But Were They Allowed To Sit At The Adults' Table?

I have to admit to deep ambivalence in hearing the news that Team Trudeau jetted off to Mar a Lago to have dinner with the incoming American president. My mental images included exaggerated genuflection, followed by a kissing of Don Trump's ring. Sometimes hyperbole helps clarify my thinking. Not so much this time, however.

On the one hand, my sense of national pride is deeply hurt at the thought of our prime minister and his entourage jumping to the beat of a madman. On the other hand, I wonder how much choice we really have in the matter, well aware that the consequences of the visit, both good and bad, may be long lasting.

Some are applauding the pilgrimage.

“I’m surprised and impressed,” said Flavio Volpe, head of Canada’s Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association, that the Canadian leader was meeting with the president-elect, adding that kind of personal facetime with the former and future president is invaluable for Trudeau, and for Canada in the months ahead.

“The PM is demonstrating the humility that’s required (by) going to the source. Also the prime minister is demonstrating to the contrary of all the predictions (the idea) that Donald Trump wouldn’t want to work with him is untrue.”

Others, however, are not as sanguine. Of our country's snap-to-it reaction to Trump's threat of tarifffs, Bruce Arthur writes: 

Canada’s reaction, though, showed a country ripe for the picking, smelling of panic and surrender. There are facts, of course. The two borders are incredibly different; barely any fentanyl is caught coming from Canada to the U.S., though it’s rising slightly. The same is true of irregular crossings, on a border than spans nearly 9,000 kilometres.

Still, many Canadian politicians didn’t just accept Trump’s bark-at-the-waiter framing, but hopped to attention, ready to serve. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, predictably, put out a statement asking Trump to exclude oil from tariffs, and pledged to send extra patrols to the Alberta border, which is, uh, not a hotspot. One supposes she is already familiar with the crossing at Coutts.

A similar reaction came from Quebec premier Francois Legualt as he called for increased border security, and Ontario's Doug Ford even 

met with Canada Border Services Agency and the U.S.‘s Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to find out “what needs to happen to secure our border.” 

Of PP's response I will not speak, except to say that from his perspective, it can all be blamed on Trudeau's incompetence, a refrain that must be growing tiresome to even his most ardent supporters.

As well, there are darker implications to the visit.

[Timothy]Snyder’s first rule of tyrants is simple: do not obey in advance, and too many seem ready to forget that rule, in a vulnerable country.

But the die has been cast, leaving me to wonder what other extraordinary demands the mad Trump will make of Canada in the future. What will he do to obtain our much-coveted water? What threats will he make to open up our entire agricultural industry to American predations? How much longer will we have even a semblance of policies independent of the American colossus?

Oh, and for the record, in an act of real 'forbearance', Trump allowed Team Canada to sit with the 'adults' last evening.

.

 

A Novel Suggestion

In my more fantasy-laden moments, I imagine a response from Canada to Trump's tariff threats that would really get through to the Americans. Since appeasement never works, how about meeting their tactics with some of our own?

Canada needs to review trading relationships

A quick fix to bring Donald Trump’s bullying tactics to heel would be an equivalent export tax on all energy resources and raw materials exported to the United States. [Empahsis mine] Canada is America’s  largest energy source and  number two supplier of nonenergy mineral resources after China. Canada should not cringe in fear of Trump’s tactics of bullying and misinformation or cave in to his demands. We need to use whatever tools we have available to work out a reasonable fair-trade deal that benefits both partners. Without that, it is no longer a trade deal but exploitation and no partnership. Trump will try a workaround to existing agreements and we must be prepared to act in kind.

We also need to review our trading relationships. Expanding our trading relationships with other partners would make us far less susceptible to Trump’s tactics. We must also expand our military capacity. National service and our own military supply chain and sources could create thousands of new jobs across Canada in manufacturing. If we love our country, is it not worth defending it economically and militarily?

Robert Holden, Keswick, ON

Apply Trump’s logic to our illegal gun problem

Countries have been fighting drugs for a very long time. The Opium War was in the 1840s. No one has figured out how to solve the drug problem, including Donald Trump in his first term in office. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should tell Donald Trump he is putting a 25 per cent tariff on U.S. products until he stops the thousands of guns entering Canada through the United States bringing higher levels of violent crime. Last time I checked, countries are responsible for securing their own borders. This is not something you outsource to another country.

Michael Yaffe, Toronto  

Of course, the above scenarios will never come to pass, but I can dream, can't I?

A Question Of Confidence And Competence

Today, I'll let Theo Moudakis speak for many of us:

And here is PP's political response to the threat of massive tariffs from the incoming American president:

Poilievre's response somehow leaves me with a paucity of confidence in his competence.

UPDATED: Vying For The Biggest Santa Hat

Tis the season to be jolly. The question is, who gets to wear the biggest Santa hat, Doug Ford or Justin Trudeau? Since I have already dealt with Doug Ford's attempt at securing the prized possession in a previous post, today I'll look at Justin Trudeau's efforts to reverse-engineer The Grinch and emerge victorious.

Tonda MacCharles writes about the Trudeau Liberals'

....GST two-month “holiday” on so-called essential goods plus a $250 cheque for anyone who earned under $150,000 last year...

 It borrows heavily from the Liberals’ rivals. The Conservatives campaigned on a December sales tax break like this in 2021. (The Liberals opposed it then.) The NDP pitched a similar cut last week. 

One thing is for sure, the 2024 Liberal version carries a hefty price tag of $6.28 billion — according to early calculations — at a time when Canada’s annual deficit, which Justin Trudeau’s government promised would clock in at around $40 billion, is certain to spike.

But after all, this is the season to give, isn't it? However, the Liberal largesse also comes with a big bill:

....the kiddies who get cheaper diapers or Christmas toys for the next two months will be the ones paying the tab plus interest, for years to come.

David Macdonalt, of the Canadian Centre for Policy alternatives, suggests the money could have been put to better use through 'targetted giving':

 Instead of sending $250 to “basically everybody,” Macdonald said the government could have sent $500 or $1,000 to the lowest-earning 30 per cent of workers, or the lower half of workers, and concentrated the help to those most in need of a boost right now.

“Presumably it’s the visibility is what’s important here, more so than necessarily substantially helping folks that are maybe turning to food banks because they can’t afford food.”

Will the Trudeau payout reap the obvious political dividends he is hoping for? Letters to the editor suggest otherwise:

Now the PM is attempting to buy votes

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is taking a page from Premier Doug Ford’s election playbook and attempting to buy votes. A GST tax holiday that will cost $1.6 billion and a working Canadian rebate, for those earning less than $150,000 that is estimated to cost $4.68 billion. Would it not be better to use this money to assist those who cannot afford to eat in restaurants or buy prepared foods and must rely on food banks, and those who are unemployed or retired and financially struggling who are not eligible for the rebate because they are not working Canadians?

Greg Sheehan, Mississauga

 

Debt of Christmas splurge will live on long after its recipients are gone

 The federal Liberal government was projected to incur a whopping $39.8 billion national financial deficit in 2024/25. This was before handing out a Christmas splurge of a $1.6 billion in GST alleviation, plus a $4.68 billion cash handout to most Canadians. To put this in the context of an individual, it is tantamount to someone with enormous credit card debt celebrating the taking out of a cash advance to increase their debt to enable them to go out on a holiday spending spree and whoop it up. There is one significant difference, however. The principle and interest on the credit card debt must be paid off in the near future by the errant borrower. With a national debt already at $1,453 billion our grandchildren will be paying for this largesse many years after we recipients are long gone.

Anthony Moscrop, Willowdale 

Santa is coming, kiddies. As a bonus, all of you get to ultimately decide who deserves to lay claim to his much-coveted head covering.

UPDATE: Seems apt.

H/t Moudakis

Political Leadership Void

In talking to my friend Gary today, I offered the opinion that even though he is the putative next prime minister, PP will not have what it takes to deal with the demented agenda that will in all likelihood be the 'crowning achievement'  of the ape the U.S. chose as their president. Perhaps PP would be well-advised to consider this advice from  Gord Wilson of Port Rowan:

Will Canada’s leadership find the courage to stand up to Trump?

Donald Trump cares little about maintaining good relationships with any country or international organization that opposes his agenda. To be sure, he and his choice of ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra will demand that Canada bow to his trade demands. Our political leadership should remember that their role is to put Canada first, and in response to such demands, advise Trump, for example, that unless he withdraws his trade demands, we will close the Welland Canal to U.S. traffic, cease the export of Quebec Hydro, cease the shipment of oil and gas, cease the shipping of vital Canadian mined minerals, and enforce our 200 mile limit on the East and West Coasts. Canadian water is another commodity that gives Canadian leadership “push back.” The coming months will tell all Canadians if our political leadership can find enough courage to stand up to an elected bully.

Racing To The Bottom

Mr. Trudeau apparently thinks that because if seems to work for Doug Ford, it might work for him -vote-buying, that is.

You can read the full details here.

Meanwhile, Theo Moudakis encapsulates this silly season nicely:

UPDATED: See No Evil

I have lived long enough to think I have seen the worst things that humanity has to offer. I shan't enumerate examples here, since they are legion. But not all evil deeds are acts of commission. Many deep moral stains originate in omissions, failures to act. The West's complicity in the Israeli-led Gaza genocide falls under both rubrics, of course.

In its passion to avoid any accusation of anti-semitism (anti-semitism and criticism of Israel having been susscessfully conflated), the West is clearly complicit in the genocide. Indeed, even a modest support for Palestinians provokes rebuke and condemnation. In Ontario, for example, Hamilton Centre MPP Sarah Jama was censured for wearing the keffiyeh, rendering her persona non grata in the legislature and resulting in her ouster from the provincial NDP.

But such reprovals are not limited to the provinces. Indeed, Heather McPherson, an Alberta NDP MP, is now being singled out for rebuke.

A New Democrat MP was warned Monday that her decision to don a watermelon pin — a symbol of the Palestinian cause — could be construed as a political “prop” that has no place in the House of Commons. 

During question period, Edmonton-Strathcona MP Heather McPherson took to the floor of the lower chamber to castigate Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government for its response to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

“Entire families have been decimated. Children are starving to death. When will the Liberals live up to their obligations?” McPherson said, calling for sanctions on the Israeli government and the implementation of an “actual arms embargo.”

That attempt to stir the conscience of the government was met with a stern warning from House Speaker Greg Fergus., suggesting her pin was a prop, supposedly forbidden in the House.

In a heated exchange over what is and is not permitted to be worn in the Commons, McPherson rose on a point of order to question Fergus’s suggestion.

“I have to tell you that I stand here proudly wearing the pin that stands in solidarity to Palestinian people, but people within this place are wearing pins for a various number of reasons,” McPherson said.

She referred to a moose hide pin that a number of MPs wear in the Commons, which was born from an Indigenous-led movement to end violence toward women and children. 

Then, for some sensitive' souls in the House, she went too far:

The NDP MP’s reference to poppies also being worn in the chamber for Remembrance Day, however, was met with outrage from the opposition benches, with Conservative MPs expressing disbelief on social media over the comparison. 

She also reminded members that she, along with others, wear a number of other pins, including a Ukrainian one, to mark a thousand days since Putin invaded Ukraine.

Funny thing about freedom of expression, isn't it? It is apparently only permitted when the state declares who is an acceptable target for denunciation. In the corrupted currents of this world, it would seem that Israel gets a free pass, no matter what crimes against humanity it perpetrates.

UPDATE: Predictably, the U.S. vetoed a UN resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza:

The United States on Wednesday vetoed a U.N. resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in the war in Gaza because it is not linked to an immediate release of hostages taken captive by Hamas in Israel in October 2023.

The U.N. Security Council voted 14-1 in favor of the resolution sponsored by the 10 elected members on the 15-member council, but it was not adopted because of the U.S. veto.

The resolution that was put to a vote “demands an immediate, unconditional and permanent cease-fire to be respected by all parties, and further reiterates its demand for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.”

Hmm. Sounds to me that the resolution did call for the immediate release of the hostages, but I guess Israel's perennial, unconditional friend just can't bring itself to do anything other than perpetuate the carnage in Gaza.