Trust, But Verify

In these troubled times, when existential threats force Canada to undertake bold, new initiatives, it is sometimes difficult to fully exercise our critical thinking skills. We have a prime minister taking our country into new realms as he seeks to bolster both our resilience and defence against deep hostility from the United States, a country still inexplicably in the thrall of a madman, and I applaud him for many of those undertakings. He is surely the correct person to be leading us at this time.

However, as expressed in my previous post, I think he is making a big mistake in his plans to privatize the operations of four of our major airports: Montreal, Torotno, Calgary and Vancouver. And I am hardly alone in those misgivings.

The Star's Althia Raj offers her thoughts:

Airports are cash cows. Mostly monopolies, they are fantastic investments, where new investors are often able to set prices on everything from passenger charges to parking fees and force them upon a captive audience. 

On the CBC, economist Jim Stanford warned, “This is going to be Highway 407 of the skies.”

Highway 407 was built north of Toronto using public money, then turned over on a 99-year lease to a private consortium, which steadily increased tolls to the point where it is now one of the most expensive tolled highways in North America. 

Even Liberal caucus members are divided on the issue, likely fearing that such a sale will mean only one thing for passengers: higher costs to park, higher costs from airport concessions, higher costs to fly.

Australia serves as a cautionary tale:

Australia privatized a number of its major airports in the late 1990s and early 2000s. While the government was able to get a good price for those sales, consumer costs went up, according to Rod Sims, former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

"They removed the regulation on the airports prior to privatizing them. That meant those buying the airports knew they had a free rein more or less to do what they wanted," he told CBC News.

The Canadian Labour Congress has a similar warning: 

“Private investors don’t put billions into airports unless they expect to make billions back. The government is pointing to Australia as its model, and we’ve already seen the results there: higher costs for passengers and airlines, pressure on workers, and more airport revenue flowing to private investors.

Those who drop off passengers may be in for a rude surprise, if the privatized Heathrow Airport is any indication:

A £7 charge applies at Heathrow every time a vehicle enters the terminal drop-off areas*. Drop-off areas are located right outside each terminal, making for the easiest and quickest way to drop-off passengers.

And, as always, there is the voice of the people: 

A reminder that from the end of the Second World War through 1975, between 20—25 per cent of Canadian public debt was financed and held by the Bank of Canada. During that period, federal government capital expenditure funded highways, bridges, schools, hospitals and yes, even airports. The government did not go begging for cash from hedge funds.

But today, Prime Minister Mark Carney plans to sell off Canada’s major airports and recycle the proceeds for other infrastructure. In other words, investors will get up-and-running projects with established cash flow (where prices can easily be jacked up), whereas Canadians will carry the heavier risk and less profitable investments until mature enough for private owners to buy.

Modern capitalism in action: Corporations get the rewards; Canadians pay the charges and take the risks.

Larry Kazdan, Vancouver, B.C.

 

Privatizing airports is a big mistake — just look at Hydro One

Prime Minister Mark Carney says he is selling our public airports but keeping the land beneath them. That’s like selling an art museum with millions of dollars in art for a bargain price but keeping the land the museum sits on. Carney says he is “unlocking” the value of our public airports. Then says he is going to reinvest that money in other important infrastructure.

We heard the exact same argument and plan when then Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne privatized Hydro One and sent hydro rates through the roof. It used to be, privatization was only done by Conservatives. Now our public assets will be used to maximize profits for corporations. There is no free money, investors expect a good return.

Given the failures and dismal record of public asset privatization here in Canada and around the world, it is astonishing that Carney continues to promote privatization of public assets and infrastructure. Carney is engaging in public relations propaganda to pretty up profit, selling the myth it’s a beneficial way to finance infrastructure. The privatization of long-term-care homes where many died from neglect during the pandemic and Highway 407 and Hydro One has left the people of Ontario with no appetite for any more privatization of public assets. The privatization of Connaught labs by then prime minister Brian Mulroney also hurt us severely during the pandemic.

The privatization of rail, electricity and water and hospitals along with Brexit has made the UK’s economy a complete disaster.

During both World Wars and the Great Depression governments did not privatize public assets. They wisely kept them and we worked our way out of those terrible times with a robust public sector and non-profit public enterprise.

Carney and his Liberal caucus need to be reminded that the provincial Liberals were sent to the political wilderness for three elections in a row for their sale of Hydro One and the resulting rate crisis. Privatizing airports is a really big mistake. The same goes for seaports.

Paul Kahnert, Marham, ON

 What could private investment mean to Pearson airport and Toronto travellers? Here’s what the experts say, Sept. 16

This article mentions a $19 drop-off-fee at London’s Gatwick Airport. Gatwick is privately owned. What could that look like here? If you took the UP Express train to Toronto’s Pearson International Airport, would you be charged a drop off fee? What if you took the TTC Express bus to Pearson, would you be charged a drop off fee? What if you wanted a drink from the water fountain at Pearson, would you be charged a fee? What if you wanted to use the bathroom at Pearson, would you be charged a fee — and extra for toilet paper? 

I have been at privately-run airports where it cost $5 for a bottle of water and at another where you had to pay to use the restroom and pay extra for toilet paper.

I reluctantly voted Liberal in the last election because I believed Mark Carney was the best candidate to defend Canada, but if they follow through with this ill-conceived idea, I will vote against them in the next election.

Gerrard Weedon, Toronto 

Debate is healthy, and one of the backbones of a well-functioning democracy. Let us all hope Mark Carney respects that fact. 

 

So Many Questions

 

I have avoided posting anything thus far about Mr. Carney's economic summit and his trip to Europe in which Canada has been offered "associate membership" in the European Union. The main reason is I am still reading about and digesting these developments. However, one large, billowing red flag is the prime minister's intention to sell long-term concessions (think Ontario's privatized Hwy 407) in four major major airports (Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver). Its putative purpose is to raise capital for improvements at other, smaller airports,  

This decision has nothing to do with asset development and everything to do with enriching the rentier class. In our rush to escape the slimy tentacles of Trump and his disciples, we may be giving far too easy a ride to schemes such as this, but the threat is not going unnoticed.

The following letters to the editor raise some very valid concerns:

Look what happened when they privatized Highway 407

Carney government will allow private investments in Canadian airports, Sept. 15

As much as I like Prime Minister Mark Carney’s approach in welcoming foreign investment, losing control of our airports really scares me. Just look at what happened to the privatization of Highway 407. That was a huge mistake and one I personally can’t forgive.

Norbert Hibbeln, Oshawa, ON

How to keep Canadian ownership and control 

Instead of selling off another asset to investors, I would suggest the following: Establish a direct link between Toronto Pearson International Airport and John C. Munro International Airport in Hamilton. Busses to start and a rail link to follow. Think the UP Express. Designate Pearson as the main international hub and Hamilton the main domestic hub. Pearson could be 70 per cent international and 30 per cent domestic flights with Hamilton 70 per cent domestic and 30 per cent international. Offer discounts on landing fees to airlines willing to use John C. Munro over Pearson.

This solution would reduce congestion at Pearson and make better use of an already existing but under utilized asset in Hamilton. It would also ensure that Pearson remains under Canadian ownership and control.

Peter Smith, Ajax, ON 

Question for the PM: Who is supposed to get rich here? 

When it comes to the privitization of public assets, the only real question I have for Prime Minister Mark Carney is “who is supposed to get rich here?” Or should I say richer?

John Gavin, Toronto

So, Canada is for sale?

When U.S. President Donald Trump wanted to “buy” Canada by declaring Canada as the 51st state of the U.S., there was outrage across Canada.

Now “Canada for Sale” is being considered by Canada itself, and its starting with the sale of Canadian airports. After airports, what comes next? Trump will be first buyer in line with top bid. Let us see what happens next after we sell off Canadian airports.

Qasim Abbas, Mississauga, ON

Then there is this Globe and Mail missive from a former airport authority chairman:

Ain’t broke

Re “Ottawa to announce steps toward opening up airports to more private investment, sources say” (Sept. 15): I believe any rationale for airport privatization falls short when weighed against the financial successes and positive economic impact of Canada’s not-for-profit, community-based airport authorities.

Under the 1990s National Airports Policy, about 20-plus major and regional airports were transferred to local arm’s-length authorities. Since then, these organizations have financed tens of billions of dollars in improvements through landing fees, concessions and airport improvement fees.

Local governance allows airports to respond to regional needs with boards that include business leaders, municipal representatives and labour voices. Why sell strategic assets, possibly to foreign investors, when they already generate stable public revenue and community benefits?

Privatizing airports would shift priorities from regional development to shareholder returns. A fragmented hybrid system, with some airports community-run and others privately owned, would weaken co-ordination, partnerships and the seamless airport connectivity Canadians rely on.

Mark Carney should abort this harrowing flight before it leaves the runway.

Gerry Gallant Former chairman, Charlottetown Airport Authority; Souris West, PEI

Transportation Minister Steve McKinnon is going out of his way to reassure Canadians about this development, saying that Ottawa will protect consumers from "unjustified price increases" The devil is in the details, of course, and I seem to remember similar assurances about reasonable tolls on the 407 when that was sold off by the Mike harris government in a 99-year lease. Today, it has, I believe, the highest tolls in North America.

Trust, but verify, as the saying goes. That can only happen if and when Canadians doff their rose-tinted glasses and begin to examine Mr. Carney's moves in the harsh light of day.

No Indication Of Change

In my previous post, I discussed a myriad of incompencies and corruptions within the Doug Ford government in Ontario,  expressing the hope that the three byelections would convey a message of discontent. Unfortunately, with a turnout of about 25%, (having them at the end of summer was no accident, I am sure) the status quo was maintained.

With a provincial general election in the relatively distant future, we can be sure Ford and his ilk will view these results with pleasure, emboldening them to ever greater heights of ineptitude and backroom deals. Therefore, it becomes incumbent upon those who are able to remind people that this is a government with a rather abject contempt for democracy as we know it, not to mention egregious hypocrisy. Some letters to the editor serve that function.

Doug Ford calls Donald Trump a ‘loser’ now, but he was a fan not so long ago, Aug. 29

I’d like to thank Robert Benzie for reminding us that Ontario Premier Doug Ford was caught on a hot microphone indicating that he had favoured U.S. President Donald Trump to win the 2024 presidential election. I guess his support for the Republican ticket in 2020 is more defensible, as Trump wasn’t a fully known quantity yet. But Ford’s continued support in advance of the 2024 election is much harder to understand. By that time, Trump was already a convicted felon and had lost a civil lawsuit to a woman who’d accused him of sexual abuse.

When Ford’s presidential preference became known, more journalists in Canada should have been asking tough questions about his support for a man who had already been exposed as a lawbreaker and miscreant. His answers might have revealed something important about Ford’s character and helped inform Ontario voters in the 2025 provincial election.

John Connolley, Aurora, Ont.

Ford and Trump are cut from the same cloth. Both are bullies; both make uninformed, reactionary decisions; both like to put down journalists; and both enjoy bloviating. Ford’s words in defence of Canada may sound good, but let’s not forget his actions. For one thing, the premier keeps giving tax dollars to companies based in the United States. The best current example is the $750 that Ontario teachers will receive to purchase school supplies, which they will have to spend at Staples, an American corporation. When I was teaching, I mostly bought my supplies at Dollarama, a great Canadian company. It was also much more cost-effective. Go figure.

Astrid Budd, Toronto

Ford is and always has been a Trump clone, whose policies have proved time and time again to be just as destructive and foolhardy as the U.S. president’s.

Sophie Tanel, Vaughan, Ont.

That Ford was an ardent Trump supporter is embarrassment overshadowed only by the fact that so many Ontarians voted for him, twice, despite his clearly being a bad judge of character. Hopefully this huge red flag will be waved — in addition to the Maple Leaf — at the next provincial election.

Julia Bowkun, Toronto

Hopefully, as the years wind down on Ford's mandate, more people will begin thinking for themselves and realize a drastic change is necessary.

UPDATED: It Doesn't Sound Good

 

Given the scarcity of information surrounding the putative trade deal between Canada and the U.S., I can only rely on my gut in this post. From what I have read, it sounds to me like Canada has folded once more rather than confront the U.S. and its trade aggression against our country. The Globe and Mail reports Dominic LeBlanc as saying that Canada 

protected supply management, but he didn’t respond when asked about the result of negotiations to lower sectoral tariffs levelled under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

American trade envoy Jamieson Greer,  

said on social media that the deal includes “market access for all American goods, economic security commitments, digital trade alignment.”

I smell capitulation here. In any event, if the deal is as bad of a sellout as I suspect it is, clearly our negotiating team cares not a whit for Canadian public opinion, which has expressed real vehemence against a bad deal. Here are some letters from The Star that express that view. 

Canada needs to stop trying to appease Trump and finally call his bluff on tariffs, Aug. 15

Thank you to Star business columnist David Olive.

It’s about time someone spelled it out in plain language: Canada should not be looking to make a deal. President Donald Trump is in trouble, and all we need to do is wait him out.

It has been clear from the beginning that Trump’s tariffs hurt the American consumer. The numbers David Olives quote clearly reflect Canada’s superior economic performance on many fronts, — our lower inflation, better job creation, stock market performance and foreign investment.

It’s time Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc takes notice of public sentiment. Either the Americans stand down or we stand up and walk away. Let Trump and his minions look elsewhere for a solution to the disaster of their making.

The Canadian public needs a show of strength and resolve.

We don’t need more concessions.

Enough is enough.

Phil Warne, Pickering

It’s time for Carney and Co. to put a stop to the bullying

The U.S. is putting pressure on Canada with tariff threats. It puts a great deal of pressure on Prime Minister Mark Carney.

However, our prime minister cannot put pressure on ordinary Canadians and he must not force us to buy American products.

It’s down to Canadian customers. So let’s join together and tell Trump and his like to take a hike and show them what civilized refusal to bullying looks likes.

Ajit Zacharias, Newcastle, Ont.

Canada must stop making concessions because now it’s expected by Trump

David Olive makes the useful observation Canada has more leverage than it has so far chosen to exercise.

The deeper problem is habitual. For years, the Canadian approach has resembled a man who keeps feeding the same raccoon ever-larger sandwiches in the hope it will eventually develop manners and leave the porch.

When one side makes clear that almost any concession is preferable to friction, the other has every incentive to keep raising the price. Unused leverage decays quickly. At some point, the polite posture is clearly a nervous tic.

David Woodard, Tampere, Finland

Why shouldn’t Canada push back on U.S. tariffs? What have we got to lose?

Why have we not heard from our federal government regarding the inclusion of an export tax on critical items the United States needs? Potash, electricity, aluminum, B.C. soft lumber, critical minerals come to mind.

We have seen conciliatory moves have only been viewed by the U.S. as weakness.

It has appeared, since the first tariffs were imposed upon Canada, our government has been in a reactive stance as opposed to taking the initiative and using all of our tools available to meet the U.S. as an equal at any negotiating table.

If they squeeze us, then we should be squeezing back.

And as a shoutout to support our Canadian journalists, our government needs to bring back the Digital Services Tax.

Eric Edelsward, Mississauga

As they say, more to come, but if our negotiators have sold us out, I would not be voting for the Liberals in any of the three upcoming by elections if I lived in one of those ridings. Our 'leaders' should be aware that there is more than one way for people to express their strongly-held views.

UPDATE: This sounds like a big ask of the provinces:

Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston says Prime Minister Mark Carney has asked provinces to restock American alcohol on their shelves as Canada finalizes a trade deal with the U.S. 

From the information I have been able to glean from the media, softwood lumber tariff reductions seem unlikely. If that is the case, I don't see how B.C. Premier David Eby could acquiesce in the restocking of American alcohol and have any political credibility left. 

UPDATED: A Tiresome Man

 

I know I'm not the only one who finds the incessant government of Ontario ads tiresome, just like the man behind them. Self-promotion paid for by the taxpayers, (last year about $111 million), they paint a picture of Ontario that would be in economic and criminal peril were it not for the 'wise' stewardship of Premier Doug and his gang. If you have ever seen them (it is hard to escape them in this province), you know what I am talking about.

One of the ads extols the fact that they have never raised taxes. In these times, I'm not sure that is something to brag about. Although it is a topic people don't like to think about, given the increasingly more frequent and severe natural disasters fanned by climate change, increased taxes are necessary. Fires and floods abound. 

This past week, for example, St. Catherines was hit by two major storms, both times resulting in flooded basements and much property damage.

Mayor Matt Siscoe, himself a victim, 

said the flooding has hit thousands of homes.

 "I've driven through entire neighbourhoods where every single house was dealing with it, and that was [before] Sunday night. There are entire neighbourhoods where the driveways are filled with construction debris and furniture that's been destroyed.

"There were cars floating down the street."

Every worker in his office has had their homes flooded, and most of them will need basement tear-outs, said Siscoe.

Siscoe is calling on the Ontario and federal governments to provide St. Catharines with immediate assistance, and help communities pay for upgrading critical stormwater infrastructure to better prepare for such devastating storms.

At least in Ontario, that plea is falling on deaf ears. as the provincial government has offered to send a cadre of  volunteers to assist with the cleanup, but no new dollars.

St. Catherines is just a local canary in the coal mine. Climate change is accelerating. This summer we are still contending with over 170 wildfires in northwestern Ontario, smoke from which a few short weeks ago made going outside next to impossible. A quick look at national and international news demonstrates that the dangers posed by climate change are worldwide and unrelenting.

For a long time now, Doug Ford has tried to shield himself with a cape from his Captain Canada guise, but that shtick is wearing thin. A new poll reveals that only 24% approve of his performance as premier, and 72% disapproving. Ford's most recent misstep, which I wrote about here, is just the latest one that displays how out of touch with the people he is, seemingly favouring only those that support unbridled development as the expense of everything else.

It is heartening so many are seeing through the Ford facade, a fact also attested to by letters to the editor. Here are three such missives:

Premier Ford wants to make Ontario safer. He’s doing all the wrong things

Doug Ford’s ‘Protect Ontario’ ads and messaging are a scam trying to hide the damage he’s doing, June 26

Premier Ford, please stop catastrophizing and fear mongering with your full-page safety ads.

If you want to make Ontario safer, I suggest the following: increase funding to our hospitals, provide more money for women’s support and shelters, make radar and speed cameras mandatory, stop tearing up bike lanes, bring back funding you have slashed for fighting forest fires, provide greater support for our Indigenous communities, provide more housing for the needy so they don’t have to pitch a tent, work and listen to those who support folks with addictions rather than against them.

And, lastly, repeal Bill 97 with its totalitarian undertones, which more than anything else has created a very unsafe Ontario for all.

Matthew Marosszeky, Aurora, Ont.

Come election time, Ontarians must show Ford and Co. the door

My stomach churns every time I see one of the Ford government’s ads in print or on television regarding how they are making Ontario stronger and safer.

The ads tell us they are making Ontario safer by not allowing encampments in public parks. Have they no shame, no compassion? They will not increase assistance rates or do anything to give the less fortunate a chance to improve their lives, yet they are spending thousands on advertising.

This is blatant abuse of public funds and a clear lack of interest in the welfare of our citizens.

Premier Ford and his lackeys have had their chance and have blown it.

Vote them out.

Mary Louise Reiman, Hamilton

DiManno shines light on the truth of Ford’s follies

You lost the battle of Billy Bishop, Doug Ford. Now, give the city back its seat, July 31

Star columnist Rosie DiManno gave a great summary of Premier Doug Ford’s many terrible projects, which we are all paying for.

And we are paying for those awful ads.

Thank you Rosie.

Martha Gould, North Bay, Ont.

Ford has long fashioned himself as a man of the people. The problem is the people he serves are not ones I, or countless others, know.

UPDATE: Perhaps this ad reveals a greater truth about Doug Ford's Ontario:

Watching And Waiting

 

My friend Dave from Winnipeg called last night, and, as often happens, talk to turned to politics. I expressed my growing doubts about Mark Carney's ability to effectively negotiate with Trump, given his myriad concessions to the Mad King, about which I have written many times in this blog. Dave, on the other hand, seems to still feel a measure of cautious optimism about our prime minister, suggesting that compromise is always necessary when dealing with someone as unhinged as Trump.

I suspect that August 19th, the day Trump's threats about new 50% tariffs on a range of Canadian goods (including CUSMA compliant ones) are supposed to go into effect, will go a long way toward settling the question. Doing nothing will only invite more rapacious abuse. A strong response, some will argue, will invite even harsher retaliation from Trump. Ultimately, however, we have to ask whether our sovereignty is something we prize above almost all else, or merely a fungible and quaint concept.

Toronto Star letters to the editor offer some thoughts on the matter:

How Canada should retaliate to Trump’s tariffs

Trump has threatened a 50 per cent tax on some more Canadian exports to the U.S., July 20

So, Trump wants to tax Canadian exports to the U.S. at 50 per cent, but not all exports. He has exempted energy and potash. I wonder why? Is it because a 50 per cent tax on petroleum would be paid by all consumers in the US? A tax of 50 per cent on potash would massively increase the cost of fertilizer to U.S. farmers which, not inconsequentially, mostly voted for Trump.

I think that if Trump’s 50 per cent tax does go into effect Canada ought to impose a 50 per cent export tax on energy and potash which would be borne by U.S. consumers and farmers. Canada could send the proceeds of the tax to the provinces where the products originated. The provinces could then distribute the proceeds to the affected companies. It would not likely make them entirely whole because there would be some drop in demand due to the higher cost, but it would mitigate the loss.

David Crowe, Toronto

The suggestion by Cameron McCuaig (Letters, July 27th) that Canada is overly dependent on American goods overstates the case. Virtually everything Americans sell us can be obtained elsewhere at similar or better prices. Examples are winter vegetables (South & Central America) and cars (Korea, Japan and China).

However, the U.S. is highly dependent on Canadian raw materials and energy. There is no easy replacement for Quebec electricity, or western heavy petroleum. There is absolutely no replacement for Canadian potash since Canada is, by far, the world’s largest exporter and producer!

Canadian aluminum is found in every gasoline-powered car’s cylinder head and often cylinder block too. American smelters have been unable to compete and many have closed. Americans have not been buying our copper, cobalt, nickel, softwood lumber and pulp because they “like” us – we offer quality product at a better price.

I would like to see Canada quietly impose a modest (say 5 per cent) export tax on all these goods. Trump would complain, but imposing even more tariffs on us would not be clever. Remember, Trump’s tariffs are actually a tax on Americans!

Let him puzzle out where else these essential commodities could be sourced. Appropriate supply chains would yield higher priced goods (why we were preferred suppliers), and take time to organize.

If Trump didn’t begin to lower tariffs on Canada, within (say) 8-10 weeks, we should bump up the export tax by another 5% - and mount an advertising campaign telling Americans why we were doing this.

This should hit consumers just in time for the mid-term elections. 

Peter Bursztyn, Barrie, Ont.

To fight dependence on the U.S., Canada needs to rediscover its resilience

For more than eighty years, Canada has grown increasingly dependent upon the United States. During those decades, economic integration brought prosperity, a rising standard of living, and the comforting assumption that our closest ally would always remain a reliable partner. Comfort gradually became complacency.

An ancient Japanese proverb observes, “Matters long neglected slowly change in response to the various forces of nature.” Canada neglected to ask a fundamental question: What if the United States ceased to be dependable? Over the past decade, tariffs, economic pressure, and shifting political priorities in Washington have exposed how vulnerable Canada has become to decisions made beyond our borders.

The Gordie Howe International Bridge illustrates this imbalance. Financed largely by Canadian taxpayers at a cost of approximately $6.4 billion, it was intended to generate toll revenues that would recover Canada’s investment. When the United States later sought different financial terms, Canada found itself negotiating from a position of weakness. The episode demonstrated how difficult it is to resist American pressure when so much of our prosperity depends upon access to the U.S. market.

If sovereignty is to be preserved, Canada may need to rediscover the resilience that sustained earlier generations through war, hardship, and sacrifice. Prosperity has brought many blessings, but it has also encouraged dependence. Greater national independence may require greater self-reliance.

Trust is the foundation of every enduring partnership. Once confidence is lost, agreements become suspect, cooperation becomes conditional, and every negotiation is approached with caution. Rebuilding trust is far more difficult than preserving it.

Canada has enjoyed more than eighty years of peace on its own soil, yet history reminds us that nations seldom lose their freedom in a single dramatic moment. Independence is more often surrendered gradually through convenience, complacency and dependence. Canada’s challenge is not merely to protect its prosperity but to ensure that prosperity never comes at the expense of sovereignty. 

John Leberg, Toronto

Just a point of clarification: export taxes are usually borne by the exporter, but those costs are recovered by higher prices charged to the importer. Many, of course,  will cite concerns about domestic unity as a reason not to apply such levies to products from Saskatchewan and Alberta. However, we must ultimately ask this question: Does Canada have what it takes to defend ourselves, no matter the potential cost?