Elbows Down And Hands Up?

In the old westerns, bandits would board trains and demand passengers turn over all their money upon pain of death. Everyone complied, the bandits happy with their take and the passengers relieved to live another day. And even though we are far removed from that time, that equation is still very much in play today, with Canada playing the victim to American banditry in the form of Donald Trump's relentless demands. However, as I have stated previously, most recently about the Gordie Howe Bridge, compliance comes with additional costs: the slow surrendering of our national sovereignty.

On the issue of the Gordie Howe Bridge concessions, Mark Carney, to put it politely, has been misleading:

At an event Thursday in London, Ont., Carney was asked whether the $6.4 billion of investment made by Canada would be collected before profits from the bridge would be split with the U.S. side.

"It's not splitting the tolls of the bridge," Carney told journalists. "It is an agreement for 15 years to split net revenues.

"Any sharing of the toll revenue won't happen until all the debt, all of the debt, is repaid."

A report in The Globe and Mail suggests otherwise: 

A 15-year side deal struck by Canada and the United States on the new Gordie Howe International Bridge will see Ottawa cut Washington cheques that amount to half the toll revenues minus operating costs for the span connecting Windsor and Detroit.

But Canada, which solely financed the $6.4-billion bridge, will not be subtracting any provision to repay debt from the annual payments to the United States, sources say.

A report in Bloomberg News , which has seen a copy of the arrangement, offers these details:

Canada and the US agreed to split the profit from a new bridge between Ontario and Michigan for 15 years — with no provision to cover Canada’s debt-service costs on the project, according to a copy of the pact seen by Bloomberg News.

The agreement in principle covering the Gordie Howe International Bridge appears to contradict earlier public remarks from Prime Minister Mark Carney. And it shows what Canada conceded to get the President Donald Trump’s administration to stop blocking the 1.5-mile bridge over the Detroit River.

[T]he agreement makes no mention of Canada’s interest expenses or debt payments related to the bridge.

Under the original deal, Canada paid the entire C$6.4 billion ($4.6 billion) construction cost on the condition that it would collect all the toll revenue until it was repaid.

Where does the truth lie? That question can only be answered by a full public release of the new agreement. Anything less suggests a Canadian government embarrassed by yet another capitulation, another effort at appeasement, none of which have thus far produced anything more than new demands from the Trump administration. As noted by Andrew MacDougall:

If Howe were the only capitulation, that would be one thing. But it’s not.

Remember the Digital Services Tax? Binned off by Carney after Trump barked. Counter-tariffs to Trump’s? Rolled back, despite Carney’s pledge to go dollar-for-dollar. A revised U.S. trade deal? Still not done. Were these policies ever deliverable? Well, Carney said they were. So where are they? Our elbows are so far down they might as well be our feet.

Apologists will argue that whatever the actual details of this deal, at least the bridge will now open, to which I have just one question: At what cost?

UPDATE: Whose Country Is It, Anyway?

 

If you have ever watched the movie Whose Life Is it, Anyway?, you will know it is about a man who wants the right to die owing to his quadriplegia. Sovereignty over his body is the issue, and he goes to trial to have the right to choose. He ultimately prevails in claiming that right.

I can't help but see some parallels between that movie and the question of our own national sovereignty. As I have recently written, each concession or act of appeasement by the Carney government is yet another diminishment of our national freedom of choice, whether it be on bridge tolls or the cowardly silence on Canadian ICJ Kimberly Prost's fight against the sanctions the Americans imposed on her. Such timidity is, in my view, a national embarrassment and does nothing but invite more abuse from the mad king ruling the U.S.

There now appears to be a new issue upon which Canada refuses to speak, and it has to do with Trump's ideological war against anyone who dares oppose him:

 The Trump administration is hosting a high-level global meeting on combating “political terrorism” in Washington on Thursday, as it tries to rally together allies on its plans to crack down on left-wing movements.

But neither the Carney government nor Canada’s national security agencies will say whether they have been invited or plan to attend, or share their views on a campaign that some experts have described as politically motivated and that has reportedly prompted reservations among countries that do not view the issue as a significant threat.

All we know thus far is that neither Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand ("prior engagements") nor Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree are attending. 

The political motivation of the 'summit' is obvious:

The meeting comes as U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration seeks to crack down on what it describes as a rising trend of left-wing extremist violence, with officials focusing on “Antifa,” despite the fact it is not a single, organized group.

A White House counterterrorism strategy released in May names “violent left-wing extremists, including anarchists and anti-fascists” as one of three major terror threats alongside “narcoterrorists and transnational gangs” and “legacy Islamist terrorists.” 

“In addition to cartels and Islamist terror groups, our national (counterterrorism) activities will also prioritize the rapid identification and neutralization of violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically pro-transgender, and anarchist,” the 16-page document notes.

Phil Gurski, a former analyst for the Canadian security Intelligence Service, makes these observation:

  “The most remarkable thing was there was nary a mention of the far-right. It completely disappeared. And if you look at any other sane, informed, justified threat assessment of political violence/terrorism in the United States, I mean the far-right is right up there,” Gurski said of the Americans’ counterterrorism strategy.

“To say that the far-left constitutes a significant national security threat in the United States, that’s complete bulls—t, based on the data that I’ve seen,” Gurski said. “To me, this is one more attempt by the Trump administration to sell this agenda, that you know, there’s nothing to see here, folks from the far-right.” 

Now, it can be reasonably argue that one doesn't want to provoke the beast, but citizens are not even allowed to know if there will be a Canadian presence at the gathering. And based on past performance, that in itself is ominous.

Gurski said Canada and the U.S. already share a lot of intelligence, but he’s concerned about Trump officials pressuring Canada to add left-wing groups to its designated terror list.

Already, he pointed out, Canada followed suit on the Trump administration’s moves to list Latin American cartels as terror groups, even though they’re typically treated as organized criminal organizations instead.

“If someone commits a criminal act, you can prosecute them for that, but pressuring us to list something like Antifa a terrorist group, just would not fly very well under our legislation as written,” added [Stephanie] Carvin [a professor at Carleton University and a former national security analyst for the federal government.]

 Significantly, during a meeting in Ottawa with senior officials in March, as reported in The New York Times, 

Monica A. Jacobsen ... told her counterparts from Europe, Canada and Australia, the Trump administration also wanted more attention on what it believed was an insidious, underestimated threat: the far left.

Western governments must combat “antifa and far-left terrorism,” Ms. Jacobsen’s prepared remarks asserted, casting the effort as an evolution in counterterrorism following the “global war on terror.” Her prepared speech defined far-left terrorism to include threats from communists, Marxists, anarchists, anticapitalists and those with “eco-extremist” and “other self-identified antifascist ideologies.”

Canada once had a proud foreign policy, one that did not bow to the caprices of the elephant to the south. Increasing, the Carney government is abandoning that independence in order to chase the illusory dream of peace with the U.S. Based on everything we have seen thus far, that 'strategy' is doomed to failure, and is another significant blow to our national stature and pride.

UPDATE: Absolute disgust is all I felt when I read this:

The Carney government has sent a senior official from Canada’s embassy in Washington, to a Trump administration summit trying to rally allies behind a new U.S. campaign targeting left-wing groups it claims are a top terrorism threat.

 Railing against anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, anarchists and communists in his opening remarks, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the western world’s post 9/11 counterterrorism strategies needed to shift to focus more on left-wing violence.

“This is a distinctive and unique evil. It has always been driven by a hatred, above all else, a hatred for civilization itself. It is a revolt of the worst against the best, a revolt of the weak and the cowardly against the strong and the good. It is perpetrated by those who cannot build, who cannot create, who cannot achieve great things, and take their revenge upon the world for their own inadequacy by seeking to destroy those who can. This is what radical leftism is.”

 Fascism is here. If you’re not alarmed you’re not paying attention.

.

For more, you can check this out.

To lend Canada's former good name to this new form of witch hunt is to diminish us beyond words. 

UPDATED: Walking On Tippy Toes

 

When I was in Grade One, I have a distinct memory of my teacher, a nun of considerable kindness and compassion (unlike many others of her ilk in the school), telling me to walk on my tippy toes. Being so young, I took her literally, my attempt at such a pedestrian feat provoking much merriment in my classmates. Of course, Sister Alexia meant for me to walk quietly, something I do think I also understood.

Walking quietly in a classroom a lifetime ago is one thing. Sadly, walking on tippy toes seems yet another 'policy' choice at the Canadian national level, lest we be noticed by a certain unhinged American president. The most recent episode of this 'strategy' is yet another demonstration of our ebbing sovereignty.

Ottawa won't say whether it will intervene in support of a Winnipeg-born global judge who is asking a U.S. court to reverse sanctions ordered by U.S. President Donald Trump, which have left her unable to use a credit card or most major online vendors.

Washington sanctioned International Criminal Court judge Kimberly Prost nearly a year ago, over her work on a case involving American troops in Afghanistan. Unlike France, Canada has never criticized that decision.

"We haven't said anything about that," said Sabine Nolke, a former senior Canadian diplomat whose career focused on international law.

"We do have fairly solid human rights credentials, but we can certainly stand [to be] speaking out more about them."

Prost previously told The Canadian Press that being sanctioned has deeply affected her ability to travel or enjoy simple things such as using an Amazon smart speaker or buying theatre tickets.

Now, you might think that her inconvenience, while regrettable, is really not such a big deal. However, that would ignore the larger issues here of things like judicial independence and the limitations of presidential fiat.

Prost and two other judges are suing Trump and his administration, arguing he exceeded his authority and did not provide due process. The suit was brought in their personal capacity and not by the ICC.

"Congress did not vest the president with authority to violate international law in exercising his authority," said James Goldston, executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative, a legal advocacy group that is representing Prost in the case.

"The sanctions are arbitrary and capricious, not in accordance with the law and an abuse of discretion," he said in an interview. 

The lack of obvious Canadian support is both egregious and shameful:

Global Affairs Canada would not say whether it's considering supporting Prost's case.

"As a founding member, Canada has always been, and remains, a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court and its mandate. Protecting the independence of its judges is critical to the ICC's effectiveness," wrote spokeswoman Thida Ith.

"As this matter is currently before the courts, we cannot provide further comment at this time."

And where is our Foreign Affairs Minister, Anita Anand, in all of this? Well, almost a year ago, she did say that 

she has “the utmost confidence” that Prost is objective and impartial.

Her statement has no criticism toward the U.S. for sanctioning Prost.

Using the fig leaf of the courts and issuing anodyne statements of support are hardly indicators of a robust and independent government, are they?

Speaking of abject servility, there was this note from our prime minister on the passing of the craven, power-hungry, hypocritical Lindsey Graham:

This more realistic but impolitic assessment of Graham would resonant with more Canadians, I suspect:

Mark Carney is fond of talking about the world we live in, not the world we wish it were. Unfortunately, his government is doing nothing to move us toward the latter and everything to support the former.

 

UPDATE: A friend sent me the following. In the old days, we used to say a person's words count.

UPDATED: It's Happened Again

 

I'm sad to report that, as per my last post, I seem to have fallen victim yet again to the misremembering syndrome.

Now it involves the Gordie Howe Bridge. This is what I had seemed to remember about the Canadian rates:

The problem with those rates is reflected in this story from the Wall Street Journal, which talks about the 'negotiations' leading to a new opening date of the bridge on July 27th (the original date having been nixed by a mad Trump after the Morouns, the family which owns the Ambassador Bridge and a large donor to Trump, complained about the competition it would pose to them). 

A Canadian official said Washington and Ottawa agreed that half of the net profit the bridge generates would go toward a regional development fund. The official added that the bridge authority would need U.S. approval to increase Gordie Howe tolls by 10% or to cut tolls below levels charged by comparable regional crossings—like the privately held Ambassador Bridge, which already connects Detroit to Windsor.

So the problem would seem to have been the disparity in pricing. Here are the Ambassador Bridge rates:

Were my memory working fine, the problem here would be clear: the Canadian rates would have to rise substantially before Uncle Sam permitted it to open, owing to the Morouns' influence and greed. And sadly, that would mean yet another piece of our sovereignty had been surrendered, without even a token fight. 

UPDATE: For the latest in this sickening drama, click here.

Misremembering Things

 

Sometimes I could swear I am living in the world that George Orwell so presciently predicted in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In that world, history was constantly being rewritten, so that a country that had once been an ally but now an enemy meant that it had always been an enemy. Indeed, entire departments were devoted to constant revisioning of the 'facts'.

Not so long ago, I seem to remember that the MOU signed between the feds and Alberta on constructing another pipeline was contingent on two things: finding the required private investment in the project and the development of the Pathways Carbon Capture project, also to be funded by the private sector. Apparently, that was all part of a false memory.

This is the state of things.

The Alberta government's proposal estimates the pipeline would cost $35.2 to $43.7 billion, with the federal and Alberta governments remaining majority owners in the project. That's despite an earlier promise from Prime Minister Mark Carney — enshrined in his government's memorandum of understanding with Alberta — that the pipeline would be privately financed.

However, the private sector, it turns out, had little interest in investing in what will ultimately be a stranded asset.  Chris Severson Baker, executive director of the Pembina Institute, makes this observation:

"There is simply no private company that is interested in taking this level of risk. They don't see a future in that scale of oilsands production in Canada," Severson-Baker said.

That's because countries in Asia, where Smith wants the oil to end up, are quickly transitioning to electric vehicles and green energy, reducing their future demand for climate-warming oil.

In a scenario where countries around the world continue to lower their emissions and follow all the climate policies they have implemented or proposed until now, the IEA now says that oil demand will peak around 2030 before gradually declining. Ergo, the rewriting of history. 

Andrew Coyne offers this:

There is, of course, the famous agreement between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta to allow a “private sector constructed and financed” pipeline to carry heavy oil to the north coast of British Columbia, now revised as an agreement to build an almost entirely government-financed pipeline to the south coast of British Columbia. 

[Cost: an estimated $35.2-billion to $43.7-billion. And by estimated, I mean “probably four times that amount,” when all the bills are paid.]

How did we get here: from governments doing everything they can to stop pipelines from being built, to governments doing everything they can to ensure they are built?

The answer lies in the canniness of the private sector, which was watching closely, ready to play the system as it always does. Quite aware of the politics at work (Trump's trade madness and Alberta's minority threatening separation), that sector bided its time.

Once potential private sponsors figured out that the pipeline must be built, no matter what, they started visibly trying to game the two governments, claiming the terms of the agreement, namely the increased industrial carbon price and Pathways carbon-capture project, made it too costly for them to participate.

Possibly they hoped they would get the subsidy. Instead, the two governments elected to build it themselves, via the federally owned Trans Mountain Corp. – legacy of a previous pipeline bailout – and the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission, thus calling both the companies’ bluff and their own at the same time.

And the carbon capture project? Well, I misremembered again; it will be built, not by the private sector, but mostly by us, the hapless taxpayers. 

As I get older, like most people I fear cognitive decline, even dementia. The fact that I now have so many 'false' memories makes me wonder how much longer I shall be capable of any semblance of clear thinking.

 

 

 

They Will Destroy All That Is Holy

You probably think that the only thing destroying America is the authoritarianism it has embraced, led by an unhinged man and his cadre of opportunistic enablers. And you can be forgiven for that misconception, given that it is shared by most of the world.

No, the real menace to the U.S.A., according to its leader, is something that most believe no longer poses a threat to America's sovereignty (Cuba and Vietnam are hardly rattling sabres these days, and let's face it, China and America need each other)): communism. Aware of the spreading popularity of progressive Democratic candidates who preach anti-American values such as accessible health care and living wages, Trump used his Mount Rushmore speech as a warcry against those who would destroy his country's exceptionalism. 

A shame that history is no longer taught in any meaningful form in Trump's Amerika, isn't it?

Perhaps the following is more emblematic of his country today?

Happy Canada Day

Watching the following should give us all a deeper appreciation of our own country. I can't imagine any of our representatives speaking to the people with such contempt. This is Troy Edwin Nehls, a Texas congressman. To say that he is a Republican is to state the obvious.

Not A Strategy

 

Depending upon who you read/listen to, Prime Minister Carney's sycophantic behaviour toward Don Trump is either odious but necessary in the lead up to CUSMA talks, or something that does nothing to advance our national goals and everything to erode Canadian pride. SPOILER ALERT: I fall into the second camp.

However, those who justify Carney's ostensibly craven deference toward Trump have some good arguments, but also admit there are limits to that approach. Matt Gurney writes:

We saw some examples recently of Carney’s efforts to say and do things publicly that will please the grandiose president. He lauded Trump’s U.S.-Iran deal, calling the Iran war and the deaths it caused on both sides “worth it.” That’s objectively bonkers:...

Carney also went out of his way to swap chairs with Trump at the G7 annual summit last week, as the president found his own chair uncomfortable. These little symbolic acts, in combination with grander offerings — such as the prime minister’s recent overtures to the U.S. during a speech in New York City — are clearly calculated to flatter Trump and please his administration.

And that’s fine. Good, even. None of the above is meant as criticism. Yes, the Iran stuff is unavoidably eye-rolling, but it’s still very clear what Carney is doing, and Canadians know why he’s doing it. We are stuck in a relationship with a very powerful, increasingly erratic neighbour, about whom perhaps the last thing you can predict is that he likes when people bend the knee for him in public. Carney, correctly and probably necessarily, has made peace with swallowing his pride and doing so on matters — from Iran to uncomfortable chairs — that will cost Canada and his dignity as little as possible. And honestly, I thank him for that.

Gurney warns that this kind of abasement can only take one so far, and bending on substantive issues such as CUSMA would alienate many.

Flattering Trump is perceived as a means to an end. If Ottawa starts making painful concessions, Carney runs the risk that his flattery will be seen not as a necessary evil but part of a broader pattern of subordination to the U.S. And that moment could well be the one that breaks the public’s faith in the prime minister.

On the other side of the issue stands Susan Delacourt, who is unsettled by Carney's actions, despite the fact that it has been echoed by some European leaders,

King Charles hosting a state visit for Trump to France’s Emmanuel Macron treating him to a state dinner at the Palace of Versailles after the G7 meetings wrapped up in that country last week.

 But the real expression of worrying deference was found in Carney’s remarks on the agreement to end the U.S.-Iran war, inked only on the eve of the G7 meeting and not even released in full when the Canadian prime minister gave an interview on CNN.

Carney told Kaitlan Collins he had seen the deal and it was a “game-changer.”

“I have to say it’s exceeded my expectations. We’re very pleased with the deal that’s been struck,” Carney told Collins.

That was pretty bold praise for a deal that really isn’t a deal — it’s a memorandum of understanding, which is proving divisive in the U.S. and attracting concern of what it achieved among Middle East experts. 

It is not being well-received by foreign policy experts either. 

[N]ational security expert Wesley Wark has noticed the pattern and posted some blistering criticism over the weekend, under the heading of “Mark Carney’s bad calls on Iran.” Wark outlines why Carney’s description of the deal, not to mention his views on the war itself, are out of line with serious intelligence analysis of the situation.

Like others, Wark is chalking this up to the new normal of overpraising Trump and urges that Canada reconsider falling into that trap. “If the instinct piece is based on some sense that flattering the U.S. president is a good strategy, surely we are well past that,” Wark writes.

It is difficult to see that any of this sycophancy is yielding any results. Trump is still talking about terminating CUSMA, still talking about destroying our car industry, and, to our increasing immediate discomfort, still stopping the opening of the Gordie Howe Bridge, which Canada paid for entirely. Will the next Carney manoeuver be to give the Americans half of it?

In his Davos speech, Carney said that nostalgia is not a strategy. One hopes that, before he does more damage to Canada's pride and its prospects, he will come to realize that neither is appeasement.

 

 

 

Why Is This Man Exuberant?

 

Well, he has just become a trillionaire, one of the many reasons Elon Musk must feel chuffed these days. Being a master of the universe is surely a heady experience, one denied to almost everyone on the planet. But this visionary entrepreneur, according to a recent column by Mark McQueen, represents an opportunity for all of us, and should be thus lionized, not villified as he is by many:

I don’t care whether Musk is personally worth $1 billion or $1 trillion — both are tough to fathom. But he didn’t steal that money from his neighbours, like some embezzling tinpot dictator. And by allowing others to invest alongside him, Musk’s actually sharing his unique gifts in a far more tangible way than the world’s most talented opera singer or footballer.

Do you want to guess which group of Canadians probably don’t hate him? The beneficiaries of the Ontario Teacher’s Pension Plan.

A canny $300 million pre-IPO investment into SpaceX is now worth more than $20 billion to 346,000 Ontario teachers. It’s a windfall that must surely be the single best payday in the history of their plan. For every teacher in the plan, the pension fund has already gained over $35,000 from Musk’s efforts — capital that can be used to enhance future pension benefits or reduce payroll deductions.

Silicon Valley’s much maligned “Bro culture” delivered handsomely for our educators, a sector that’s about 75 per cent female.

Not so fast, says Star letter-writer Tony D'Anrea of Toronto:

Mark McQueen argues that entrepreneurs who amass millions or trillions are good for Canada because their success helps fund teachers’ pensions — 75 per cent female, no less. On first glance, his claim that one man’s towering fortune lifts us all seems a prosperous insight. But it does not follow that every rich person’s singular fortune is a social good.

McQueen treats Elon Musk becoming a trillionaire as a win-win. Instead it’s a zero-sum game. Adam Smith wrote convincingly about how self-interest working cooperatively achieved “the wealth of nations.” There is no proof that the wealth of one man benefits a greater number.

The “rising tide” defence of extreme wealth requires the tide to actually rise. Consider the ledger. Musk spent $250 million helping elect Donald Trump, then ran DOGE, which gutted some of the very programs McQueen credits the wealthy with sustaining. USAID dismantled. Children’s cancer research defunded. The Department of Education abolished. A boon for Canada’s teachers’ pensions is cold comfort in the face of all this gutting of programs. Some of these programs may have even benefitted Canadians down the road. 

The issue is not entrepreneurship but scale. Beyond a certain point, extreme wealth purchases political influence, reshapes public priorities and amplifies one individual’s power over millions. No Musk fortune, no Trump war in Iran, no daily trauma visited on the Cuban people and no unending disruptions of the world order.

A trillion dollars in one pocket is not a social dividend. It’s a bill the rest of the world is paying.

Readers of McQueen’s millionaires’ prosperity gospel should remember: “caveat emptor”.

With great power comes great responsibility, something people of Elon Musk's ilk seem to have conveniently forgotten.

Meet The Enemy

If you have young children or grandchildren, you will know who this lovely lady is. Unfortunately, In Trump's Amerika, she is regarded by some as a treasonous subversive for her advocacy.

UPDATED: An Exercise We Should Be Avoiding At All Costs

While I am all for exercises that help keep us healthy, supple and mobile, as Canadians there is one that we should never undertake: bending over for bullies. The flexibility it engenders is bad for our national reputation.  Unfortunately, however, it is looking increasingly like our federal government's exercise of choice in pursuing its relationship with the U.S.

Consider the 'suppleness' we have shown thus far: removal of most of the retaliatory tariffs against the U.S.; removal of the digital services tax; the pending removal of the CRTC's order for streaming giants to start paying 15% of their Canadian revenues toward productions in this country.

For all of this, what have we gotten from the U.S. and The Beast that leads it? Nothing, coupled with a claim of indifference to renewing the CUSMA agreement, and a demand to be 'compensated' for the new Gordie Howe bridge before it can open, despite the fact that it was built entirely on our dime.

These exercises in submission, a far cry from the elbows up we were urged to practise for so long, have yielded nothing but more American disdain, and it has undeniably gravely hurt our national reputation, as well as our national pride.

Columnist Mark McQueen offers his thoughts on what we have done to ourselves viv a vis the opening of the Gordie Howe bridge, which was to be officially opened today:

When asked for a reaction, the White House threw a wrench in the works, saying that the “president’s position on the Gordie Howe Bridge has not changed. The Administration remains committed to securing the best possible deal for the American people.”

One could take that statement to mean either that the bridge would be opening, despite the president’s prior objections. Or, ominously, that Ottawa’s announcement didn’t have the support of the U.S. Administration.

On Wednesday, the trump card was quickly laid, with the president telling reporters that he is “not looking to renew” the CUSMA. Period.

Sound a bit like The Beast's famous dealing? Guess it worked:

Terrible poker players that they are, the federal Liberals folded immediately. Early yesterday, Ottawa formally rescinded its invitations [for the opening].

What the feds could have done, according to McQueen, was something quite different.

 If Ottawa wanted to give life to its “Elbow’s Up” campaign, it would have been poetic to unilaterally open Howe’s namesake bridge. The president clearly wasn’t on board with the opening in the absence of a broader trade deal, meaning that Ottawa proceeded without Trump’s consent.

That was a valid, NHL Enforcer-like strategy, had the Liberals just stuck to it.

One of two things would have happened: Washington would have acquiesced, recognizing the economic benefits of improved border flows might help Republicans prevail in key Senate races in Michigan and Ohio this fall.

In the alternative, Washington was within their rights to keep their U.S. Customs plaza closed tight. But that wouldn’t have stopped Carney from capitalizing on the summer tourist season by opening the bridge to U.S. vacationers and truckers looking to take Gordie Howe into Canada.

Instead, Canada’s new ambassador to Washington, Mark Wiseman, allowed the worst of all scenarios to play out: Ottawa kicked the president in the shins, only to immediately capitulate, yet again.

And what final form that capitulation will take is the thing that troubles me most. Instead of keeping all the tolls until the bridge is paid for, will Carney try more appeasement? Will he offer half the bridge to the Americans? Will he agree that the Americans should get all the tolls? The possible scenarios are many, all with the same result: more national humiliation.

UPDATE: If you subscribe to The Globe, I'd suggest you read this article. If you don't, here are a few salient points:

The existing century-old Ambassador Bridge is privately owned by the billionaire Michigan-based Moroun family, who charge vehicles at least double the rate paid at publicly owned crossings in other parts of Ontario.

Despite having a monopoly for many years, the Morouns want more:

United States Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra are trying to negotiate a deal that would save the Moroun family from losing too much money once they have to compete with the publicly owned Gordie Howe bridge, The Globe reported.

The Moroun family, which also owns a trucking empire, has fought for years to shut down any competition to the Ambassador, pouring tens of millions of dollars into federal and state politics along the way. That includes donating more than US$1-million to a campaign group supporting U.S. President Donald Trump. The family had also employed a lobbying firm – Ballard Partners – well-connected within the Trump administration, counting Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles, and his ex-attorney-general, Pam Bondi, among its former employees.

A commentator on the site suggested closing down the Canadian portion of the Ambassador Bridge, citing drug and gun traffic. That'll never happen, of course, but anyway, one can dream of a government with spine, eh?

A Very Costly Innovation

 

Having instant answers at one's beck and call would seem to be a dream come true. Ask any question and get an almost instant answer, complete with citations and statistics. What would have seemed like magic but a few years ago is now becoming commonplace.

Artificial intelligence is here, and it's not going away. The question then becomes, "How do we regulate it?"

And there is no doubt that regulation is needed, if not because of its outsized social influence on people's lives, then because of its huge demands upon the environment and its resources. Consider, for example, the following A.I centre being planned by Kevin O'Leary for Alberta:

The project is planned for approximately 65 square kilometres owned by the Municipal District of Greenview, including Crown land transferred to them in a series of purchase agreements. A plot that size would fit about 130 West Edmonton Malls.

Physicist  Robert Davies has a well-considered description of such megaprojects:

“From here on, I’ll refer to these energy-and-heat behemoths—massive compute fused with massive power generation—as Gigascale AI Smelters, smelting data and material strip-mined from people and planet.”

At a realistic generation efficiency for a gas plant, Davies said supplying 9 GW of electricity would mean “burning fuel at a continuous rate on the order of 16 to 18 GW, day and night, year-round.”

 And this project cannot be  looked upon in isolation.

Because numerous companies are already extracting resources from the area, creating “dense access networks through the surrounding forest,” Davies said cumulative effects studies should be done and a “whole systems analysis” is needed.

Wonder Valley is proposed in a region struggling with drought conditions, about 460 kilometres north of Edmonton, near Grande Prairie, Alberta, sitting on one of the world’s largest gas deposits, the Montney Formation.

“Everything is connected: feedback loops in complex systems like this mean effects of one kind generate other effects of other kinds,” Davies wrote. 

“Essentially the entire fuel burn ends up as heat released at the site, because the electricity is consumed onsite and degrades, in full, to heat.”

An open house was held to 'allay' concerns, but judging by some of the comments, it did not achieve its objective.

 Ret Louise, another Grande Prairie resident, posted her concerns on Facebook after attending the open house, asking “why should anyone trust what Kevin O’Leary says?” Louise added that ordinary Albertans are left bearing the risks of billionaires granted approvals without Indigenous consultation.

She emphasized the need to protect water resources and air quality, mitigate impacts to wildlife, and align major projects with the province’s long-term interests. Sturgeon Lake is preparing to argue in court that the Crown failed to uphold its duty to consult with the First Nation in granting a water licence for Wonder Valley. O’Leary is challenging the Nation’s assertion the municipality had a duty to consult.

It would be foolish to look upon this megaproject as a one-off, and signs are that the public is becoming increasingly concerned about environmental and quality of life issues surrounding A.I. data centres. For example, a recent committee of adjustment meeting in Hamilton drew hundreds to the council chambers over a proposed severance of land to facilitate the building of one on former Stelco lands. Their collective voice was so strong that the severance was denied. That doesn't mean the project will not ultimately come to fruition, but at least a public obstacle has been placed in the path to development.

Prime Minister Mark Carney and his government have embraced A.I. as one of the keys to Canada's future. One can only hope that future is not embraced at any cost.