debate as it might once have done. The U.S, seems to want to scare Canada into a deal while stripping out our tech and manufacturing industry at the same. The U.S. negotiating team seems bewildered why we don't jump at such a bad deal. Or ask to become a state in the U.S.

The mid-term elections in the U.S. this November likely mean change is coming for both elected officials and administration. The loss of the House of Representatives, and possibly, the Senate. It is the Congress that makes trade deals. It seems very likely that Canada just has to wait till January 2027 for when the newly elected members are sworn in.

There is usually changes in cabinet and other appointees as well. We have seen Trump fire a few cabinet secretaries and more may be on the way. Some will quit before getting fired while others will quit to get media jobs, lobbyist jobs or to run for office themselves. The last two years of a presidency is called the lame duck part of the term. It is when even the President's party is not likely to pass the agenda if it means a possibility of them not winning or moving on to another office in the next election.

The possibility of the president running a third term is remote because of two term limits. Any attempt to bypass that is likely to be struck down at every level of the courts. The Supreme Court knows that if they strike down term limits for Trump, it could result in multiple terms for other presidents, including Democrats.

The term limits work to Canada's advantage because tariffs are not likely to be as much on the agenda of any future U.S. president. It could be why the U.S. negotiating team is putting a rush on talks. They want to lock in terms favourable to them. The U.S. is particularly focused on pharmaceutical and online companies. They may have dropped bringing up supply management in things like dairy. It is possible that they fear Canada might bring up U.S. subsidies in ag and manufacturing.

Pierre Poilievre has been needling Carney that he has done nothing to make a deal and insists it is achievable if he was the prime minister. Interestingly, he doesn't reveal what compromises he would make that would be a win-win for both countries. He simply won't be PM if he throws supply management or pharmaceuticals to the Americans. And that is just to start.

Some of the U.S. demands are just being revealed. They want Canada to accept tariffs but also any attempt to diversify our economy from the U.S. or any regulation of our own economy. The fact that free trade exists at a level that is near complete in North America is not acceptable. They want free trade for U.S. into Canada while Canada pay high tariffs.

Lutnick says Canada delaying sucks and won't work but the truth is that he will likely not have his job soon enough. He will either quit or be fired soon. His appearance in future Congressional Epstein hearings in next days. The rush to submit to the U.S. in the negotiations is just not in Canada's interest. And despite what Poilievre says, Canada is not delaying. We just won't pay upfront costs anymore when the U.S. never gives anything back. Not will we accept the insults and threats of annxation.

Harper Nostalgia from Conservatives

The Conservatives have been have been all mushy nostalgic for Stephen Harper this past week during the Calgary convention to affirm Pierre Poilievre as party leader. It is the Conservative convention so they can mush all the want. However, the Conservatives certainly leave out a lot of stuff when they talk about Harper, not the least of which is how he got thumped by Justin Trudeau for a terrible campaign and based on his record. And thereafter, Trudeau beat the new two Conservative leaders. It was the Liberals themselves who replaced Trudeau and thereafter Carney beat yet another Conservative leader in Pierre Poilievre.

The last time the Conservatives held power was back when Harper was Prime Minister. The National Post are been particularly strong in singing the praises of Harper the past weekend crediting him with a golden era in Canadian governance. They are very strong in condemnation of Trudeau. There is plenty to criticize Trudeau about but on things like military spending, Trudeau's government easily surpassed Harper who had .08% GDP spending even while we were in Afghanistan. Trudeau was at 1.3% and Carney is to bring it to 2% by March and head past that to 5%. Somehow the way the conservative media frames it, Harper was superior. He wasn't but they seek to downplay that. 

In terms of deficits, Harper media supporters say it was the result of the 2008 stock and economy crash. They credit Harper for managing the crisis while saying that Carney had nothing to do with it. I expect if Carney didn't help, Harper would not have offered him the job of Finance minister or be so effusive in praise of his job as Bank of Canada governor. It is all such nonsense. Such obvious digs sound just like they are: blindly partisan.

The seeds of most leaders demise show themselves early. The electorate initially appreciates or tolerates it in the early going. Most voters are are not extremists. They tend to vote for their own reasons. Having said that, the seeds of Harper's demise came from the social conservative side and his desire to end collection of data in some quarters. The cancelling the long form census and gagging government departments from reporting stuff not approved by his office was very concerning. The focus on immigrants and what they wore turned off a number of people as well as associating with the extremist side with the cultural barbaric practices hotline. Holy ICE in Canada! For Trudeau, it was the performative side of things. He went to India and was annoying in his costume and family holiday. Serious trade and security issues needed to be talked about and they were outshone by superficial stuff. Eventually, with high cost of living, the charismatic Trudeau looked destined for a thorough defeat.

Usually the leader are blind to their own weakness. And why would they think that anything other than victory was possible. Both Harper and Trudeau clobbered opposition. Liberals are not nostalgic for Trudeau insofar that they want him back. I personally believed that some of his personal foibles would have resulted in loss of position by almost every other Liberal MP if they had committed them. Still, I approved in general the change in cannabis law, the handling of the pandemic and the free trade agreement in Trump's first term. As for the cost of living and handling the crime and drug addictions, I was like many people not very happy.

It has been interesting to note in recent days that Harper and Chretien were on stage together talking about national unity. It is hard to imagine this in the U.S. right now. In fact, both men mentioned the issue of Donald Trump and how the country should come together. It was fairly funny to but it also emphasizes Poilievre's problem. While he can embrace nostalgia for Harper, he is having a hard time being critical because there are so many Trump supporters in his party, some who even welcome being the 51st state.

Based on the way the Conservatives are acting, it is clear they don't want to pull the trigger on an election right away. If the act with bravado and block things, Carney might be compelled to call a snap election and call their bluff. Minorities don't have long. If no more floor crossers join the Liberals, the election could be in 2026. Poilievre is meeting Carney to discuss the session. It doesn't seem likely he would do that if he was going to vote non-confidence in the next month.

In the mean time, conservative media will continue to say what a grand time a Harper conservative government was and say nothing bad ever happened. The relationship between Canada, the U.S. and China was never as good as some on the right have said. Harper never did get a pipeline in Canada or the U.S. either. Trudeau got the one in Canada completed. Harper kept the worst instincts of the party down until he didn't. 

Carney and Chretien were present this week when Stephen Harper had his portrait unveiled in Ottawa on 20th anniversary since he was in office. Peter McKay was present too. But no Poilievre. It was probably not a thing he wanted to show a non-partisanship appearance at. A missed opportunity to grow his base. However, his base in furious and angry. About everything. They want to control the courts and judges. They want to end bilingualism. Go to zero immigration. They will go to extremism if they see the Conservatives give on these issues.

It is hard to believe that the Harper nostalgia doesn't teach anything new to present day Conservatives. They certainly don't seem to be listening to Harper now.

Carney in the Post Davos World

 

Much has been made of Mark Carney's speech in Davos, Switzerland about the current situation the world sees itself after one year of Donald Trump's return to office. It is interesting to note that is has had a world-wide response and the speech was re-printed in Le Monde and the New York Times. Donald Trump has reacted negatively and disinvited Carney to his Board of Peace. This may be a blessing for Carney. And Trump is escalating. He says he will launch 100% tariffs on Canada for the recent trade deal with China which does not involve sending any goods to the U.S. but a lowering of tariffs to pre-2024.

In Canada, Pierre Poilievre credited Carney with with an excellent speech and then went on for pages after criticizing him and his government. His main argument is that Carney has done nothing and his party has done nothing. This could be posturing for the election leadership review that Poilievre faces in two weeks. Every opportunity to bring down the minority government he has passed on. We'll see if he is ready to take the government down in February.

We don't have as many silos of only right wing or left wing views as the U.S. has. The American-owned National Post just doesn't have the reach nor does right wing radio or podcasting media in Canada have near the influence it does south of the border. Our bookstores have smaller politics section than U.S. ones where every politician or media person has a book out, it seems. Even social media is light on politics in Canada even on X (Twitter), TikTok and YouTube. Most Canadians seem to get their news from a diverse number of sources and stubbornly hug the middle in most things.

Nevertheless, Conrad Black, who received a pardon from Trump, says that Canada and NATO countries have been have been letting the U.S. do all the work. He seems to forget Afghanistan when Canada honoured Article 5 and went to fight. The first four Canadians killed in Afghanistan were killed by "friendly fire" from American forces. A total of 158 Canadian Forces killed along with 6 civilians seem to have been forgotten. Not just by Trump but by Conrad Black. The Super Conservative forgetting all this is appalling as is the soft pedaling of the disgust many Canadians feel about the threats that Black largely ignore. He gaslights us by calling it derangement syndrome.

The election in 2025 very much felt like a vote for stability when Mark Carney was elected. Canadians seemed to have a visceral response to the chaos south of the border. Many are angry at the aggressive bullying from Donald Trump. It has changed travel and shopping patterns and continues to alter them. It seems like whatever conservative media there is clearly is not reading the room at the rage against the U.S. and Trump in Canada. Every time the Conservatives blame Carney, they are likely setting their own prospects back.

The Winnipeg Sun seems to recognize that Trump's criticism of Carney helps the Liberals get their majority. The editorial believes it might be a conspiracy. The truth is a lot of conservatives are not looking for a united Canada. Some want separation. Some want 51st state. Polls consistently say that the majority in every province are against that. Even when Conservatives have power provincially and federally, there has been a separatist minority so blaming Liberals for them doesn't wash.

Pierre Poilievre had said the Liberals under Carney are not doing anything which is not exactly true. The budget passed but other pieces of legislation have been held up in the minority parliament. Parliament seems stalled as so often happens in a minority. The Carney government has announced GST relief that Poilievre says he will support. Since it is a financial measure, a vote down would likely trigger an election which Conservatives don't seem prepared for.

Trump might be miffed with Carney and his ambassador and cabinet are uttering threats and encouraging separation of Alberta. The ambassador seems perplexed why we won't just surrender our industry to the U.S. or why we'd consider them a threat? Not entirely sure some in Trump's team will every get why were not on board with their plans. Ultimately, it could be Carney is waiting for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the tariffs. Based on the questions the Supreme Court had for Trump officials, it seems likely they are worried that it might be an overreach on Congress and their constitutional power. However, given how the administration looks to dump the Second Amendment when it is a anti-Trump rally and shoot a protestor, who knows?

Although Poilievre has been critical of it, Carney has been travelling lots. He will continue to do in 2026 with India and Australia in search of business and security deals. The Europeans just signed a massive trade deal with India this week and Canada may be close to doing so as well. In Australia, Canada is buying a billion dollar defense system to be used in the north to detect intrusions. It is hard to believe that Poilievre would sit at home in some chauvinistic way to appeal to his base rather than making business, security and business deals around the world. His fear of being called a globalist would do harm to Canada.

Poilievre using the same talking points of the last election may not serve him well. The Canadian public has pivoted and it has a lot to do with Trump. And Poilievre still doesn't know how to respond well to Trump because a lot of his base loves the man. As we swing to separation talks in different regions, the fear is that the U.S. will meddle. They already are. And Poilievre can't be seen to lead the conga line for that. 

The Trump people have so many fires to put out that they started and the mid-term elections are happening this year. Time is running out to run on a winning message. The Supreme Court is to weigh in at any time on tariffs any time up till mid-February. This could result in a reversal of Trump tariffs. As it stands now, China has ordered many shiploads of canola at a reduced tariff and should stay within American red line limits. Prime Minister Carney might just have to wait things out till then.

For now we have to put up with Treasury Secretary Bessant and Commerce Secretary Lutnick gaslighting us about how it is Canada that started this fight with drugs crossing the border and our unfair trading practices. A list of Trump officials will have nothing good to say no matter what concessions are made. And Trump himself is likely to take it as weakness to try for a takeover. It isn't just negotiating strategies. After Venezuela, everything has to be looked at as a shakedown.

The Conservatives in Canada have been saying they are not Trump MAGA while re-posting MAGA comments. Liberal support is up mostly at the cost of the NDP and Bloc in the post Davos speech polling. The Conservatives have called it virtue signaling and said if the Liberals are not adopting the the Poilievre plan, they are doing nothing. Given the tax and GST cuts, the Liberals are not exactly doing nothing. And the canola shipments are hard to argue with except if Conservatives are saying they wouldn't sign tariff reduction deals with China.

A number of media outlets have indicated that Carney has a long list of additional travels in 2026, Some Conservatives are critical saying he should be back in Canada in Parliament facing a blocking opposition. This ignores the amount of Team Canada trips that Stephen Harper did that Conservative are extolling now. India and Australia trips are coming up and there are hints that trade agreements are pending. We can't completely replace American trade. It is simply too big and North American is too integrated to not reach a deal. However, we can't act like we are the ones blocking a deal.

It is still likely an election happens this year unless there is another few floor crossers to the Liberals. Minority governments never last long. Until then, Carney will run a government trying to mitigate the chaos in the U.S.

Crossing the Floor - House of Commons

In 2018 Andrew Scheer had no problem with floor crosser when Liberal Leona Allslev joined his party. Now that is Conservatives crossing to the Liberals, you have Conservatives screaming treason and trade offs that are illegal. They're not. Since Confederation, there have been over 300 floor crossings. People elect MPs. If they elect enough of them from one slate, they get official party status and resources from Parliament to do their job. The party that has the most MPs elected gets to attempt to form government, even in a minority situation. This means in a minority, the governing party has to work with MPs across the floor to govern. This includes inducing them to cross the floor to help form a majority.

Justin Trudeau got this when one of his MPs crossed the floor. Scheer crowed about it, said the Liberals were weak and Trudeau should resign. He apparently, didn't see anything wrong with it. As for what it achieved, the election that came soon after resulted in a repeat minority and it was Scheer who had to resign.

It is a but rich to see Andrew Scheer talking about the Liberals meeting with Conservative MPs and calling it anti-Democratic. It is the opposite of that. Some of the media, including people in academia, question the MP how they thwart the choices of people who voted for the party. People elect MPs. Those MPs are expected to vote or act on behalf of all those who live in their riding. That includes people who didn't vote for them or can't yet vote.

Parties can't dictate that people first sit as an independent. It is unenforceable in our system. It also lacks transparency. If a minority government relies on a few MPs to pass their agenda, it is better to know what the trade offs are. In the last government, the NDP and Liberals negotiated to pass an agenda. Unfortunately, for the NDP, it didn't result in seat gain. But it did result them getting things they wanted passed in legislation. It is up to electorate what they want from their MP and who they want. The parties always find this out and trying to force party loyalty on a riding often won't go well.

Conservatives are raw with anger. Perhaps some know that cries of treason are politicking. However, it often seems that some pundits are unware of of how democracy and our system works. Many still can't figure out what Ontario has more MPs than say, Alberta. Perhaps because it has three times the population and also has the biggest economic impact in the country.

It is worth noting that one of the most celebrated leaders in history, Winston Churchill, crossed the floor twice. Many seem to chose to forget that when they list him as a great leader. But then again people choose what they want to choose even when it is contradictory. You would they not get furious when it is pointed out to them. It seems entirely based on whose ox gets gored.

It is very likely that Pierre Poilievre believed that he was going to defeat the Liberals this week and head into an election. Now, he is two MPs short from where he was day earlier. A final budget vote takes place a week from now. It remains to be seen if the bleeding has stopped for the Conservatives. If all the opposition parties vote against the budget, there will indeed be an election and all the hysteria about floor crossing will be mute.

It is interesting to note how rattled Pierre Poilievre was as a result of the two MPs leaving the caucus. He has been acting like he is 30 points ahead in the polls. Perhaps things will be unsettled in Canada till a majority is voted in. It is only then that an opposition party knows that it at least three or four years till the next election and that is a marathon rather than a sprint. If the feeling is that an election is always imminent it seems to encourage dumb behaviour.

As far as social and mainstream media goes, perhaps the angry outbursts is to get clicks or support from the base. Calling people liars in an unsigned document from Conservative party doesn't cut it. Two MPs are gone. They blame the Liberals for this. The big question is whether the Conservatives have enough votes to bring down the government in a confidence vote in a week or whether they even want to do that. 

To be sure Pierre Poilievre has had a bad week. And while the bleeding might have stopped from loss of MPs, it might mean that some MPs are looking to the leadership review in January to demonstrate their displeasure. Raging against unhappy MPs will not go well. Even if floor crossing is shut down, it might not stop people leaving office.

Election 2025?

 The new budget comes November 4 and the final vote on it comes a few weeks after. It is a confidence vote. If all the parties vote against it and there are no abstentions or people absent from the House, it is an automatic election before Christmas. An election is not an idle thing to dismiss. In 1979, the Progressive Conservative government of Joe Clark was defeated six months after being elected in a confidence vote. Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals one again became the government.

While there may be lessons from that time, each elected government has their own unique circumstances. Other countries have regular minority governments but the way Canada's system operates, the results leans more to majorities. However, in recent years Canada has had repeated minorities. The last minority government under Trudeau's Liberals was supported Singh's NDP. It lasted a long time but ultimately hurt the NDP. The Liberals also hurt by a long tenure changed leaders and fears regarding the United States and Trump led to a victory for Carney and another Liberal minority.

We are divided politically but probably less polarized than our neighbours to the south. However, the parties have all boxed themselves in and likely won't take the time to figure out leadership, policy platforms as well as how to build a successful party if elections are a threat every few months. The Conservatives have seen one member cross the floor. Apparently, some are not waiting for the leadership review of Pierre Poilievre. 

A budget where no one is happy is par for the course. The big question is whether it is enough for an election. Some media critics are upset with the budget that it didn't go far enough. Some wanted more spending, some wanted tax breaks and tax reform. Given the minority, it is likely the best budget that could be presented that might get passed.

The one floor crossing of a Conservative to the Liberals means that the Government is two votes short of a majority. Rumours abound about other MPs looking to cross the floor. If two more cross then the Liberals should be in a good position to have three or four years to make their budget work. This might be wishful thinking on the part of the Liberals. The rest of the week will be debate on the budget and the vote will come two weeks from now. At the moment, it looks like an election.

Howard Lutnick Says Canada Has to Be Number 2

Prime Minister Carney returned from Washington. While discussions were friendly, there has been no deal signed. Minister Leblanc continues discussions on sectoral deals but it is slow going. Trump has often said deals were to be instant when he became president but half a year has gone by and only now movement is being made on Gaza and Israel. Complicated problems take time. And in some cases never get fully resolved.

Canadians continue to cut Carney slack but employment numbers are bad and the car, steel, lumber and aluminum industries are all suffering. There has been some aid programs for those industries but so far the only thing that has protected Canada from worse results is the free trade agreements that expire in 2026. Even those agreements could collapse with tariffs in the new year. 

In a speech a day after the Carney meeting, Howard Lutnick said not to expect an auto deal from Trump in a new trade agreement. He said Canada will give up all car manufacturing and might be left with auto parts. Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary, says this is a America First policy and Canada must accept it.

This speech to the Eurasia Group's Canada-U.S. Summit in Toronto. Lutnick made the speech via video call under Chatham House Rules which prevented media coverage. His speech though was confirmed by three sources that saw and heard it. While Trump is the final decider, the Lutnick speech was an indicator that CUSMA, the freed trade agreement, is likely not going to be renewed as it is now. It may not resemble anything like free trade. The U.S. want all of Canadian industry to locate south of the border.

Even as tariffs hurt U.S. businesses such as farming, Lutnick continues to push ahead. Soybeans, corn and beef have lost their Chinese markets. Crops are coming in there and there is no place to market them to. Moreover, the ending of USAID means the government is not buying either for food security. Headed into the 2026 mid-term elections, many farmer will be angry and it will be harder to blame the Democrats for it.

If Canada and Mexico lose auto manufacturing, it is likely the big U.S. auto builder like GM and Ford who will go bankrupt. And American car prices will jump even higher unless labour costs are slashed. It is likely every business affected in the U.S. is lobbying but it may come down to bankruptcies before anything resonates. This doesn't help Canada either but it is an indication of how policy is happening south of the border.

Lutnick and U.S. ambassador Pete Hoekstra are certainly abrasive. The gaslighting about how Canada's not travelling to the U.S. is an impediment to good relations is rich. The joking about the 51st state is brought up unbidden by Trump all the time. The reaction to the threat has caused Canadians to re-think the relationship with America. It seems that these Trump officials are shocked that there is deep feelings of betrayal in Canada. There is actual anger by them about how we changing our travel, shopping and other habits related to the U.S.

The premiers across the country are getting nervous and wonder what Canada has gotten from two meetings with Trump. Some are getting sick of making concessions and receiving nothing in return. Lutnick has said to expect it to be worse and even Canadian consumers choosing not to travel to the U.S. is regarded as a hostile act. Hoekstra has said the same. In short, they have said Canada is going to take it and like it. Or else. Some premiers are advocating for punching back.

Canada may be hoping that a legal challenge on tariffs winding it's way to the Supreme Court. There is no telling how the court will react. The justices surely know that giving the president unlimited powers that usually fell to Congress could be used by a future Democratic president in future years. That Republican majority court might rule against the permanent tariffs. Or they might support the tariffs. The House of Representatives might change to Democratic control and then tariff policy might be overturned there. The truth is 2026 is the mid-term elections and a lot can happen in the U.S.

Carney has to navigate the whole thing carefully. The retaliation tariffs except on sectoral areas like aluminum and steel have been reversed with no reciprocal response yet. If a deal on steel or aluminum is reached, it would be helpful. However, aluminum and steel could be of use in Canada if tin and aluminum drink cans are brought into production in Ontario and elsewhere. This alone could be a $3 billion re-patriation of production. 

The 100% tariff on EV vehicles from China was a tandem response with the U.S. and to support our own EV industry. The response from China has been ever increasing tariffs on canola. Premier Wab Kinew has said those tariffs should end. The major problem is that the development of EVs in Canada might end and car production might accelerate in moving to U.S. Canada will be speaking to China this week so some progress might be made there. Pierre Poilievre, however, believes the Chinese vehicles are problematic because the tech can be monitored and controlled in China. The same argument can be made with Tesla and American control. While a legitimate concern, it is one that warrants a further discussion. The tariff imposed was mostly in regards to dumping product at below cost to kill competitors and then raise rates later. It might be better to extract concessions to build Chinese EVs in Canada.

Ultimately, if the U.S. goal is to end the auto industry in Canada, it frees Canada from having to buy anything produced in the U.S. at all. The Trump goal to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. and then export that product back to Canada is unlikely. Canada is likely to either build its own product or seek those products where it is less expensive and that won't be the U.S. 

American trade issues with China alone are likely to bankrupt many farmers in the next years even with bailouts. Meanwhile, Canada is trying to come to some sort of agreement with India and China. The issue of Canadian sovereignty will matter in whatever discussions we have in regards to trade in the world. For many citizens, the issue will be housing, inflation and economy. Carney already is looking to get out of the weeds. A trade deal is necessary with the U.S. but a bad trade deal is worse than no deal at all. Spreading deals out around the world would be helpful.

Meanwhile, an election is possible is as early as a budget defeat November 4. The polls are very tight and for various reasons the opposition might be itching to go an election before 2026. Carney might be ready for an election too. While they might be ready, the public could react with hostility. Despite the unhappiness in Parliament, the parties might find some reason to vote for the budget or might sneakily have some MPs who don't show up on vote day. Donald Trump could be an issue long into next year. How the electorate responds to that might hurt or help certain parties.

One think is for certain that each time Howard Lutnick opens his mouth to say Canada is going to get hurt in the new trade relationship has Canadians look for other options in world partners.

Political Discourse in Canada

While Canadians look in horror at the political violence in the U.S., it is worth noting that Manitoba was created through political violence. The founder of Manitoba Riel ordered the death of Thomas Scott. This act set off a number of actions that both created Manitoba and further violent clashes that eventually led to the death of Riel himself. It is a much more complicated history than that but our Legislature is now led by a First Nations premier. It might have seemed unthinkable a few decades ago. However, we have had a variety of political leaders from different religious and ethnic backgrounds. This has been at both municipal and federal levels in the province.

We should be proud in Manitoba for having fairly open view on who we elect. By and by, we try to elect the who we think are up for the job and the policies that best reflect where we want to go. We don't seem to have the same old hands in office that the U.S. does. This is not likely a reflection of ageism but that Canadians are more likely to put an end to a political career after that person has been there for ten years or so. The desire for change means third terms are rare. Four terms impossible.

I don't know Canadians are cynical but pragmatic and looking for change. But this isn't everywhere. There are a large amount of areas in Canada that don't change from one party all that much ever. In Manitoba, some provincial and federal ridings have rarely changed parties. Not true in the city. Elections are decided in cities because voters are open to changing their vote. 

We have never quite had the political media that the U.S. has. Every bookstore is crammed with political books. Radio stations are filled with political talk. The news programs usually lead with political news. There are dedicated news networks that talk politics all day. Every newspaper or digital news is heavy on politics. For the U.S., it often means leaning toward one or the other political parties.

There just isn't as much of that in Canada. A few Conservatives have crossed the border to engage campuses and political parties. It has largely not had the same impact as south of the border. There are homegrown conservatives in Canada such as Jordan Peterson. Some of his views such as universal healthcare are pretty progressive and they don't want to hear about in the U.S.

Many on the right are provocateurs. In Canada there are a lot of older and grumpy men who grouse on radio, newspapers and sometimes TV.  There is nothing wrong with that. Change is hard, nostalgia is easy. But the grumpy critics are using their words and their voices. The best of them sometimes use facts. The American-owned National Post with its Trump pardoned former owner are so repetitive in their support for Conservatives federally and for Netanyahu in Israel.  It is probably not surprising that you can't find the paper in places like Manitoba. It is only available in digital form. There isn't any news in it except for business news. 

The right wing in Canada is at war with itself half the time. It hates media in general and bleeds it dry of funding or grasps onto Russian funding. Young conservatives in Canada often listen to podcasts in the U.S. if they read, watch or listen to anything. Many just aren't attracted to Conservatives in Canada. As such, there was not much runway for Americans or even prominent Canadians like Peterson to achieve much discussion heading into the last election.

I have not mentioned the NDP and Greens much. There is plenty of progressive voices but they are often caught up in activism which is often incompatible with governing. The Greens have a respected leader who keeps trying to retire. The party just doesn't get elected at various levels and show they can govern. Once Elizabeth May is gone, it may be the end for the Greens as well. As for the NDP, they fight even about the direction of the party. No strong NDP provincial leader wants anything to do with it. While the federal NDL campaigns for electoral reform, the provincial NDP doesn't support it. It is hard to say what the future direction of the NDP federally is.

So while there are conservatives here saddened by the death of Charlie Kirk, there really isn't any movement here to rally young conservatives. An anti-immigration rally in Toronto in the last day barely generated anyone. More pro-immigration people were on site. The protest didn't even seem to draw much conservative media in Canada although I can't say I have checked all social media.

It is probably important in retrospect to remember that Canada is not the same as the U.S. when we watch people political figures get targeted. As Poilievre and Catherine McKenna reported this weekend, they have required police protection because of threats. We have probably been lucky it hasn't resulted in a terrible outcome. It is important to note that someone went after Trudeau and crashed the gates of Rideau College to get him. Mental illness might have been a factor but the target was political.

In the mean time, it is better to keep conversations going and to keep in mind, the average Canadian is probably less concerned with politics than they are with family, school and work. It is hard to rally a movement when you are making lunch for kids for school the next day.

Election Aftermath

Three months ago the result would have been very different. It is likely the Conservatives would have won a supermajority. Now, the Liberals under Carney has come up 24% in the polls and are just shy of a majority. The resignation of Trudeau, the election of Carney as leader of the Liberals, the tariffs of Trump and the 51st state talk and the collapse of the NDP all contributed to this win.

The post election speeches were telling. Poilievre congratulated the new leader and didn't dispute the result despite losing his own seat. Singh, losing his seat as well and party status, announced he would be stepping down. Blanchet lost a third of Bloc seats. He has only had to face criticism from the Quebec government for a poor campaign. Very quickly after the election, Blanchet indicated he won't be bringing the government down any time soon.

As far as Poilievre goes, he has to face his caucus to see if he can retain their support going forward. Since he lost his seat, Parliamentary rules clearly state the Opposition has to pick a leader in the House. This can be an interim leader but it has to be someone who is a MP. It appears Poilievre has called everyone to solidify his support. But his loss means he is out of the Commons for at least a few months and out of the official residence at Stornoway which is only for elected officials.

One thing is clear is that Poilievre won't be in the Commons until the fall unless Parliament has a summer sitting. And they might if Conservatives make a big deal about it. The G7 meeting is in Alberta in July and it is expected that there will several trade missions around the world. July 1 is the self-imposed deadline for a provincial free trade agreement and it looks like the country made finally get one.

The Trump Effect is not just limited to Canada. Australia just elected a a majority Labor government and the opposition Liberal (conservative) party lost, including the leader's seat. Similarly, the opposition leader in Australia had held the seat for 20 years just like Poilievre. This reversal of conservative wins worldwide will be monitored by many.

In Carney's press conference, the need for speed was emphasized. The Trump tariffs are hurting Canada and they are hurting the U.S. as well. Carney will be looking to get tariffs off of Canada in some sort of agreement. Nevertheless, the U.S. could still have a hard economy due to trade pressures around the world. This affects Canada too.

In Trump's first term, Canada tried to stay below the radar and got a trade deal. However, any hope of getting a pipeline through even under Trump's administration has proven to be fruitless. However, there are LNG projects that will come on stream in B.C. that will benefit all of Canada in terms of economic gains. On Friday, Carney met Premier Danielle Smith and she was reasonably satisfied that the discussion was productive.

An Alberta tradition is to bash Ottawa. However, I think she is aware that if she takes it too far, it may involve violence towards the federal government. There is no control if it devolves to that. As in the time of Covid where some Albertans gathered arms and planned an event at the border, the fear is that there will be a move from politics to terrorism. It seems very unlikely Alberta wants to see what happens to districts that vote on separation. It hurt Quebec badly and still places them in jeopardy.

Carney will have a difficult time to navigate the path on the U.S. but the key will be to agree to negotiations. Any growth plan he has for Canada will have to be get free trade in the country moving. Infrastructure will be key. And looking for trade relationships outside of the U.S. As for the rest, I expect Carney will be looking to keep free speech and democracy strong. He is likely to show tolerance but not be the lightning rod that Trudeau was.

In the end, being an adult, focusing on the economy might be enough to forestall and election for a year or more. Trudeau managed to keep his government going till the edge of the cliff. The trick will be to avoid senseless provocative stances and continue to focus on economy. Even environmental work needs to focus on affordability and sensible and measurable improvements in people lives. A national energy grid comes to mind. Electricity, natural gas and the like but also a real push for supports for new windows, doors, insulation and new technologies. And most importantly, housing. This is what hits many people the hardest. Improve on that and some of the other things will feel less terrible.

Poilievre vs Carney and Threat of Western Separation

What a difference a few months and an external factor like Donald Trump can have on electoral fortunes. Pierre Poilievre seemed to be sailing into one of the most massive majorities in Canadian history for the Conservatives. Justin Trudeau was determined to go into the next election until the opposition said they were going to pull the plug at the earliest opportunity. This led to a flurry of Liberals saying they were not going to run again next election. With cabinet holes to fill, he looked to move the Finance minister Chrystia Freeland to some other position to bring in, allegedly, Mark Carney into Finance. 

Freeland's resignation was the moment that Trudeau found there was just not enough support in the caucus to carry on. And Mark Carney, who opted not to jump into a cabinet with a lameduck PM. He just had to wait till a leadership convention was called. A prorogued Parliament and a leadership convention was a re-set from how 2025 began. As interim PM till the leadership was decided, Justin Trudeau probably had the two best best months an outgoing leader could have. Carney became the PM and had streamlined cabinet sworn in. However, support for Liberals had been steadily rising every time Trump imposed or threatened tariffs. By the time Carney became PM the Liberals had pulled numbers not seen in years.

Oddly enough, even though the Conservatives said they were going to bring the government down, they haven't seemed unprepared this far. They have not been able to adjust to the constant changing campaign that Trump's proclamations bring. Carney has not been perfect thus far. Some of his MPs have gotten in trouble. Some he has removed including his own seat and some he stubbornly keeps in place. One recent MP stepped down after he defended him. It is early in campaign and not uncommon for leaders to have a few candidates who don't work out. It remains to be seen whether these incidents hurt Carney. Or Poilievre. Generally, most people don't pay attention to these incidents.

Preston Manning suggests that anything less that a Poilievre majority win is a vote for Alberta separation. This is the same type of blackmail that Quebec has used over the years. Sad that it comes from Manning who has generally been considered to be not be as extreme. It could be that speaking to the volatile male base of the party makes him presume such an outcome. The enormous gender gap in what polls are saying could make for some surprises. Some men are just not opposed to Liberals. They are angrily opposed. However, if that is the case then it can be said women are even more resolutely opposed to Conservatives. 

This is something to keep in mind when voting on separation takes place. What do women think about this? Truly. A landlocked Conservative province separating? Most polls suggest that only a small minority want a 51st state in Alberta. That same percentage is in Quebec in terms of 51st state. The most recent polling on separation from Canada in Alberta stands at about 20. Still a minority view. Manning's 

If Poilievre is having a hard time figuring an angle with Carney, it is the same problem with all the opposition leaders including Blanchet from the BQ. The more Trump fills the airwaves, the more a unity movement grows. For the moment it is in support of Carney since he is the prime minister. And as such, Carney's response generally has the backing of all the premiers. It is enviable position to be in during the election. Usually the caretaker role is less pronounced. However, it can be said that the authority to respond to an emergency overrides this. Looking like a prime minister is what many Canadians are looking for. 

The premier of Alberta flirts with separation but also calls it nonsense. She knows the polls show it to be a possible loser for her. Danielle Smith already has enough problems in the province as she breaks the crockery. And yet Poilievre does little to distance himself. The person he does need help from his Doug Ford from Ontario and yet never seems to ask. Ford has found it easier to deal with Trudeau and Carney.

At this point in the election, it is clear that neither the premier of Alberta or Poilievre are interested in talking about separation of Alberta or Quebec. Even flirting with it is likely to do harm in Ontario. And that is where he need seats. According to polls, the heavily Conservative Alberta has a loathing for any Trudeau Liberals going back 60 years. However, when they've elected two Conservative majorities, they have felt pretty miserable about that too. 

The polls could be the most off we have ever seen in Canadian history given the crowds turning up for Poilievre. However, Winnipeggers know that just because we loved and turned up in numbers for Phantom of the Paradise, it didn't mean it was a blockbuster. 

It is possible that Carney's French might hold him back or that he stumbles badly in upcoming debates but the desire for stability is something the electorate craves. Poilievre has said he will disturb that but he has said everything is broken. That message is tone deaf when the public fears the country will be carved up by external enemies. Many take a dim view that Conservatives may in fact desire that outcome. For this reason, the polls have been reflecting a new dynamic not seen in Canada ever.

Three weeks are left in the campaign and the only thing we can say is that it is volatile out there.

 

Trump Dismisses Pierre Poilievre

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6370211707112

Conservatives in Canada are probably in disbelief. Two months ago it looked as if there were going to face Justin Trudeau and go to get a supermajority of seats in Canada. The latest polls suggest the biggest defeat for the Conservatives in decades. It could be there has been a boost as a result of Trudeau's resignation and for the subsequent Liberal leadership race but the real driver of polls in Canada has been Donald Trump.

Tariffs have dominated the discussion and fear has pervaded across Canada. Trudeau in his final weeks probably showed the best leadership with the provinces that anyone had seen in three years. Every insult aimed at Canada and Trudeau saw Liberal support rise. Showing fortitude worked for Dough Ford as well who rode a wave of unity to a third term for the PCs in Ontario.

Pierre Poilievre literally had to change tact of saying everything was wrong with Canada to defending Canada against Trump. His campaign needed to change as soon as Trudeau announced he was stepping down but his party seems to think that they just have to say that the new PM Mark Carney is just like Trudeau. Clearly the polling suggests that voters don't think so.

Trump has dumped on Poilievre for not being MAGA enough just when Canadians are looking for a leader who will not just stand up for Canada. The problem is that there are a lot of Trump supporters in the Conservative party and a fair number who support being 51st state. Poilievre treads a fine line of being critical of Trump tariffs and not making his base unhappy. He wants to keep the focus on the Liberals leaders but Trump comments on Canada every day. The people of Canada have no choice but to focus on Trump because of the tariff issues ands existential threat to Canada. Pussyfooting is not going to cut it.

If Conservatives thought Trump would be the best thing in the world for them and that his success would be success for them, they can't be more shocked than they are now. Some in the media are saying that Trump saying Poilievre is no friend of Trump's is a good thing. The FOX interview with Laura Ingraham tried to steer the conversation to China multiple times but Trump wasn't having it. He full on said he doesn't support Poilievre and said he'd prefer to work with a Liberal.

Canadians are in a mood not seen since World War II. There is a nationalism and determination to face the challenge.  Shopping habits and travel changes borne of betrayal and anger are happening each day. Buying Canadian and travelling to non-U.S. destinations is producing noticeable numbers. Canadian leaders who are not standing up for the country or who sound like Trump could face resistance.

This is matter of great difficulty for Poilievre because he has pocketed phrases by the bushel from Trump and leans heavily on sloganeering. Given the polls, it might not be working. Or conversely worked so well that he had already defeated Trudeau, Singh and all the policies he has singled out over two years. 

But Poilievre can't overcome Trump himself. And as the election has started, it could be very well that he has no time to pivot. It is early on though. It may not matter if the NDP, Green and BQ support collapse and go the Liberals.

The Jordan Peterson Interview of Pierre Poilievre

It has been seen by over 30 million as the world-wide conservative movement looks to see Pierre Poilievre become prime minister of Canada. Even Poilievre is trying to lower expectations because they are so high right now and that some are hoping he wins every single seat in Canada and that change is instantaneous. This can be a dangerous time since he will possibly have the majority to push through whatever he wants quickly but will the results be just as quick?

I have already written here that I believe that Poilievre will win the election and within his first year, I believe he will cut the carbon tax, pull out of international agreements on climate and cut federal environment engagement in favour of the provinces. I don't believe there will be controversy on lowering the gas tax. NDP governments including in Manitoba have lowered the tax to great popularity. With Trump as president in the U.S., there is likely not going to be any free passes.

Defense policy out of Poilievre's camp seems under developed. This should be of no surprise because the Harper government which Poilievre was part of only spent 0.8 of GDP on defence. That is 47% lower than todays Trudeau government. This is increasingly not being accepted by NATO and especially by Trump. There has has been extreme pressure on Trudeau. It will be no less on Poilievre. Will he support NORAD or NATO? Will he have an answer for Trump when penalties for poor defence spending? As much as Poilievre might want to blame Trudeau, he will have to have some coherent policy here. If the policy is isolation, expect Canada to withdraw in some fashion from alliances. There are certainly some isolationists in the party that want to pull out of the U.N. and other groups. What does it all mean? It means they will have to choose a direction that someone in the party won't like. The Liberals have been doing the same thing for the last several years.

Poilievre mentioned a few potential cabinet ministers. It is fairly weak tea. But then it doesn't matter. All that matters is the Prime Minister's Office. If his party is as weak as the Liberals they won't say a thing as long as he has the polls. Unlike other Commonwealth countries, it is impossible to remove the leaders of parties here. It is how we have set it up. It is a leader-centric party and will cause issues for the Conservatives just as it has with the Liberals. Just as it has for every party with all an all powerful leader and weak cabinet and caucus.

A tough on crime stance was made but no real indication of how that happens. There is no policy, timetable or budget listed for it. Is it more police, change in the parole act, build more prisons or what? Is there a budget for it? Timetable?

The problem with just a long interview with Jordan Peterson is that he is not a journalist. This is a campaign ad. However, given the deep misgivings towards the Liberals, it is possible that the Conservatives don't have to engage any media for the entire election. It has been often said that elections are no places to talk about policy. Perhaps the Conservatives win a massive majority with few details. The danger of this is that is not necessarily an affirmation for that all the party wants to do. Massive majorities in Canada often come from 39% of the vote. That is hardly a ringing endorsement. It is a reason why the Liberals have seen support fall in every year since 2017.

The large majorities Mulroney and Harper got had a far greater amount of policy that was thought out that what we have seen here. Given that Trump is not likely to give the Canadian government a lot of time to develop a coherent plan, expect chaos. And while the Conservatives will blame the Liberals, it is going to be hard to say that over and over again for four years if the country truly suffers. Given the lack of a plan so far, we could be in trouble no matter who wins.

Those hoping for the NDP to breakthrough will find they still don't have strength in Quebec and don't really have a defence policy. The agreement they had with Liberals means they are weaker, not stronger. Those that are in opposition to the Liberals just lump the NDP in there with them. If any party gains strength it is the BQ who look to have another referendum on separation in 2026. It is curious what the Conservative response to that might be. So far there is none.

While the Conservatives under Poilievre seem destined to win in the new year, they don't seem the least temperate in their disposition. We can expect a lot of ripping stuff up like the CBC. However, we can likely see unexpected outcomes as a result. For example, while Conservatives like hockey, their moves on broadcasting might make fewer Canadians have access to it. Unintended consequences.

The mistake in believing your own publicity is that if it is not based on solid policies. And to stay in power, it requires a frequent refreshing of people and idea. This is something the Liberals and the Conservatives don't seem to learn. We have been leaning on cult of personality too long and it is hurting the country.

Canada and NATO

Canada attends the NATO meeting in Washington DC this week and a lot is riding on many of the participants as the organization reaches 75 years old. For the U.S. all eyes inside and outside America are watching Joe Biden to see if comes back from the presidential debate low. Real fear in NATO is that if Biden is defeated that Ukraine and possibly NATO are cut loose.

The 32 member alliance has seen two new members join in Finland and Sweden. These two long time neutral countries have joined because of the growing threat from Russia and aggression in Ukraine and in other areas. The key metric for NATO countries to hit in military spending is 2% including 20% on new military equipment. In another post I point out how Canada has tripled military spending under Trudeau but we are only at 1.3% of GDP. The plan is to get to 1.7% by 2030.

This is simply not good enough for our allies, especially since 10 years from now the expectation is we still don't get to 2%. Liberal cabinet ministers still talk about soft power and sanctions but they clearly are not working. Bill Blair, the defence minister, is desperately saying more announcements will push it over 2%. He specifically is talking about Navy subs that are either diesel or nuclear. The Australians are buying nuclear ones at a cost of up to $368 billion through to 2050. This would buy between three and five Virginia-class nuclear subs as well as sub manufacturing capabilities. This is part of the Labor party Australia goal of 2% of GDP although the subs would be .15% of that total over the years.

Trudeau met with U.S. senators from both parties and a non-partisan group is pushing Canada to commit to 2%. Canada is being singled out as the riches country with the lowest spending. However, as one of the richer NATO members, it means in dollar amounts it is higher than a lot of European countries. Moreover, Canada commands a brigade in Latvia as well as fully supports Ukraine.

Both the Liberals and Conservatives have not said how they will get to 2%. Pierre Poilievre is pretty quiet on this because he does not want to detail how Conservatives will do that because it is not a vote winner. Certain groups have indicated that they believe we can't hit 2% without significant debt. 

The focus on Canada is making the Trudeau government squirm in ways that they likely hoped would not come. However, Trudeau should not be be surprised as his dad had the same thing happen and had to bring Canada's military spending up to avoid economic sanctions from our allies. Although the Pacific is not part of NATO, Canada has been left out of talks and alliances because soft power is not wanted.

Canada was a founding member of NATO and huge contributor to NATO. Few people were untouched by WWII. Many understood the implications of the Soviet threat and the fear Germany would rebuild and be involved in some way after the war. Soviet aggression through 1950s to the 1980s reinforced the view that NATO was needed. Canada kept forces in Germany thereafter until the 1990s when the Cold War ended with the Soviet Union break-up. Still, over the last 75 years Canadian financing of the military has ebbed and flowed. Sometimes it has been 2% and other times it has been below.

Canada's military is not the only one to be struggling. Britain has nearly 2.5% GDP spending and yet says it could not field a fighting unit for more than 30 days. Canada currently spends $27 billion a year on the military. Australia spends roughly $10-12 billion more than us and 2.2% GDP. It is no wonder Britain and the U.S. have nothing bad to say about Australia. As for Australia, they are terrified of China right in their back yard.

Canada ranks as 7th largest spender in dollars in NATO and 14the largest spender in the world. During the Harper years Canada spent .97 of GDP on defence despite big talks about how they were law and order party.  It could explain why they have not been all over the media criticizing Liberal spending which literally outpaces the Tories. Next year's election will probably not bring clarity on this. It usually warrants a single line in the policy platform with no elaboration from any parties.

The problem is that Canada's allies are cutting the country out. And some of this is going to hurt economically. Trudeau and his cabinet have seemed paralyzed by this. They think our good standing won't be affected by the slow walking of getting to 2%. The announcement that Canada will purchase up to 12 submarines with requests for proposals in the fall is going to be posted. Canada in the 1980s/90s said it would order 12 submarines but it always seems that four is what the end number is. We should expect no less this time.

With the announcement of the submarines, we can expect the Norwegian/German consortium, the Swedes, the Koreans and the Spanish will all be bidding. We can expect a certain amount of competition between these parties. The last submarines purchased from the British were the Victoria-class which at the time seemed like a bargain since they were built but retired because the British had switched to all nuclear fleet. In the end they cost $750 million and that much again in refurbishments and then a $3 billion sustainability program. They have been marked by human error, tragedy and technical issues from the beginning. And now they have a hard time fielding a crew for even one.

The issue of the submarines keeps coming up because all around the world countries are building or buying them because of the threat to waterways from powers asserting themselves to access resources. Canada's Arctic is such a place. It can't be lost on Canada that even small places like Singapore have four subs. So true of Brazil, Malaysia and soon The Philippines. 

Politico and Wall Street Journal have both blasted Canada and the BBC has done a story on it as well. The Sun newspaper chain blames Trudeau while never mentioning how poor the Harper government did while in majority. In Canada the blame game is usually one sided. There were cuts through Chretien, Martin, Harper and Trudeau's time. Procurement has been flawed for decades. Pierre Poilievre will have no less pressure from allies to state how he gets to 2% in next year's election.

The Trump assassination attempt is going to result in a very skittish United States over the next little while. Maybe a long while. There is not telling how the electorate will react. And it is uncertain if Biden can hold onto his candidacy after his poor performance in the debate. There could be severe consequences. Trump has already said there are few things limiting what he will do if president. And now the Supreme Court agrees.

 If Trump becomes the president in November, Ukraine will likely be cut loose and the U.S. might pull out of NATO. The implications for this are immense. If Ukraine falls, it will start a refugee crisis in the millions. Canada may see a huge surge of refugees. It will certainly put all of Europe in crisis. The movement among the conservatives in the Republican party is that they should withdraw from the world save for many two places: Israel and China.

Trump thinks NATO members should be paying the U.S. actual cash for protection. The 2% is spending each country does for defence at home and for the NATO alliance. It isn't a transfer payment to the U.S. for protection. The U.S. receives the lion share of military spending contracts so they do very well in that regard. However, if Trump becomes President, he could bring about penalties immediately. Canada can't afford to have a plan that takes several years to realize. It could be a miserable four Trump years that Canada could take economic hits.

The Defence minister Bill Blair and those that previously served in the role need to make it clear to cabinet and the PM that they believe we don't have much time the avoid punishing responses economically and possibly terrible outcomes militarily. 

The U.S. receives value from NATO because they have been drawn into two world wars originating in Europe and they don't want to be drawn into a third. They have managed to stay out of one in part due to NATO.  

As for Canada, they will still face heat if they don't articulate in more detail what they are doing in defence. This past week it was revealed they bought a large hangar in Iqaluit that Russian and Chinese interests were looking at. The Department of National Defence had leased it in the past but foreign interest and the ability to land and shelter our new F-35 jets played a strong role in buying the hangar and lengthening the runway. 

One significant agreement between Canada, Finland and the United States will see the three cooperate on icebreakers. The details are slim but all three countries need icebreakers to counter the Chinese and especially the Russians who have nearly 40 icebreakers including four nuclear ones. The talk has been that possibly 90 icebreakers might be built. That would be a remarkable number if it holds up. The U.S. is in desperate need with only two top class icebreakers.

One of the other things talked about at NATO conference that Canada looks to bring itself up to 2% spending is NORAD and air defence spending. The threat from Russia in the north is not lost on the government. The purchase of the hangar in Iqaluit is an indication they really don't want Russian or Chinese to set up operation in the north and dominate the area nor travel through it without so much as a by your leave. The problem with the $38.6 billion in spending is that a lot of it comes in the 2030s. It does nothing for 2025 when we may see huge blowback.

To mitigate the economic effects of increased spending on defence the government is likely to look at industrial policy. A military cyber warfare operations center is tied to out economic wellbeing. It isn't just international crime rings but government intervention that tries to disrupt our economic function to take our innovations without compensation.  Runway expansions for military aircraft can double for northern access for civilian use as well. CFB Winnipeg and the Richardson Airport share the campus opposite one another. It is a policy that benefits both.  Only Yellowknife also have a shared airport.

NORAD needs a deepwater port infrastructure and tugs and icebreakers in the north. Three are under construction in Iqaluit, Pond Inlet and Qikiqtujuarq all in Nunavut. Only Churchill, Manitoba is a deepwater port with a railway and airport attached. But the port is largely abandoned. First by the military and then by government of Canada. In recent years the military has rebuffed any mention of Churchill or the north. And yet, the NORAD commitment would imply ships, planes and yes, troops up there and not just on summer break. Canada is upgrading Iqaluit, Inuvik, Yellow Knife and Goose Bay for the military. It is worth noting that we see next to nothing in American media about NORAD. It is probably why Canada has felt no real pressure until recently.

Canada's election in 2025 could have military spending as an election issue. Wab Kinew, Manitoba's premier, has said Canada should speed up NATO spending to not run afoul of a new government in the U.S. This remark came at the premier's conference when the group agreed that the PM should stay out of provincial business save for federal transfers with no strings attached. In recent days Pierre Poilievre says he won't commit to 2% because Canada is broke. He may not get that option if the U.S. government promises punishment. There is some indication that Conservatives might pull out of assistance for Ukraine if the the U.S. does.

It is all very complicated and the election next year in Canada and this year in the U.S. will make it even more complicated. And all the while this is going on, you have Russia and China wanting to buy assets in Canada's north.

Pierre Polievere New Conservative Leader

This past weekend Pierre Poilievre was elected to leader following Erin O'Toole stepping down from the last disappointing result that brought another minority government of Justin Trudeau. In a member held vote, it was the biggest vote account and a massive majority over the next leading contender of Jean Charest.

If it wasn't clear before, it should be clear now...the present Conservative party does not have room for progressives or moderates. It isn't a libertarian party either because there are too many in the party who wish to impose laws on social conservative areas such as abortion. Charest might retain his membership but no one was interested in his moderation. They want a fight and they want it now. And that was supported by the tens of thousands who votes for Poilievre.

Even before the pandemic there have been Conservatives who have been opposed in the extreme to Justin Trudeau. They have been shocked and angry they have not won the last few elections to the point that some of them, especially in Alberta, have talked about separation. Despite many conservative governments in Canada, many conservative chafe under any rules. We have seen conservative on conservative clashes about breaking the law in the UCP conservative leadership campaign.

Now that Pierre Poilievre is the leader, he has to tread more lightly.  If he truly intends to fire the Bank of Canada governor, he can expect that it might affect the markets. Any inkling of instability sends the markets on the move. If he is PM he has every right to his own governor. But a showy removal of the governor and a replacement that seems to have no independence will be harmful and Poilievre likely knows this. It remains to be seen if his party does.

Poilievre has also said he wishes to defund the CBC. Even Stephen Harper did not end the CBC. Even the United States has public and state broadcasters such as PBS, NPR and Voice of America. The President of the United States appoints representatives to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Will he support a PBS model with charitable tax credit or will he cut all all support for public broadcasting? Will he eliminate all tax supports for magazines, newspapers and television? Certainly in his party there are those who want it all gone. And if he doesn't deliver, will they turf him? Or abandon him? One Quebec MP has already resigned to sit as an independent. This was no ordinary party MP, he was Scheer's lieutenant in Quebec. He supported Charest and made it clear he was not comfortable with the new leadership. Poilievre blasted him as a Trudeau enabler and enlisted a social media campaign to get him to resign immediately. There were apologies about that and probably shock at the level of harassment. The damage done has other Conservatives in Quebec upset.

The next days will be about appearing statesman-like with the Queen's passing. These moments are important because if it appears too political with attempts to kneecap your opponent at every turns, it doesn't look very much like a prime minister. Many Canadians are not nearly as political and vote according to what they see. It is why Harper's bid to be re-elected failed as the campaign had taken a meanspirited turn when Canadians were clearly not comfortable where it was going.

I had no special insight into that last Harper election. I thought he was going to win massively in 2015 because I thought his messaging on past leaders of the Liberals was so effective that they were beaten even before the election started. Where Harper went wrong is when he just didn't focus on the opposition parties but on citizens he felt were a threat to Canada. His snitch line and embracing extremist tactics in Ontario was rejected in favour of a more positive Liberal campaign. In recent years, Harper's embrace of anti-Democratic conservative movements in places like Hungary shows where things might have gone.

There won't be an election any time soon unless the NDP decide to take advantage of a change in their relationship with the Liberals to support the minority till the next mandated election. The Conservatives will have time to refine their opposition, firm up their finances and come up with an election platform. The Liberals could tip the apple cart by calling a snap election if their poll numbers indicate a majority. However, evidence from last election suggests Canadians might just return the same minority government again. Possibly a different minority.

One of the reasons Harper won aside from a long reign from the Liberals, corruption, hard times and a rise of the NDP was the fact that he presented a plan that attracted supporters. Governments usually collapse rather than the incoming government given ringing endorsement to rule. However, Harper had a simple package of policies that were understood and he could introduce as bills. Getting nominated leader doesn't necessarily mean an election platform has to be presented when the election is a few years away but his policy so far of firing the Bank of Canada Governor and promoting crypto currency is a winning formula.

Poilievre has won the base, the next thing is to do the math and calculate what seats in Parliament might flip to the Tories. His relationship with the Freedom Convoy might be more of an anchor for him beyond his core supporters. They may have donated big to him but many of them are not likely to be in any mood for the give and take that real politics requires. Many of them have conspiracy theory-based thinking and believe that a vote for their party equals dismantling Canada. This seems to be the rationale for some of the supporters in the leadership battle in Alberta who are also federal Tory supporters.

None of that happens even if Conservatives get a majority. Other levels of government, the courts, the markets and international pressures limit you as they are the guard rails in the system. One consequence of changes in national government is that provincial governments often change to counter it. Canadians are funny that way. Provincial governments get a lot of mileage running against the Feds and blaming them for woes in their provinces. Having the same party provincially and federally is not always fruitful for that type of bun fight.

The Liberals and Conservatives used to be brokerage parties that cast wide tents. In recent years more center/right Liberals have been squeezed out for more left policies. Some in part to prevent gains from NDP but just as much because of Liberal choice. Likewise, Conservatives used to be called Progressive Conservatives and had a center/right tent with many Red Tories who took more socially liberal view on a range of subjects. Today's Conservatives have squeezed out the progressives in both name and idea in the new party.

The cold calculation of the Liberals and the Conservatives is that you can win a majority with 30% of the vote if you target certain ridings across the country. Is it no wonder that 70% of the population often feels that elections don't reflect their vote. Attempts have been to change the system of voting but at a provincial level, it has always been voted down or rejected. And provincial wings and federal wings often disagree on something like proportional representation. 

Poilievre has succeeded in getting younger and diverse members in the party. His digital communication strategy and messaging has helped and the Conservatives will have a lot of new members which is good for them moving forward. If Canada falls into recession, it can give the Tories an opening to see a rise in support. As it stands now, Trudeau is able to look statesman-like at the Queen's funeral and even non-partisan with other former PMs including Poilievre's former boss Stephen Harper posing for pictures in London. 

One assumes that when spring arrives Trudeau once again will be in London for the Coronation which will be another state event that naturally elevates you in the public eye. Most times that is. In India, it went bad which goes to show you that less is more in overseas trips. And if you do have to speak out as in the funeral of a Queen, speak about that person with grace and humility. 

It remains to be seen if Trudeau runs again. It is possible an international job awaits him although Canada has earned a lot of enemies in Russia and China recently so U.N. jobs might be out of the question. Or not. If Trudeau serves as an MP till 2025, he will have served as MP as long as his father who retired at 65. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Trudeau might want to do something different. Even Joe Biden in recent days has not committed yet to running for a second term. In his case, he might judge it based if he feels another six years on the job and whether he is up for it.

Poilievre for all his talk about elites is a political lifer. He has 18 years in Parliament and if Trudeau serves a full term, it will be over 20 years. If he becomes PM, it will be 25 (given a majority). That is called a career politician. If indeed he wins, it will be the pinnacle of a long career. Alas, if Trudeau does run and wins a majority, those long years may not serve the Conservative leader very well.

Trudeau has proved himself a nemesis to the Conservative party. Poilievre has some time to build the party. The question is will he rely on elements of the party that make people question their ability to govern? They can't assume that people will hate Trudeau enough to remove him. And winning every seat in Alberta and Saskatchewan by huge majorities doesn't earn you enough seats. It will come down to personal appeal and finding candidates who can win seats they don't presently hold. And that usually is in Ontario.

As mentioned, I'm not good at predicting. I once thought Alberta would have a PC government for as long as I lived. I was wrong. I thought the 1980s Liberals in Ontario would win another term. I was wrong. I thought Stephen Harper would win another majority.. I was wrong. Truth is that a lot of people are not wedded to any particular party and you have to win their votes. Or, at least not have them so mad at you, they want to toss you out.

It will be interesting to see. What is more interesting is that world issues of climate, war, migration and authoritarianism are are all buffeting countries. Those things can cause both a politician's fortunes to rise or fall. Which will it be? Who is to say?