My preference for comments: (1) Other people will disagree with you. They're allowed. (2) If you've made your point a couple of times in a comment thread, you probably don't need to keep making it. (3) I forget what 3 was.
If American troops were ever to spill across their northern border, I’m guessing Carney would be on a plane to England faster than you can say catalyse.
I am afraid Paul badly misreads the temperament of both the Canadian public and the current government. The notion that "plenty of Canadians would line up to congratulate the president on his vigour" following some kind of cross-border raid into Canada (to what purpose?) is plentifully mistaken, and sad. But then Paul also misread the Freedom Convoy movement as well.
I also was taken aback, like Mr. Wark - no perfesser to me but someone always worth reading- at your comment that plenty of Canadians would congratulate Trump. Set aside whether plenty= many= most. I think this is a pessimistic and negative misreading of the public mood. As you say, disagreements permitted, encouraged in respectful conversation.
You didn't say "most" but you did single out that one possible response to US aggression. All available data (travel, real estate in Florida and Arizona, booze, general imports) suggest that elbows are still very much up across the country. I think a cross-border raid would be met by a vigorous counter-push. Heck, the armed forces are leading the way by planning to have 300,000 extra reserves on hand. That spells civilian defence force to me.
I think you all doth protest too much. Trips to the US are only down something like thirty percent. I don’t like to acknowledge it either but I think you underestimate how many people on this side of the border would happily join Trumplandia.
I can't say exactly how broad the sentiment is. But here in Calgary, we do hear lots of folks who would take Trumps side over Canada's. Those voices are no doubt amplified by social media, but I have been surprised at the number of people who still harbor so much grievances.
That just goes to prove that Albertans are 100% Canadian. In what other country do you hear people who are prone to bitching 24/7 365 days of the year. In fact Canadians never seem to be happy unless they can complain about something. Its right up there with Hockey as a national past time.
I think we need some opinion polling on the views of the "Canadian public" before we will see whether fidelity to what is said to be international law, will overwhelm the impression that Maduro is a bad guy who deserves what he gets. As for the freedom convoy...I myself wondered at the time how long the US would tolerate an interference with trade over an international bridge, before taking action.
The situation in the US is exceptionally bad, more so than I think a lot of Canadians realize. A cross-border raid by US Special Forces to kidnap and/or kill Canadians citizens is absolutely within the realm of plausibility now, and there would be very little we could do about it if it came to pass.
I'm not sure there's a realistic strategy for dealing with this situation, other than waiting quietly for the midterms and hoping for the best after that. But if the US really intends not only to monetize its hegemony, but also to use the joint threat of military and economic force to achieve full-scale continental sovereignty, then that's a scenario for which strategies do need to be made right now -- regardless of how much difference they might ultimately make.
There is still no pipeline to the Northern BC coast. No pipeline to get Western Canadian oil to central Canada and the Atlantic provinces. No pipeline to get Western Canadian natural gas to the east coast to get LNG to Europe (who are dependent on American, Qatari, and Russian LNG). Trump has made the Carney's carbon capture expansion of the oil sands industry uneconomic in the long term with his control of Venezuelan oil. But we still need the BC pipeline because over time Venezuelan oil can displace Canadian oil in the US market completely. The Laurentian establishment that has ruled Canada forever has left us weak and vulnerable. America's increasingly dominant position over the oil and natural gas that Europe and ASEAN need, the exact partners Canada needs to diversify, but to whom we are unable to deliver oil and LNG, making them dependent on the US, means our situation is pretty bleak.
Given that the Trump Administration has no problem killing U.S. residents, Canadians should not feel safe at the chaos metastasizing in my country just south of your border. But the more likely (insidious?) scenario, is Washington supporting right-wing separatism in Alberta in the name of resource extraction and ideological, with apologies to Premier Smith, brotherhood.
This idea might shock some people in some parts of the country, including in this very comment thread, but there are some problems bigger and more important than oil and gas pipelines. Indeed, there are some problems that a pipeline can't fix.
Brodie is a quisling. I am a Canadian living in the states, and he has no idea how bad Trump is. The only limit now on his evil is his stupidity and incompetence. Luckily, many Americans are outraged and he will lose the House and maybe the Senare (if he doesn’t steal the election). In the meantime, Brodie can stick it where the sun don’t shine.
I may be hopelessly naive, but I truly believe Carney has avoided a direct confrontation with Trump because he wishes to avoid a scenario such as you lay out. I would hope he alters his approach faced with direct American belligerence. Other than that I loved your piece.
I just read a headline that the prime minister has more trust from Canadians than in the last 15 years...once again I'm out of step. This iteration of the Liberals has me very uneasy, it's particularly...adaptable to shifting, should I say, "values".
" not fans of Govt over reach": yet on the flip side, many were more than happy to see our Govt " over reach" in the way they viciously went after the head of a woman guilty of public mischief.
Trump is a mendacious and deceitful individual - more like a mafia don than a statesman. But, remember, it was the highly principled Jimmy Carter who propounded the “Carter doctrine”, that provided the justification the use of force to protect US interests (oil) in the middle east So, I’m not sure that we should dwell too much on the purported motivation of the president - especially this one.
The practical question is: what extraterritorial action can a nation X get away with, and what costs is the other country prepared to absorb, or to impose, in response. Which is not really a “legal question”. It’s a political and economic one, involving the balance of power and deterrence.
Moreover, countries taking unilateral actions against people beyond their borders is hardly a new phenomenon. That is how Eichman was kidnapped and brought back to Isreal for trial (and execution); and it is also how Israel dealt with the murderers of their Olympic athletes and a rogues’ gallery of Islamic radicals (no trials in those cases). Just like the US did, with Osama bin Laden or Qasem Soleimani. And it is how the British dealt with some alleged IRA members in Gibraltar.
And, yes, Russia killed people whom it regarded as traitors, even if they were living in the UK. Nor is that new - for Russia. See Sergei Plokhy’s tale of KGB activity in the 1960s: The Man with the Poison Gun.
And, yes, I think that India looked at the way that Canada has provided a safe haven for the Sikh “terrorists” who orchestrated the Air India bombing (329 deaths) and it decided that retribution was necessary.
In the real world, therefore, extra-judicial killing is hardly a novelty; and bringing Maduro to the US, for trial, is not even that. So we will just have to wait and see how Maduro is treated. Not least because trial in a US court raises some challenges for Trump, depending on how it is conducted. Just like Epstein’s trial would have done (I couldn’t resist).
But its seems to me that it is unhelpful to ponder “international law”, which is decidedly toothless.
For example, consider what Canada was prepared to do, or not do, when the US said Meng Wanzou was a “criminal”, who should be sent to the US for trial for breaching US law, and China said otherwise.
Similarly, I wonder what the US would have done if the Canadian government had refused to end the 2022 blockade of the Ambassador Bridge (it’s an “international bridge” after all) which was interrupting millions of dollars worth of daily international trade.
And would the Canadian response have been different if the blockade had been in support of some aboriginal claim – as it was for the weeks long blockade of a railway in Ontario in 2020? And would the US care?
The problem with all of this reflection and genuflection about “the rule of law”, is the seeming variability of its application; and its collision with real politick.
Trump has hedged his position with the Laurentian establishment. Carney's Brookfield options will do fine over time.
The US government signed an $80 billion strategic partnership with Westinghouse Electric Company in October 2025 to build new nuclear reactors using AP1000 technology, primarily to power AI data centers and meet rising electricity demand. Westinghouse, owned by Canadian firms Brookfield (51%) and Cameco (49%), will construct reactors with US government support for financing, permitting, and supply chains.
Look at what the Laurentian establishment does, not what they say.
Given all the chaos Trump has generated, both in the US and abroad, I really don't think Canada will come into his crosshairs for quite a while . Full blown trade war with the whole world, invasion of Venezuela, ICE raids all over the US, the war in Ukraine, relations with China, ''affordability'' etc etc... and last but not least, the Epstein files. Add to that list his intention to take Greenland, perhaps Cuba, to launch direct armed incursions into Mexico to deal with the drug cartels.
That's quite a to do list for a guy who apparently is in bad physical shape, has touble staying awake during meetings, and notably, who has surrounded himself with a clown car of incompetent sycophants.
No need to panic, but an urgent need to get our house in order : diversifying export markets, rapidly beefing up our armed forces, seriously promoting internal trade, getting more oil and gas to tidewater.
No need either to get into a bad trade deal with the US, we didn't have one for most of our history, we can live without one until sanity returns south of the border, if ever.
My preference for comments: (1) Other people will disagree with you. They're allowed. (2) If you've made your point a couple of times in a comment thread, you probably don't need to keep making it. (3) I forget what 3 was.
"The limit on my power is my own morality" says arguably least moral person on the planet.
It ought to be a headline for The Onion or The Beaverton, yet it's real! A sad indictment on our times.
Surely he meant mortality.
Hey just checking in quickly - anyone mentioned Laurentian Elites yet?
Lemme know if not - I know a guy.
If American troops were ever to spill across their northern border, I’m guessing Carney would be on a plane to England faster than you can say catalyse.
Would he take his Brookfield shares?
Don't leave home without them!
They said that about Zelensky….
Carney is no Zelenskyy
"Carney is no Zelenskyy"
To our great sorrow.
Carney likes his Saville Row suits. No way he goes for Zelensky's camo green turtlenecks.
Yup!
Whichever one is on top.
I am afraid Paul badly misreads the temperament of both the Canadian public and the current government. The notion that "plenty of Canadians would line up to congratulate the president on his vigour" following some kind of cross-border raid into Canada (to what purpose?) is plentifully mistaken, and sad. But then Paul also misread the Freedom Convoy movement as well.
Reading is hard. I didn't say "most." I didn't say I would agree with them. Swing and a miss, perfesser.
I also was taken aback, like Mr. Wark - no perfesser to me but someone always worth reading- at your comment that plenty of Canadians would congratulate Trump. Set aside whether plenty= many= most. I think this is a pessimistic and negative misreading of the public mood. As you say, disagreements permitted, encouraged in respectful conversation.
You didn't say "most" but you did single out that one possible response to US aggression. All available data (travel, real estate in Florida and Arizona, booze, general imports) suggest that elbows are still very much up across the country. I think a cross-border raid would be met by a vigorous counter-push. Heck, the armed forces are leading the way by planning to have 300,000 extra reserves on hand. That spells civilian defence force to me.
I think you all doth protest too much. Trips to the US are only down something like thirty percent. I don’t like to acknowledge it either but I think you underestimate how many people on this side of the border would happily join Trumplandia.
I can't say exactly how broad the sentiment is. But here in Calgary, we do hear lots of folks who would take Trumps side over Canada's. Those voices are no doubt amplified by social media, but I have been surprised at the number of people who still harbor so much grievances.
That just goes to prove that Albertans are 100% Canadian. In what other country do you hear people who are prone to bitching 24/7 365 days of the year. In fact Canadians never seem to be happy unless they can complain about something. Its right up there with Hockey as a national past time.
I think we need some opinion polling on the views of the "Canadian public" before we will see whether fidelity to what is said to be international law, will overwhelm the impression that Maduro is a bad guy who deserves what he gets. As for the freedom convoy...I myself wondered at the time how long the US would tolerate an interference with trade over an international bridge, before taking action.
In which way does Paul misread the Canadian public? Please do tell.
Thanks 007
The situation in the US is exceptionally bad, more so than I think a lot of Canadians realize. A cross-border raid by US Special Forces to kidnap and/or kill Canadians citizens is absolutely within the realm of plausibility now, and there would be very little we could do about it if it came to pass.
I'm not sure there's a realistic strategy for dealing with this situation, other than waiting quietly for the midterms and hoping for the best after that. But if the US really intends not only to monetize its hegemony, but also to use the joint threat of military and economic force to achieve full-scale continental sovereignty, then that's a scenario for which strategies do need to be made right now -- regardless of how much difference they might ultimately make.
There is still no pipeline to the Northern BC coast. No pipeline to get Western Canadian oil to central Canada and the Atlantic provinces. No pipeline to get Western Canadian natural gas to the east coast to get LNG to Europe (who are dependent on American, Qatari, and Russian LNG). Trump has made the Carney's carbon capture expansion of the oil sands industry uneconomic in the long term with his control of Venezuelan oil. But we still need the BC pipeline because over time Venezuelan oil can displace Canadian oil in the US market completely. The Laurentian establishment that has ruled Canada forever has left us weak and vulnerable. America's increasingly dominant position over the oil and natural gas that Europe and ASEAN need, the exact partners Canada needs to diversify, but to whom we are unable to deliver oil and LNG, making them dependent on the US, means our situation is pretty bleak.
I’d be more concerned about the Laurentian elites hiding under your bed.
To match the MapleMaga's currently kidding under yours.
Given that the Trump Administration has no problem killing U.S. residents, Canadians should not feel safe at the chaos metastasizing in my country just south of your border. But the more likely (insidious?) scenario, is Washington supporting right-wing separatism in Alberta in the name of resource extraction and ideological, with apologies to Premier Smith, brotherhood.
This idea might shock some people in some parts of the country, including in this very comment thread, but there are some problems bigger and more important than oil and gas pipelines. Indeed, there are some problems that a pipeline can't fix.
A shocking concept, I know.
Brodie is a quisling. I am a Canadian living in the states, and he has no idea how bad Trump is. The only limit now on his evil is his stupidity and incompetence. Luckily, many Americans are outraged and he will lose the House and maybe the Senare (if he doesn’t steal the election). In the meantime, Brodie can stick it where the sun don’t shine.
I may be hopelessly naive, but I truly believe Carney has avoided a direct confrontation with Trump because he wishes to avoid a scenario such as you lay out. I would hope he alters his approach faced with direct American belligerence. Other than that I loved your piece.
I just read a headline that the prime minister has more trust from Canadians than in the last 15 years...once again I'm out of step. This iteration of the Liberals has me very uneasy, it's particularly...adaptable to shifting, should I say, "values".
" not fans of Govt over reach": yet on the flip side, many were more than happy to see our Govt " over reach" in the way they viciously went after the head of a woman guilty of public mischief.
Viciously applying due process.
The key word is "Viciously".
Good thing it wasn't murder.
Trump is a mendacious and deceitful individual - more like a mafia don than a statesman. But, remember, it was the highly principled Jimmy Carter who propounded the “Carter doctrine”, that provided the justification the use of force to protect US interests (oil) in the middle east So, I’m not sure that we should dwell too much on the purported motivation of the president - especially this one.
The practical question is: what extraterritorial action can a nation X get away with, and what costs is the other country prepared to absorb, or to impose, in response. Which is not really a “legal question”. It’s a political and economic one, involving the balance of power and deterrence.
Moreover, countries taking unilateral actions against people beyond their borders is hardly a new phenomenon. That is how Eichman was kidnapped and brought back to Isreal for trial (and execution); and it is also how Israel dealt with the murderers of their Olympic athletes and a rogues’ gallery of Islamic radicals (no trials in those cases). Just like the US did, with Osama bin Laden or Qasem Soleimani. And it is how the British dealt with some alleged IRA members in Gibraltar.
And, yes, Russia killed people whom it regarded as traitors, even if they were living in the UK. Nor is that new - for Russia. See Sergei Plokhy’s tale of KGB activity in the 1960s: The Man with the Poison Gun.
And, yes, I think that India looked at the way that Canada has provided a safe haven for the Sikh “terrorists” who orchestrated the Air India bombing (329 deaths) and it decided that retribution was necessary.
In the real world, therefore, extra-judicial killing is hardly a novelty; and bringing Maduro to the US, for trial, is not even that. So we will just have to wait and see how Maduro is treated. Not least because trial in a US court raises some challenges for Trump, depending on how it is conducted. Just like Epstein’s trial would have done (I couldn’t resist).
But its seems to me that it is unhelpful to ponder “international law”, which is decidedly toothless.
For example, consider what Canada was prepared to do, or not do, when the US said Meng Wanzou was a “criminal”, who should be sent to the US for trial for breaching US law, and China said otherwise.
Similarly, I wonder what the US would have done if the Canadian government had refused to end the 2022 blockade of the Ambassador Bridge (it’s an “international bridge” after all) which was interrupting millions of dollars worth of daily international trade.
And would the Canadian response have been different if the blockade had been in support of some aboriginal claim – as it was for the weeks long blockade of a railway in Ontario in 2020? And would the US care?
The problem with all of this reflection and genuflection about “the rule of law”, is the seeming variability of its application; and its collision with real politick.
Trump has hedged his position with the Laurentian establishment. Carney's Brookfield options will do fine over time.
The US government signed an $80 billion strategic partnership with Westinghouse Electric Company in October 2025 to build new nuclear reactors using AP1000 technology, primarily to power AI data centers and meet rising electricity demand. Westinghouse, owned by Canadian firms Brookfield (51%) and Cameco (49%), will construct reactors with US government support for financing, permitting, and supply chains.
Look at what the Laurentian establishment does, not what they say.
The view from the Ottawa bubble.....
Given all the chaos Trump has generated, both in the US and abroad, I really don't think Canada will come into his crosshairs for quite a while . Full blown trade war with the whole world, invasion of Venezuela, ICE raids all over the US, the war in Ukraine, relations with China, ''affordability'' etc etc... and last but not least, the Epstein files. Add to that list his intention to take Greenland, perhaps Cuba, to launch direct armed incursions into Mexico to deal with the drug cartels.
That's quite a to do list for a guy who apparently is in bad physical shape, has touble staying awake during meetings, and notably, who has surrounded himself with a clown car of incompetent sycophants.
No need to panic, but an urgent need to get our house in order : diversifying export markets, rapidly beefing up our armed forces, seriously promoting internal trade, getting more oil and gas to tidewater.
No need either to get into a bad trade deal with the US, we didn't have one for most of our history, we can live without one until sanity returns south of the border, if ever.