UPDATED: Who Do You Trust?

 

One of the pleasures of writing this blog is the opportunity it gives for expressing my and others' views. Although I often draw upon the thoughts and analyses of others, I try to frame them through my own observations and experiences, having lived a reasonably long life.

Such a life has taught me the importance of being aware of events that affect our country and our world. Reading as widely as I can has helped me hone some critical-thinking skills, skills I always say are in development, never fully realized.

All of which is my rather long-winded way of saying that when I offer my many criticisms of our federal government, led by Mark Carney, I do so with critical-thinking, analysis and personal values uppermost in my mind. And as I have stated many times here, I believe that, despite some really good trade-diversification initiatives, Carney's submissiveness to the Trump regime is leading us nowhere good.

In that conclusion I am not alone. Well-regarded writer Luke Savage has similar concerns, suggesting there is a huge gap in the rhetoric Carney used in his election address and his actual practice, promising muscularity against Trump but providing only mewling responses.

Since last year’s election, however, the Carney government has repeatedly assumed a far more deferential and obsequious posture in its dealings with Washington. In trade negotiations, it capitulated to U.S. tech giants by abandoning plans for a Digital Services Tax, dropped retaliatory tariffs and introduced draconian border legislation that has been justly criticized by human rights groups.

Moreover, this approach has also taken us down some dark avenues.

Earlier this year, Carney offered swift backing for the illegal U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran (even as that war’s earliest casualties included nearly 200 children killed in the bombing of a school.) He has similarly backed the administration’s Orwellian “Board of Peace” plans in Gaza, indicated a willingness to sign on to its proposed “Golden Dome” defence initiative, refrained from criticizing Marco Rubio’s attempts to dismantle the International Criminal Court through coercion and sought to reassure American investors by pledging to help “Make America Great Again.” Last fall, the government also invited Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts — a key Trump ally and architect of the far-right blueprint Project 2025 — to attend a closed-door meeting with members of cabinet (the visit was ultimately cancelled, almost certainly thanks to the ensuing backlash.) Does anyone seriously think this was what Canadians elected the Carney-led Liberals to do?

Even worse was to lend, by attendance, Canada's imprimatur to a summit convened by Marco Rubio on "left-wing terrorism" (in all practical terms, anyone who challenges the Trump agenda).

 [T]he conference is part of a wider neo-McCarthyite push to criminalize political opponents (as journalist Ken Klippenstein notes, related administration documents even make explicit reference to the likes of Black Lives Matter, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the union that represents Amazon workers.)

When asked about Canada’s attendance at the summit, officials at Foreign Affairs said only that the government “reg­u­larly exchanges views with other coun­tries on viol­ent extrem­ism trends,” further stressing the “long history” of co-oper­a­tion with the United States in the fight against ter­ror­ism. 

Savage says some will argue that Carney is simply doing what is necessary  to reduce the damage inflicted by the deranged Trump. If that is the case, we have gotten little from such acts of prostitution. But the writer posits another possibility:

But we should also consider the possibility that Carney’s apparent promise of a new and more independent global posture was never really genuine in the first place.

Both at home and abroad, the Trump threat serves as a pretext for a form of would-be pragmatism that is really just conservatism by any other name. Within its own borders, Canada is increasingly being run less like a country and more like a business.

There is much evidence to support this thesis:

[Canada's] abandonment of climate targets and gutting of environmental regulations; its tax cuts for the wealthy; its slash and burn attitude toward the public sector; and its overzealous embrace of AI. 

This also helps explain the very stark difference between the prime minister’s campaign rhetoric and his incessant pursuit of cosy relations with Washington. After all, key planks of the Carney program — from the construction of new oil and gas infrastructure to the ramping up of military procurement and the supercharging of AI — will ultimately require the close involvement of U.S.-based companies and investors. Among other things, that practically guarantees strategic alignment with the Trump administration and the maintenance of friendly relations with America’s unapologetically pro-corporate president as long as he remains in office. 

Many will be loathe to accept such a critical take on Mr. Carney's government, preferring the pleasing illusion that he is moving all of us in the right direction for the right reasons. However, if, as Luke Savage suggests, something more sinister is at work, we would be well-advised to look a little closer at our prime minister and his policies, and bear in mind the old advice about not being fooled by a wolf in sheep's clothing. 

UPDATE: Here's an interesting thought from a Globe and Mail reader. While I don't agree with his thoughts on alcohol, he poses a question many of us have probably had:

While I agree with Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent plan to rule out restricting exports of oil or natural gas to the U.S. in retaliation for tariffs and insults, I question why he chose to make that position public. He has repeatedly said that Canada would not negotiate in public, yet this announcement seems to do exactly that.

A more effective response would be to charge world market prices for the energy we export to the United States. That move would benefit Canada far more than restricting supply and is better than retaliatory tariffs, which ultimately raise costs for Canadians.

And speaking of restrictions, removing American liquor from store shelves was a mistake. Put it back and make Ottawa’s task easier.

Peter M. Gallop Toronto

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?

He's Done It Again

 

We probably all remember an activity in elementary school called show-and-tell. It consisted of bringing something to school to explain to classmates how it worked, what it was for, etc. It was an activity designed to foster public speaking and student confidence and, according to some, helped build character. It was part of most people's early education.

I can only imagine it was one of Mark Carney's favourite activities when he was a youngster. Unfortunately, that early experience does not seem to have served him well as prime minister. How else can one explain how he keeps telegraphing to Donald Trump and his minions our negotiation 'strategy' (if it can even be called that) in advance of CUSMA renegotiations and pending punishing new tariffs of 50%, set to begin in August.

Despite averring that "everything is on the table" in anticipation of those new tariffs, Mr. Carney has essentially shown and told the opposite.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is ruling out restricting Canada’s oil and gas supply to the U.S. in the face of President Donald Trump’s expanding trade war, removing a potent bargaining chip as Ottawa seeks a deal with Washington.

Mr. Carney’s government is also planning to scrap a tax on online streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, the latest in a series of concessions to U.S. trade demands for which Canada has not received anything in return.

Make no mistake - oil would be a potent bargaining chip, and even though we might be very reluctant to turn off the taps, there are other possibilites, such as substantial export taxes.

The U.S. is heavily dependent on Canadian oil – importing about four million barrels a day, nearly two-thirds of all its petroleum imports – making it a powerful potential leverage point.

As well, Carney justified another capitulation as an affordability measure:

Mr. Carney also defended Ottawa’s decision to end a 5-per-cent tax that streamers must pay to support the creation of Canadian television, movie and music content. A government lawyer wrote in a July 17 court document that Ottawa intends to “eliminate” the levy.

The Prime Minister insisted on Wednesday that the policy U-turn was about keeping streaming services affordable. “Most Canadians have one or two or more of these streamers and it’s real money. This stuff adds up.”

These most recent measures are but part of a larger pattern:

Since taking office last year, Mr. Carney has made a string of concessions to Mr. Trump, such as rolling back retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods and cancelling a planned digital services tax. Earlier this month, Ottawa agreed to give the U.S. half the net toll revenue from the new Gordie Howe International Bridge between Windsor and Detroit, even though Canada paid the entire $6.4-billion price tag to build the span.

The result of these appeasement measures? 

So far, however, Mr. Trump has only increased tariffs on Canada and the two sides have not reached Mr. Carney’s promised trade deal.

Former U.S. diplomat Scotty Greenwood sees the folly of such capitualatory measures, saying we need to show strength to the Americans:

“Canadians have been hesitant or reticent to flex their muscle. It’s time to be really tough and really flex,” she said. “With this particular President, this particular counterparty, you’ve got to negotiate from a position of strength.”

I 'm sure I am but one of millions of Canadians growing increasingly dismayed by Mark Carney's 'tactics'. Indeed, they suggest only that he is preparing to bring just one more thing to his show-and-tell performance with the United States:

 

 

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?

The People Speak

  

Sometime when I write, I wonder how many of my views are shared by others. Given current media political coverage, it is often difficult to gauge. That is one of the reasons I always read newspapers' letters-to-the-editor section. And it is there that I almost always find a basis for hope, offering proof as they do that critical thinking is not dead.

The following take issue with the direction the Carney Liberals are taking.

Carney, Smith sign carbon price deal, suggest fall 2027 pipeline approval, May 15

As a lifelong Canadian and supporter of Liberal governments I am very disappointed by Prime Minister Mark Carney’s oil and gas agreement with Alberta.

Surely clean air to breathe is a priority for the good health of Canadians. Surely a sustainable way forward is harnessing solar, wind and other non-polluting energies.

Let’s leave our children and their children energy sources that provide clean breathable air, good water to drink and heating and cooling sources that don’t shorten lives.

Judith Murray, Burlington

 

When is our government going to finally put the environment first?

I am a scientist who has worked hard to learn about, teach and protect our earth and its environment.

May I suggest members of the federal Liberal party (and everyone else for that matter) read the following two books: The Lorax by Dr. Seuss (a quick five-minute read) and Silent Spring by Rachel Carson (about an hour’s read).

If you don’t have time, here are two quotes I think sum up what is being done to our environment under the current government, with its many new bills and policies.

Rachel Carson: “The most alarming of all man’s assaults upon the environment is the contamination of air, earth, rivers, and sea with dangerous and even lethal materials.”

Dr. Seuss: “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

I have learned over the years we must constantly fight for our environment in both good economic times and the bad ones. As a government priority it has never been given the attention it deserves.

It is time to put solar energy, wind power and the protection of animal and plant habitat on the front burner. It is time for companies to prove something is safe before they are permitted to sell it rather than waiting 10 to 20 years to see the effects on our environment.

It is time for companies to put money up front, before they begin fracking, building pipelines, or transporting toxic materials through our waterways and along our roads, to cover the cost of the inevitable environmental spills that will occur.

Who is going to put the environment first? Who is going to make Canada a great economy built on protecting our environment?

Because, “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

Yvonne Clifford, Cambridge, Ont.

Oil is a dirty and finite resource. The sun is neither

I boggles my mind why Canada and Alberta are spending enormous amount of money, time and expertise on extracting dirty oil and building expensive pipelines to generate electricity and other forms of energy. Why indeed, when in about 40 years oil will be depleted, as it is a finite resource.

But the sun will shine for millions, perhaps billions, of years, providing free energy to everyone on Earth.

Gwen Petreman, Barrie, Ont. 

As long as the spirit of resistance and critical thinking are alive, falling into despair is not an option.

Stars In Their Eyes

 

There is an obvious problem with those who have stars in their eyes. Blinded by the light, they fail to see the darkness surrounding those stars. This seems an apt metaphor for those who view Mark Carney and his Liberal government in an unqualified way, assuming everything they do to build Canada's bulwarks against American assaults on our economy and our sovereignty is good and beyond criticism.

Such a surrender of critical-thinking skills is not in the national interest, and it certainly does a massive disservice to climate-change mitigation efforts. Consider, for example, the following:

The federal government and Alberta will try to clear the way for construction of a major new oil pipeline to the Pacific coast by September 2027, as part of a new deal that showcases Prime Minister Mark Carney’s softer approach to fossil fuel emissions in a bid to boost economic development. 

Friday’s “implementation deal” follows the memorandum of understanding signed last November that scrapped, suspended and watered down major national climate policies created under Carney’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau.

Now, there will be some who contend Carney is just playing a game with Danielle Smith, who is quite freely wielding the separation cudgel against the feds, and that the prospect of building another pipeline is indeed remote.  However, as always, the devil is in the details, which seem a bit opaque at this point, save for this crucial point:

[W]hile Carney has repeatedly stressed that his government won’t support the pipeline unless a group of major oilsands companies builds their long-discussed “Pathways” carbon capture project, Friday’s deal includes no time frame for when that development would need to start construction. 

Instead, it outlines how Pathways would need to result in annual emissions reductions of six megatonnes from the sector by 2035, and another 10 megatonnes per year by 2045. 

Now, the Pathways project, like other technologies, seems more a dream concept than a reality at this point. I asked ChatGPT about its status, and this is what I learned:

The short version: the Pathways carbon sequestration project is still alive, but not yet under construction at full scale and remains politically and financially unresolved.

The project — led by the oil sands consortium now operating as the Oil Sands Alliance (formerly Pathways Alliance) — is a proposed carbon capture and storage (CCS) network in northern Alberta. It would capture CO₂ from more than 20 oil sands facilities and send it via a long pipeline to underground storage near Cold Lake.

Note that it is not yet under construction, and remains financially unresolved. In other words, it doesn't really exist, and it likely never will be without massive taxpayer support.

The project is estimated at roughly C$16.5 billion, and oil sands companies have long argued they need stronger government incentives to make the economics work. Ottawa has offered a federal CCS investment tax credit, while Alberta has discussed provincial support, but negotiations over cost-sharing and carbon pricing have dragged on.

As you also might already be aware, a project of the Pathways scale would require massive amounts of energy, which would seem to be at odds for a technology touted as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

The key issue is the “energy penalty” of carbon capture: capturing CO₂ takes energy because you have to separate dilute CO₂ from exhaust gases, regenerate solvents, compress the gas, and pump it underground.

A rough rule of thumb for post-combustion carbon capture in heavy industry/oil sands is:

• Electricity: ~100–200 kWh per tonne of CO₂ captured
• Heat/steam (often the bigger requirement): ~1–3 MWh thermal per tonne of CO₂
• Compression and transport: additional energy for pipelines and injection

Using a middle estimate for 10–12 Mt CO₂/year, Pathways could require roughly:

Electricity

About 1–2.5 terawatt-hours (TWh) per year of electricity.

All of this has the whiff of a pipedream, if you will forgive the pun. It seems like a fraud being perpetrated on the Canadian public, given the Carney government's current penchant for gutting environmental standards in order to fortify Canada and keep it intact. 

Taken together, the changes are the latest in a series of decisions by the Carney government to remove or soften major climate policies at the federal level.

Last year, the government scrapped a planned emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, and cancelled the national consumer carbon tax-and-rebate scheme. It also ditched plans for mandated sales of zero-emission vehicles, and signalled it will change national electricity regulations to allow for more gas-fired power plants. 

There will always be apologist for everything the Caney government does. I, for one, have no intention of joining that politically-blinded group.