Experts are coming to a consensus: Iran is the winner.

Big time.

One of Canada’s best-known foreign policy experts, Janice Stein of the Munk School of Global Affairs, put it plain as day on the CBC with host, Adrienne Arsenault.

Subscribe now

“Adrienne, this is a very fragile ceasefire,” said Stein. “In a situation like this, it seems clear that both sides already kind of claim wins of sorts, but what sort of position does this leave the U.S. and Israel in, and then Iran?”

“This is, frankly Adrienne, just a huge strategic defeat for the United States,” said Stein.

Watch the interview:

Here are some of her main points:

• The ceasefire is fragile and uncertain, as missile exchanges between Iran and Israel continued post-announcement.

• Iran exercises military control over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route, marking a significant strategic shift.

• Iran now controls about 20% of the world’s oil and LNG supplies, giving it significant leverage to influence global energy markets, including the ability to disrupt or enable supply flows through the Strait of Hormuz.

• The United States and Israel face significant strategic setbacks: Iran now controls the Strait of Hormuz, and none of the U.S. or Israel’s primary objectives (limiting Iran’s uranium enrichment, missile production, or proxy support) were achieved.

• Iran’s position is strengthened, with its foreign minister emphasizing that safe passage through the Strait will occur only through coordination with Iranian armed forces, effectively confirming Iran’s control.

American political scientist Robert Pape goes ever further. He says Iran now takes its place as the fourth most powerful country in the world.

“Iran is far stronger than it was just 40 days ago. It is in control of 20% of the world’s oil. It is now an emerging fourth center of power. … The United States is on one side, and the rivals are China, Russia and now Iran,” Pape told Democracy Now.

Will Canada be asked to send troops, now that there is a ceasefire?

As PeaceQuest readers know, Canada has pledged to send a combination of ships, surveillance aircraft, and support personnel, “predicated on the notion that there will be a ceasefire,” according to Canada’s defence minister. Other European countries have promised the same.

With a ceasefire in place, as fragile as it is, how will Canada and others respond to Trump’s demands for help?

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte told European governments that the U.S. President wants concrete commitments within days to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, diplomats said on Thursday, as the alliance faces U.S. threats to leave.

Britain and Germany say they will send ships, but only with a permanent ceasefire (emphasis added.) Germany wants the mission to have a UN mandate, as well.

Pressure is sure to mount on Canada to send ships, planes and troops if the ceasefire holds. Prime Minister Mark Carney was quick to say that the ceasefire must include Lebanon as well, ending Israel’s relentless bombings this week that have killed hundreds.

No matter who the experts think has won or lost, peace activists know there are no winners, and the losers are the thousands who have died in Iran and throughout the region, and the millions who face energy and fertilizer shortages – especially in Asia.

If you found this interesting or informative, please like or share.

Share

Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)

Leave a comment

Last week’s poll results

Last week we looked at the NDP’s new federal leader; Avi Lewis. In particular, his policies opposed to huge increases to military spending, which will severely threaten social programs.

In previous articles we have discussed the public’s support for military spending increases, according to polls.

In light of this, I asked you, “Is opposing PM Carney’s military spending boost a wise political move for the NDP?”

More people than usual took the poll, with over 4-out-of-5 people (86%) saying they thought it was a good political move for the NDP to oppose PM Carney’s military spending boost. Some said no (6%) and the remainder were unsure or didn’t know (9%).

Read comments

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

PeaceQuest

Can Avi Lewis defeat the “Defence” Lobby?

If you follow defence politics, you’ll know the NDP has never opposed big increases to military spending…

Read more

8 days ago · 12 likes · 4 comments · Steve Staples

Viewed 1.9k times

Now that may be about to change.

Avi Lewis was elected Leader of the New Democratic Party last weekend on a platform that included ambitious new public social programs, environmental policies, and more fair tax policies.

But one of his policies stands out the most for me: his opposition to Prime Minister Carney’s planned quadrupling of Canada’s military spending to meet NATO’s 5% of GDP for defence spending target.

(Full disclosure: Avi Lewis’ team reached out to me early in his leadership for input to his campaign).

Subscribe now

A new direction for the NDP on military spending?

The NDP has been the “anti-war party” consistently on matters of foreign policy: ending the war in Afghanistan, rejecting U.S. missile defence, calling for nuclear disarmament, and blocking arms sales to Israel and others.

But past NDP leaders from Jack Layton to Jagmeet Singh have supported successive military budget boosts, massively overpriced warships, and have been generally absent on the F-35 boondoggle (read Brad Lavigne’s excellent book to learn why).

That’s what makes Lewis’ leadership so unique, right out of the starting gate.

Media reaction to Lewis’ “left-wing” victory

The media has been saying plenty about Avi Lewis’ election as the new leader of the struggling federal New Democratic Party: his famous family, his left-wing policies, and his party’s public divisions. But some of the coverage has been downright dismissive.

In response, Lewis has pointed out the media has been pressing him on his progressive policies, asking “How are you going to pay for it?” while hardly challenging the Carney government’s planned quadrupling of military spending.

“Let’s ask Mark Carney how he’s going to fund half a trillion dollars of military investments in the next decade because he announced a defence industrial strategy earlier this month and I haven’t heard a single reporter ask him how he’s going to pay for it,” Avi Lewis said to CBC’s Jayme Poisson.

One of the best interviews that covers this topic was on our favourite podcast, CBC’s Front Burner.

Here are a few quotes from Avi Lewis on the program earlier this week:

“[A national network of publicly-owned grocery stores will require] from the federal government $300 million a year. One half of 1% of our current defence budget versus half-a-trillion dollars of proposed new military spending in the Prime Minister’s defence industrial strategy. Who is getting asked questions about whether or not we can afford it? Of course, we can afford it.”

“I’m not a kumbaya singing peacenik. I believe that Canada needs a military; a modern military which is well equipped. On the other hand, just this year we have poured tens of billions of dollars willy-nilly into the defence budget just to meet an arbitrary target that we did not meet for many, many, many years, and still were able to be members of NATO.”

“Suddenly Donald Trump started calling people to the carpet and Carney arrives and suddenly we’re making the 2% [GDP] with three-quarters of our defence spending going directly to the United States…three-quarters of that money directly to the arms companies of the country that is threatening to annex us.”

“We have to be serious with Canadians about where this money is going, what it’s paying for, and how it makes us safer. And I don’t see the even a value proposition offered, just an arbitrary target and a fountain of public dollars in the immediate short term and going forward into the next decade without a clear map or a drawing or a sketch even of what it’s supposed to get us that’s going to make us so much safer.”

• Listen to the entire interview on CBC’s Front Burner, which aired March 31, 2026

If you found this interesting or informative, please like or share.

Share

Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)

Leave a comment

Last week’s poll results

Last week, PeaceQuest looked at Canada’s military commitments to the war in the Persian Gulf, and the government’s caveat that troops will only be sent in the event of a ceasefire. I asked readers, “Should Canada send troops to the Middle East, only following a ceasefire?”

Two-thirds said that even with a ceasefire, Canada should not send troops (66%), while one quarter agreed it was OK (25%).

Reader comments:

• “Let Trump and Israel clean up their own bloody mess.” - C. Kobayashi

• “A condition of my response to send troops is if a ceasefire is brokered Canada would be clear that we are working on an impartial basis to ensure non violence is maintained while negotiations occur.” - T. Dunn

• “No - [it’s] an unjust/ immoral war to change the news from his scandals.” - D. Hall

• “No troops to Iran. Canada has long stood for peaceful negotiations to end war.” - H. Hannah

Read more

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.37k times

But there is a catch

In last week’s PeaceQuest newsletter, we looked at the evolution of Canada’s policy on Trump’s unprovoked and illegal war on Iran, with enthusiastic help from Israel.

From initial support of the U.S.-led war, to promises of not being involved in the fighting, and then a willingness to send military forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz – it’s clear Canada is now ready to commit sailors, soldiers or pilots.

Subscribe now

The narrow Strait of Hormuz was closed by Iran after it was attacked by the United Sates and Israel, choking off 20% of the world’s oil and gas supply.

But – and this is a big “but” – Prime Minister Carney says Canada will only join the mission alongside NATO allies and others if there is a ceasefire between the United States, Israel and Iran.

“There are conversations with our NATO partners — some NATO partners — concerning what we can do with a ceasefire, at the moment there is a ceasefire, in order to restore the movement of vessels,” Carney told reporters Thursday in French. “That’s the conversation. These are ongoing conversations,” he added.

The conversation is likely the one initiated by France involving 35 nations. President Emmanuel Macron, who has suggested having a U.N. framework for any action in the strait, has said international efforts could only happen once hostilities calm, insurance and shipping firms are consulted and with Iran’s consent.

What would Canada contribute militarily?

Canada’s military force would include a combination of ships, surveillance aircraft, and support personnel.

Speaking to CBC, Canada’s Defence Minister said, “Vessels, de-mining expertise, intelligence, cyber capacities — these are all on the table as we share this knowhow with our counterparts to see what is the best way to go forward,” he said. “But again, this is predicated on the notion that there will be a ceasefire.”

Shades of Ukraine’s Coalition of the Willing

The French initiative for an international force after the fighting stops echoes another European initiative for Ukraine.

Canada has also joined the “Coalition of the Willing” – a group of nations (without the United States) pledging readiness to be part of a peacekeeping force deployed on Ukrainian territory the moment Ukraine and Russia sign a “comprehensive ceasefire agreement” or “peace deal” to settle the war.

If you found this interesting or informative, please like or share.

Share

Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)

Leave a comment

Last week’s poll results

Last week we looked at polling that showed three-quarters of Canadians being opposed to sending troops to the Middle East. In the context of troops being sent, nevertheless, I asked, “Might public support change if troops are committed to the Middle East?”

Two-thirds (66%) of readers felt with troops in harm’s way, public opinion would be more opposed to Canada’s presence in the midst of hostilities. One-in-ten (8%) felt it might increase support for Canada’s presence, and an equal number (9%) felt it would make no change.

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 2.23k times

The latest indication is a joint statement expressing concern about Iran’s restriction of oil tankers through the narrow Strait of Hormuz signed by Prime Minister Mark Carney and NATO allies late in the week.

The statement says:

“We express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait. We welcome the commitment of nations who are engaging in preparatory planning.”

- Joint statement from the leaders of Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Japan on the Strait of Hormuz

Is PM Carney sending contradictory messages intentionally?

The Carney government seems to be delivering pro-war messages intended for the bellicose Trump administration, and anti-war messages intended for Parliament and the Canadian public which is opposed to sending troops.

For instance, after the Prime Minister refused to rule out sending troops, his Foreign Affairs Minister took a different stance. “We were not consulted in advance about these operations, and we have no intention of joining them (emphasis added),” Minister Anita Anand told Parliamentary last week.

Now, the government is now expressing its, “readiness to contribute.”

Trump Vs. the Canadian public

The government finds itself caught between Canadian public opinion and the Trump Administration.

New data from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute shows three-quarters of Canadians (74%) say Canada’s military should not be involved in this conflict, with one-in-ten (10%) disagreeing. Another 15 per cent take no position.

The greatest opposition comes from Liberal voters (88% opposed). Even a majority of Conservative voters are against sending troops (61% opposed).

But the joint statement signed by Canada and others committed to helping prevent Iran from obstructing tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz was clearly in response to a blistering attack on NATO by President Trump posted on social media.

“The United States has been informed by most of our NATO ‘Allies’ that they don’t want to get involved with our Military Operation against the Terrorist Regime of Iran, in the Middle East,” the social media post read. “We no longer ‘need’ or desire, the NATO Countries’ assistance — WE NEVER DID!”

Two days later, Trump got the backing of Canada and NATO allies he demanded.

What might Canada’s involvement look like?

Defence Minister David McGuinty said this week that Canada is “considering” aiding Iran’s neighbours to defend themselves, if they seek assistance from the NATO alliance.

My guess is Canada will try to frame its military commitment as supporting allied Gulf States in defending themselves from illegal attacks from Iran – while not participating in the U.S. and Israeli campaign itself.

This way Prime Minister Carney can argue he is not technically joining the illegal war on Iran, but is operating within international law to defend an allied country, and any Canadians living there.

One possible country might be Qatar. The Prime Minister affirmed the importance of protecting the security and territorial sovereignty of Qatar and regional partners in a call with Amir of Qatar His Highness Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani on March 9.

In terms of military equipment, some commentators such as Scott Taylor have said that Canada would have little to contribute.

But Canada might emulate the Australian government which announced on March 10 it would send an early-warning reconnaissance aircraft to the Middle East.

Troops in harm’s way may shift public opinion

While Canadians are opposed today, with troops in harm’s way public opinion could shift.

A generational ago, “supporting the troops” was a central argument to back Canada’s military involvement in Afghanistan. The Carney government might try so again to appease the Trump administration in Washington, and overcome public opposition at home.

If you found this interesting or informative, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)

Leave a comment

Most say Canada on the wrong track with Iran war

Last week we reviewed the political positions of the government and opposition parties about Iran. I asked you, “Is Canada on the right track or wrong track in its approach to the war on Iran?”

Three-out-of-four readers felt that Canada is on the wrong track (72%), while many others (20%) said Canada is on the right track. The remainder said they didn’t know or were unsure (8%).

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.43k times

The attacks launched on Iran by the United States and Israel has engulfed at least 15 countries, and there is no sign of slowing down.

The death toll is rising, including more than 100 school girls killed by what was almost certainly a U.S. cruise missile. Nearly a million people are displaced in Lebanon. The global economy is being impacted greatly by rising energy prices.

Here is a summary of the positions taken by Canada’s political parties at the “take note” debate (where there is no vote) on Monday evening.

Subscribe now

Liberal Party

Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand called on all countries involved to respect international law, and stressed Iran must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon or threaten international peace and security.

“We did not participate in the recent military strikes carried out by the United States and Israel. We were not consulted in advance about these operations, and we have no intention of joining them. At the same time, Iran must never obtain nuclear weapons and grow its arsenal of missiles that represent a serious threat to international peace and security,” she said.

“The U.S. strikes come as a result of a failure of the international order. This [support] is not a blank cheque. Canada reaffirms that international law binds all parties, including the United States and Israel.”

Conservative Party

Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre criticized the Liberals for not being clear in their support for the U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran.

“We as Conservatives make it clear that it is in our national interest that the regime in Iran, which has infiltrated our country, murdered at least 55 of our citizens, and harassed countless others, be removed. That is why I supported the Prime Minister’s initial support of the U.S. and Israeli air strikes,” he said.

Bloc Québécois

Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet agreed with the government’s aims of preventing Iran’s nuclear program, but the focus for the government should be to alleviate the war’s impact on the economy and people of Canada and Quebec.

“Above all, the Prime Minister must do three things: relaunch tariff and trade negotiations, deploy short-term measures to support the economy and people’s needs, and stand firm by partnering with other middle powers to save as many lives as possible during this war, which is no reality TV show. It is a war and people are dying,” he said.

Green Party

Green Party leader Elizabeth May called for everyone to overcome partisan divisions, and put international law front and centre of Canada’s policy.

“No one will disagree, I do not think, that the Iranian regime is a despicable and brutal regime that oppresses, suppresses and kills its own people. However, that does not mean that the United States and Israel had any legal grounds to bomb Tehran. That was reckless and dangerous, and we will continue to see the consequences, maybe into generations,” said Elizabeth May.

New Democratic Party

Interim party leader Don Davies said the attack on Iran was outside international law, and that the government can’t logically and ethically acknowledge that a war is illegal, but continue to support it and refuse to rule out participation in that very illegality.

“New Democrats are calling on the government to take three clear positions immediately: Condemn the war and explicitly recognize it violates the UN charter, categorically rule out any Canadian military participation and call for an immediate ceasefire and a return to multilateral diplomacy,” he said.

If you found this interesting or informative, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)

Leave a comment

Most think PM Carney will keep troops out of Iran war

Last week’s newsletter looked at the shifting pronouncements from Prime Minister Carney about the U.S. and Israeli unprovoked attacks on Iran. After being quick to endorse their actions, the Prime Minister attempted to walk-back his support by saying that war was, “inconsistent with international law.” But he did not rule out sending Canadian troops.

I asked readers if you think Prime Minister Carney will keep Canadian troops out of the war on Iran? Nearly half of respondents did not offer an opinion either way, choosing “don’t know/unsure” (42%). Of the remaining, slightly more readers said troops will be kept out of the war (32%) than those who thought troops will be sent (26%).

• “If NATO countries are attacked during the debacle, it will be very difficult for Carny to keep Canadian troops out of this conflict.” - J. Carmichael

• “Can you tell what your mutual funds represent?” - S. Walke

Read more comments

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.6k times

In fact, it seems Prime Minister Carney is ready to embrace the “end of the international rules-based order” rather than oppose it – thanks to the confusing and contradictory statements by the Canadian government following the U.S.’s and Israel’s attacks on Iran last Saturday.

Subscribe now

As the first American and Israeli bombs fell on Iran, the Prime Minister’s office rushed out a statement endorsing Trump’s attack: “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”

Plenty of people expressed dismay over Carney’s full-throated backing of unprovoked attacks without United Nation’s approval, the kind of power-flexing that Carney derided in his famous speech at Davos, Switzerland.

Former Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy responded incredulously; “We are embracing the very doctrine we used to reject.”

Watch Lloyd Axworthy’s response on CBC TV

Comparing our policy on Ukraine, he said, “The double standard is obvious: when Russia uses force without lawful grounds, it is condemned as an outlaw; when the U.S. does something legally analogous, we kowtow in an effort to curry favour.”

Using the pages of the Toronto Star, Axworthy wrote, “Parliament should urgently debate Canada’s position: the legal basis, the implications for our Ukraine policy, our obligations to the Iranian people and how to build an independent security strategy.

Axworthy similarly opposed Carney’s decision to join Trump’s Golden Dome missile defence scheme, establishing the former Chretien-era Minister as the voice of Liberal conscience.

The restive Liberal caucus

Carney’s own MPs are asking questions, too, and demanded a briefing with officials on Friday.

Victoria’s Will Greaves MP said, “Canada cannot endorse the unilateral and illegal use of military force, the killing of civilians or the kidnap and assassination of foreign heads of government while also insisting that our sovereignty, our fights and our independence must be protected,” in a video he posted to social media.

Prime Minister Carney tried to tamp down the controversy by walking back some of his earlier comments, qualifying his support for Trump’s attacks is “not a blank cheque.” But his position became even more muddled when he refused to rule out contributing Canadian troops.

“Absurdly contradictory,” said one Globe and Mail commentator. “Embarrassing” said another.

Canada won’t be able to remain on the sidelines for long

NATO forces intercepted an Iranian missile headed for Turkey, inching the military alliance deeper into the conflict. UK fighter jets are running defensive operations from Qatar and Cyprus to shoot down any incoming drones and missiles.

“We are not talking about participating (in the U.S.’s) Epic Fury, per se,” said Canada’s top General. “This is not a mission that we are considering. However, our Gulf partners may require defence and support, so, within that context, these would be the types of military options that we could consider.”

Watch for Canadian troops being dispatched to the Middle East in the days to come.

If you found this interesting or informative, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)

Leave a comment

Most readers say F-35 media coverage one-sided

Last week PeaceQuest featured new research by The Maple that studied 55 articles from CBC News, The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and National Post. It found that champions of the F-35 fighter jet deal between Canada and the United States were quoted 41% more often than critics.

I asked you and other readers if the media covers multiple viewpoints fairly on military issues like the F-35 fighters. One-in-four said, “No” (24%) and disagreed that media coverage is fair, with even more disagreeing strongly (61%).

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.5k times

“CBC’s David Common goes to Luke Air Force Base in Arizona…,” said the CBC report. “When it comes to pilots training in the air, it’s politics aside and off the radar.”

Politics aside? The uber expensive F-35 aircraft is being foisted upon Canada by an American President intent on ruining our economy… of course it’s political.

Why does it often feels like the media is not reporting fairly on the controversial F-35?

A new report published by The Maple sheds important light on the question of media fairness.

The Maple’s analysis finds that Canada’s major media outlets have given disproportionately favourable coverage to proponents of buying American F-35 fighter jets, compared with critics.

Since Prime Minister Mark Carney announced a review of the controversial F-35 deal—which originally would have seen Canada purchase 88 jets from Lockheed Martin—The Maple analyzed 55 articles from CBC News, The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and National Post. It found that champions of the deal were quoted 41% more often than critics.

Reporter and researcher Emma Paling asked me my opinion about her findings. I told her that the result was not surprising:

“You just can’t underestimate the power of the defence lobby to mobilize experts, academic researchers that they fund, military leaders who hope to retire early and work for defence contractors at some point, or even just ideologically aligned people in government or in the national security establishment who really have a great allegiance to working closely with the United States.”

Paling notes that many of those quoted in favour of the F-35 deal are current or former military personnel, defence think-tank associates (some with industry funding) or Lockheed Martin affiliates.

In the articles, 22 of the quoted individuals spoke 41 times in favour of Canada going through with the full order from Lockheed Martin.

Six of those quoted are current or former members of the military, six work for Lockheed Martin or one of its F-35 program suppliers, and four are associated with think-tanks that have received funding from Lockheed Martin.

One of the former military officials, former chief of defence staff Tom Lawson, previously consulted for Lockheed Martin a year after leaving the military, according to his LinkedIn page.

Sources who were categorized as against or critical of the deal included Saab’s CEO, who stands to benefit if Canada orders fighter jets from his company instead, and findings by the Auditor General, who is neutral but whose studies into the costs of the F-35 purchase were often cited in criticisms of the deal.

Bomb truck

I told Paling, “It’s a bomb truck. That’s what it is. It’s designed to go in over the beaches… to deliver bombs to its target,” and added, “I know some have argued that it has other support roles…, but really that’s its main purpose, and it’s really not something that we need.”

• Read “Canadian Media Gives American Fighter Jets More Favourable Coverage” by Emma Paling, published by The Maple on February 24, 2026

Subscribe now

Readers divided on jobs and human rights

Opinions are divided over whether we can have jobs in the defence industry while respecting human rights. Last week PeaceQuest looked at PM Carney’s plan to boost arms exports by 50%, and the challenge of preventing weapons from being sold to countries that don’t respect human right.

Half of PeaceQuest readers had faith in the Prime Minister, with 40% saying they strongly agreed and 10% somewhat agreed that, “PM Carney can create jobs while ensuring arms aren’t sold to countries that violate human rights.” A nearly equal number did not share that optimism, with 33% strongly disagreeing and 13% somewhat disagreeing.

Readers comments

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 2k times

“In total, the Defence Industrial Strategy is an investment of over half a trillion dollars in Canadian security, economic prosperity, and our sovereignty,” he announced this week, promising to create over 125 thousand “high-paying careers” building weapons and otherwise supplying the Canadian military, while increasing exports of military goods by a whopping 50 per cent.

Last Fall in Ottawa, Senators asked me if there was any downside to PM Careny’s military build-up. “I don’t think we want a big defence industrial base in Canada, and here’s why: What happens when those production lines end?” I asked the Senate committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs.

“[The contracts] are good for a while, but then they come to an end and there are only two options left for those companies: first, come back to the Canadian government and get another contract to keep building things that we may not even need; and, second, exports.”

The peril of military exports

It’s the second option – military exports – that is the soft underbelly of the government’s big military build-up plan.

Most countries that purchase Canadian military goods are supporting their own industries, just like Canada is doing. Those governments will want to favour their own industries rather than buying from Canada.

For instance, the United States buys roughly half of all Canadian military exports, such as ammunition, components parts, training services, and in some cases, full weapons systems such as light armoured vehicles and helicopters.

But Trump’s entire “Buy America” strategy of tariffs is meant to decrease imports from Canada and others. Military goods won’t be received any friendlier that our cars.

OK, so if our NATO allies are less inclined to import from Canada – where else will Canada find weapons buyers? The answer seems to be countries at war and with weak commitments to human rights.

The latest government report on our defence exports, released in June, shows $2.5-billion in arms exports to countries outside the United States in 2024, including to states with troubling human rights records and those engaged in active conflicts.

Saudi Arabia and Israel

Our friends at Project Ploughshares note that Canada’s arms exports to Saudi Arabia, which are largely, but not exclusively, light armoured vehicles (LAVs) made in Ontario, have faced intense scrutiny.

“This is not only due to the Saudi government’s troubling human rights record, but also because of Saudi Arabia’s deployment of Canadian LAVs in the Yemeni civil war, a conflict that resulted in the deaths of an estimated 377,000 people,” said a Ploughshares report last year.

Peace, human rights and solidarity groups have been trying to reign in flow of Canadians arms to conflicts around the world – especially to Israel. Israel’s brutal counterattack on Hamas following its October 7, 2023 massacre has destroyed most of Gaza and killed tens of thousands of Palestinians. Intense pressure has been brought on the Canadian government, as PeaceQuest readers will know from previous articles:

NDP finds political allies in effort to reign in U.S. military exports

Jenny Kwan MP (Vancouver East) has introduced a private member’s bill aimed at military exports to the U.S., and she is winning wide support for the NDP’s efforts to bring greater oversight to arms exports.

This month former high ranking Liberal Cabinet Ministers Lloyd Axworthy and Allan Rock used The Globe and Mail to throw their support behind the “End the Loopholes” Act, arguing Canadians deserve transparency about where our weapons go and how they are used.

Bill C-233, “An Act to Amend the Export and Import Permits Act,” proposes changes to Canada’s arms export controls, specifically regarding transfers to the U.S. Nearly all Canadian military exports to the U.S. currently proceed without an export permit.

• Learn more about Bill C-233

“Addressing this gap is especially urgent because of Donald Trump’s military recklessness,” Axworthy and Rock wrote.

“American forces have violated international law repeatedly. Mr. Trump has also deployed troops and armed ICE agents to American cities, resulting in violence and loss of life. We ought not to be sending military gear to Mr. Trump’s America without assurance that it will not be used unlawfully.”

As Axworthy and Rock say, Parliament now faces a clear choice: maintain an outdated exemption that undermines Canada’s credibility, or adopt a modern, principled system that reflects our commitments and responsibilities.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)

Leave a comment

Readers want Canada to help Cuba

Last week we talked about the awful impact of Trump’s oil embargo on Cuba. The poll garnered 175 votes – possibly the highest ever for PeaceQuest. Overwhelmingly (99%) readers said Canada should send aid to Cuba, despite the risk of Trump’s retribution.

Readers comments

• “I am concerned to hear endless comments about getting tourists safely back, with so little concern about what will happen to Cubans themselves.” - B. Gombay

• “I was a student at U of T in the 1960s and had joined the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Then, as now, we were pushing back against U.S. imperialism.” - G. Doctorow

• “This a perfect reason why all countries, especially vulnerable developing countries should receive our assistance in setting up solar power generating facilities.” - J. & D. Mayba

Read more comments

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.97k times

The island nation of 10 million people and longtime friend of Canada is enduring a new level of pain inflicted by Trump’s oil embargo.

Around 80 per cent of Cuba’s energy is generated using oil, and Trump has cut off the supply from Venezuela since taking control of its government, causing a massive shortage.

“If I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned at least a little bit,” warned Secretary of State Marco Rubio last month, who has had a long preoccupation with both Venezuela and Cuba.

A poll by Leger Marketing published in January states that 51 per cent of Canadians think Cuba could come under American attack. By the way, the same poll found 31 per cent of Canadians think that the U.S. might invade Canada.

Mexico defies U.S. aggression

In late January President Trump signed an executive order that would impose a tariff on any goods from countries that sell or provide oil to Cuba, a move that could further cripple an island plagued by a deepening energy crisis.

But Mexico has defied the Trump administration. Two Mexican navy ships docked on Thursday laden with humanitarian aid as part of its efforts to support Cuba amid the deepening crisis – just two weeks after Trump’s tariff threat.

One ship delivered 536 tons of food including milk, rice, beans, sardines, meat products, cookies, canned tuna and vegetable oil, as well as personal hygiene items. The other carried just over 277 tons of powdered milk, according to the Mexican government.

Mexico is a long-time oil supplier to Cuba. Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, said on Thursday that her government was seeking diplomatic measures to allow the country to resume sending oil to Cuba, but emphasized that as soon as the ships return, “we will send more support of different kinds.”

Should Canada send aid to Cuba?

Canada has stood by the Communist government of Cuba since the days of the Cold War, distinguishing itself from the Americans’ aggressive policy.

In 1976 Pierre Trudeau became the first leader of a NATO country to visit Cuba — again despite significant pressure from Washington.

In addition to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians providing vital tourism dollars to the Cuban economy, Sherritt International Inc., a Toronto-based mining and power production company, has three decades of close ties to the Caribbean island. The Canadian company warned this week that its nickel and cobalt mining operations there could be forced to shut down amid the crisis.

There are many ways that Canada could help people struggling in Cuba. Economist Jim Stanford says:

First, Carney should express principled opposition to Trump’s attacks — against both Cuba, and any neutral third parties caught in his crossfire.

Second, he should join other Latin American countries in a united defence of free commerce in the Caribbean and throughout the hemisphere.

Third, we should expand our bilateral commercial, investment, and humanitarian ties with Cuba.

“Food and medical products are the most significant ways of assistance that Canada could provide now,” writes John Kirk Contributor, a professor emeritus of Latin American Studies, Dalhousie University. “Official bilateral aid would now help offset the looming humanitarian crisis.” Support could come from Canadian churches and unions.

Testing Prime Minister Carney’s Davos speech

There will be voices inside the Canadian government seeking to avoid drawing further ire from Trump. But if we are to accept the premise of the Prime Minister’s speech in Davos, then Canada should join with Mexico to help Cuba.

“The middle powers must act together,” Prime Minister Carney said to great applause. “Because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.”

Helping Cuba, as we have done in the past, would be an important humanitarian mission, and demonstrate our sovereignty to act independently of the United States.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)

Leave a comment

Most readers not worried about consequences from challenging Trump

Two weeks ago I asked if you were worried about the potential consequences of Canada challenging Trump. At the time we were talking about CEOs in Canada arguing to “go along to get along” with Trump.

Two-out-of-three readers answered, “No” they were not worried about consequences of challenging the U.S. administration (66%), slightly more than twice as many of those who said they were worried (26%).

Reader comments

• “There are times when we have to do the right thing regardless of the consequences.” - E. Weins

• “Canada is right to stand up to Trump.”- Hugo

• “Without ethics, the economy is a trap for anyone but the top money-makers.” - S. Walke

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.3k times

Trump and his threats have forced attention back onto the economy, mining critical minerals and building more pipelines. The Carney government seems intent on putting environmental concerns aside as the Prime Minister shifts the economy away from U.S. dependence.

But Maude Barlow has just published an important new book that reminds us that “Earth is not for sale!”

As you may know, I worked for Maude Barlow at the Council of Canadians for many years, both in B.C. and in Ottawa. She’s an amazing though-leader and communicator, so I’m always excited when she publishes a new book.

The book will not be in stores until May, but you can pre-order a copy today from the publisher.

Claim your free copy

I’m ready to send a free copy to every new PeaceQuest paid subscriber during February. Support PeaceQuest by becoming a paid subscriber at $5.50 per month or $55 annually, and claim your free copy of Maude Barlow’s “Earth for Sale: The Fight to Stop The Last Plunder of the Planet.” That a $39 value with tax and shipping.

Subscribe now

If you are already a paid subscriber - thank you for supporting peace education. Consider giving a gift subscription of PeaceQuest’s weekly articles to a colleague, friend or family members. You can claim a free copy, too.

Give a gift subscription

Here’s what Maude’s publisher, ECW Press, is saying about her new book

Most agree on the urgent need for climate action, yet we are often divided on how to stop the destruction of the natural world. Earth for Sale exposes the danger of governments giving over this responsibility to powerful private interests, namely the same energy, chemical, agribusiness, and bottled water corporations that brought us to this ecological brink.

Their answer? Put a price on nature and bring it into the market. Under the inviting language of “nature-based solutions” and “ecosystem services,” this financialization and commodification of nature takes many forms: carbon trading; debt-for-nature swaps; water pollution trading; biodiversity credits; green, blue, and wildlife conservation bonds; plastics offsets; water futures; and more.

Renowned activist Maude Barlow, who sounded the alarm decades ago on the corporate assault on water, argues the financialization of nature is dangerous and surprisingly few understand the implications, including many in environmental movements. With detailed examples and meticulous research, Earth for Sale unmasks this insidious new form of corporate plunder. We must not allow the movement to protect nature and biodiversity to be handed over to private interests whose driving motive is, and always has been, profit.

What people are saying about Earth for Sale: The Fight to Stop The Last Plunder of the Planet

“Years ago, Maude Barlow’s book Blue Gold sounded the alarm on corporate theft of the world’s water and launched a powerful global water justice movement. Now, with Earth for Sale, Maude is calling out a new form of corporate plunder, where nature — instead of being protected — has to compete in the global market to survive. This is one of the most important books of our time, and I dearly hope we hear Maude’s call to action once again.” — Jane Fonda, actor and activist

“In Earth for Sale, Maude Barlow sounds the alarm on a new threat: the push to use free markets to solve every environmental problem. These so-called solutions include carbon, plastic and biodiversity offsets and putting a price on every aspect of nature, from whales to water to forests. Building on her prescient earlier warnings about free trade and water privatization, Barlow exposes the staggering insanity of further entrenching the very economic system that is driving ecological collapse. Earth for Sale empowers readers with the knowledge, the motivation and the solutions needed to fight back.” — Dr. David R. Boyd, former UN special rapporteur on the right to a healthy environment

“Elders tell us, in their own words and in their language, about the natural world; we are given instructions from Creator on how to care for it. If not, then balance is lost and we too are lost. In this powerful book, Maude Barlow has given us a strong warning about the ‘financialization of nature’ — the newest corporate assault on Mother Earth. Thankfully, she has also given us sacred instructions on how to care for the forests, soil, other species, air and water. We must all work together and listen to these words. It will take the coming together and the working together, that will help us protect and sustain the gifts of Creator.” — Jesse Cardinal, Cree/Métis, executive director, Keepers of the Water

Did you mis last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.5k times

Much of the country is still buzzing over Carney’s speech in Davos calling for middle-sized countries to band together and resist “American hegemony.” U.S. President Trump was so visibly unhappy, many think PM Carney must have hit the right note.

Yet not everyone agrees with the Prime Minister, and are taking Trump’s side.

The Trump administration admitted this week its top officials have been meeting with leaders of the Alberta successionist group that is driving a referendum to break up Canada. The anti-Canada group wants U.S. funding to back its campaign.

B.C. Premier David Eby put it bluntly: “There’s an old-fashioned word for that, and that word is ‘treason,’” he said. “It is completely inappropriate to seek to weaken Canada, to seek to go and ask for assistance to break up this country from a foreign power and, with respect, a president who has not been particularly respectful of Canada’s sovereignty.”

Canadian CEOs for Trump

You don’t have to go to Alberta to find people who want to cozy-up to Trump. There are plenty “traders” of stocks and bonds on Bay Street who are opposed to PM Carney’s stance.

“Carney is a really smart guy and he said in the United Kingdom during Brexit, it’s really dangerous for the United Kingdom to separate itself from its No. 1 trading partner,” Goldy Hyder, chief executive of the Business Council of Canada, said in an interview with Bloomberg News. “And yet that’s exactly kind of the narrative that came out in Davos, so I don’t know how to square that circle.”

The Business Council represents the CEOs of the six biggest banks, along with top executives from major railways, telecommunications firms, pipeline operators, retailers and manufacturers.

As PeaceQuest readers will recall, the head of Scotiabank said Canada should cash in on Trump’s muscle-flexing in the Americas. “Longer-term, this is a good thing for the Western Hemisphere. It’s a good thing for the U.S. It’s a good thing for the Bank of Nova Scotia,” said Scotiabank’s CEO Scott Thomson to a Bay Street crowd.

It may be going too far to say the CEOs want to break up Canada like the Alberta separatists, but they all share common cause in pursuing their political – and financial – aims through cooperation (or subjugation) to the Trump Administration.

Meanwhile, PM Carney is enjoying a post-Davos bump in approval, according to Angus Reid. PeaceQuest readers seem to be giving a thumbs-up sign, too, given last weekend’s poll results.

Nevertheless, on Friday GM Canada’s layoffs hit their Oshawa assembly plant, putting up to 1,200 autoworkers out of work. As the economy suffers under U.S. tariffs, it’s difficult to predict whether Canadians’ resolve will stay firm in its opposition to Trump.

Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)

Leave a comment

Readers support PM Carney’s Davos speech

Last week we talked about PM Carney’s frank, blunt, but polite, rebuke to global power shifts being created by Trump as the international order and the United Nations are being pushed aside. Carney’s speech in Davos, Switzerland to political and financial leaders has been reprinted widely, including in The Independent (UK) and the New York Times.

By far, PeaceQuest readers said they agreed with PM Carney’s speech, most strongly supported (72%). About one-in-ten did not agree (9%).

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 2k times

PM Mark Carney laid out an alarm-ringing analysis of global affairs this week – and a plan for Canada and other “middle powers” to join together to challenge the U.S. and other behemoths.

His speech at the meeting of political leaders and business CEOs at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, earned a rare standing ovation.

Without naming U.S. President Donald Trump, Carney said “American hegemony” and “great powers” are using economic integration as “weapons.”

“The old order is not coming back,” he said. “We should not mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy. But from the fracture, we can build something better, stronger and more just.” He suggested middle powers like Canada and others band together so they can approach those great powers from a place of strength.

Subscribe now

Political circles in Canada and around the world have been buzzing ever since.

For instance, conservative Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne said, “Mr. Carney crystallized the rebellious mood in the room, giving it meaning, direction and hope.”

Meanwhile lefty Rabble.ca’s columnist Karl Nerenberg wrote, “Carney has unambiguously rallied Canadians, and both their actual and potential friends, to stand firm against Donald Trump and all of his bluster and threats.”

Check this out

If you can spare about 15 minutes right now, it’s worth watching the video of Prime Minister Carney’s speech, unedited.

Here is the transcript if you’d rather read it, but I recommend watching the video to get a better feeling of the vibe and hear the question period that followed.

OK, what do you think?

The speech is getting a lot of reaction. Not everyone agrees with PM Carney’s analysis, or his proposals. Some say he says one thing but does something different. I have some thoughts myself, but I’ll save them for a later.

So, why not leave a comment with your thoughts?

Leave a comment

Leave a comment to explain your vote.

Leave a comment

Most think Trump won’t wreck NATO

In last week’s article we looked at U.S. President Trump’s threats to take over Greenland, and how NATO allies were reacting in Europe. I asked you, “Can NATO ever recover from this period of internal conflict?”

Most people agreed, “Yes, but it will take time” (52%), which is far more than who chose, “No, it’s too late” (14%). A third of people said they didn’t know or were unsure (34%).

Did you miss last week’s article?

Viewed 1.7k times

The foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland met privately with Trump’s top officials this week to discuss Greenland’s future. Afterward, they emerged from the White House and walked slowly to a press conference podium to tell the world that both sides, “agreed to disagree.” Not good, but they will keep talking for now.

The Trump administration has shown no sign of backing down from the President’s assertion that he must control Greenland for the security of the continental U.S., and anything less is unacceptable.

He added ominously that the U.S. annexation of Greenland could be done the easy way, or the hard way.

Subscribe now

Watch this video to learn more about the relationship between the U.S., Denmark and Greenland, produced by DW.

No one’s laughing anymore

Denmark, like Canada, initially took Trump’s ambitions for Greenland as a joke, but not anymore. Trump won’t rule out using military power to get what he wants.

Now the Danish Defense Intelligence Service is warning that the U.S. poses a threat. “The United States uses economic power, including in the form of threats of high tariffs, to enforce its will and no longer excludes the use of military force, even against allies,” it said, in a pointed reference to Washington trying to wrest control of Greenland from Denmark.

Is this the end of NATO?

The NATO military alliance famously threatens would-be adversaries that an attack against one member will bring a response from all.

But nobody seems to have considered what happens in the event of a military conflict between NATO members.

“If the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War,” said Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.

Allies rush troops to Greenland

A handful of NATO countries has quickly patched together a joint military mission for Greenland in response to Trump’s accusation that Greenland is under threat from Russia and China. Germany, Sweden, Norway and France have joined Danish forces in an operation dubbed Operation Arctic Endurance.

Some have wondered what threat Arctic Endurance is meant to address: a largely unsubstantiated Russian and Chinese threat – or the potential for U.S. military action (as incredible as it sounds). Officials say its the former.

Canada has reportedly sent troops to Greenland as well, although the Department of National Defence conspicuously does not mentioned the undertaking on its extensive list of current military missions.

Is it too late for NATO?

One has to wonder if a solution can be found, or whether the damage to the NATO has already been done.

One former NATO high-level staff member says Washington’s negative view of NATO has become entrenched. “President Trump’s dismissive views of allies as free riders who are trying to ‘screw’ the American taxpayer are now deeply ingrained in a large part of the American political system,” wrote Michael Rühle in 2024.

In a new analysis published by the U.S.-based defence industry report Defense News, Rühle blames NATO’s twin expansions – adding new former Soviet countries at the end of the Cold War, and taking on missions outside of Europe, such as Afghanistan and Libya, for undermining the alliance’s cohesiveness.

“The tragedy of NATO expansion lies not in beginning it, but in never considering when and where it might end,” he says.

If NATO falters, should we care?

Opposition to NATO has long been a central tenet of the peace movement and progressive political parties. The NDP had a policy of calling for Canada’s withdrawal from NATO for at least a generation, until it was dropped in the early 2000s.

For decades many peace groups have argued the NATO military alliance undermines the cooperative approach of the United Nations, is a U.S.-dominated stronghold masquerading as an international body of equals, overly depends upon nuclear weapons and their threatened use, and jeopardized the post-Cold War peace by expanding Eastward toward Russia.

Progressives dreamed of a day when nations would seek security through cooperation, diplomacy, and mutual understanding.

Only a few years ago, the International Peace Bureau, a 100+-year-old Nobel Peace Prize laureate organization, co-published a landmark paper on Common Security. How distant that feels now.

While NATO may be collapsing, I doubt many will celebrate because the alternative may be far worse, rather than far better, as we had always hoped.

Leave a comment to explain your vote

Leave a comment

Readers want Canada to raise objections, strongly

Last week I asked you to answer the question, “How should Canada respond to Trump’s attack on Venezuela and threats on Greenland?”

Nearly half said Canada should condemn the U.S.’s violations of international law strongly (48%). Almost as many said we must build new alliances (38%). Few felt that Canada should pursue economic or military agendas, such as expanding trade or bolstering Arctic defences.

Here are some reader comments:

• “Let the bully know that our lives can continue without our kowtowing to him.’ – S. Craig

• “We need to think about ‘defence’ in new ways. Let’s build up our capacity for nonviolent defence.”- J. Slakov

• “It is not that we don’t know what to do or how to implement it. We have just given over any power to act to those who most likely won’t use it.” - T. Dunn

• “Relying on other allies (and supporting them) during “this period” is a good idea.” R. Collins

Read more comments

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.76k times

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

This week, I’m opening up the comment section to everyone so we can share what we are thinking about the week’s incredible developments – beginning with Trump’s attack on Venezuela and threats against Greenland.

Leave a comment

(If you have trouble, email your comment to me, and I will post it for you. sstaples@peacequest.ca)

The Globe and Mail says it’s all about empire

The typically genteel Globe and Mail just came right out and said it: it’s all about “empire.”

In a lengthy editorial last weekend, the Globe said, “Saturday marked the formal debut of an imperial America, led by a president who recognizes no law, save that of the jungle.”

Subscribe now

Prime Minister Carney’s reaction received a lukewarm review. “Ottawa’s response to the U.S. military strike on Venezuela was...well, cautious is a generous description,” wrote Globe editorialists.

To be fair, in the days following the attack, Carney reached out to Venezuelan opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate María Corina Machado, in a subtle poke at Trump after the President had declared her unfit to assume power.

Carney also stood with Denmark’s Prime Minister to – incredible as it sounds – defend Denmark and Greenland’s sovereignty (ironically on the sidelines of a Paris meeting to discuss Ukraine’s sovereignty).

What are Canada’s options?

• The business community seems divided. One investment advisory group with influence on Canada’s recent Prime Ministers ranked Trump’s efforts to “capture the machinery of government, and weaponize it against his enemies” as the most significant threats to global stability this year. The group says Canada must balance the defence of Canadian sovereignty with the reality of strategic dependence on the U.S.

• On the other hand, the head of Scotiabank said Canada should cash in on Trump’s muscle-flexing in the Americas. “Longer-term, this is a good thing for the Western Hemisphere. It’s a good thing for the U.S. It’s a good thing for the Bank of Nova Scotia,” said Scotiabank’s CEO Scott Thomson to a Bay Street crowd.

• Human rights defenders pointed to Trump’s threat to the very foundation of the United Nations. Common Frontiers called on Canada to speak out strongly, “unequivocally condemning U.S. military intervention in Venezuela.”

• The Globe and Mail urged Canada to find new export markets ASAP, including building that new western oil pipeline, while using those billions for the military to increase Arctic defences (which may be a bit misplaced, considering many would feel the greatest threat to Canada is coming from the South, not the North).

• A national security expert praised Carney for sending the Governor General and other officials to Greenland as a show of solidarity, and suggested adding a bit of Trump-style diplomacy to the trip. “Send our leaders on a Canadian gunboat, one of the new Arctic off-shore patrol vessels… Send along a Coast Guard ice-breaker… Bring along a company of Canadian Ranger,” wrote Wesley Wark.

I’ll give the last suggestion to former Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy, who suggested building a new coalition to offset Trump’s harmful impact.

• “Canada’s path forward must blend principle with pragmatism. That means a renewed diplomatic push to uphold international law, stronger support for multilateral institutions, cooperative alignments with other countries in the Western Hemisphere, diversifying our procurement away from U.S. defence suppliers, and reinforcing our border policies to manage American spillover effects.”

What do you think? How should Canada respond to Trump’s recent attack and threats?

Leave a comment

(If you have trouble, email your comment to me, and I will post it for you. sstaples@peacequest.ca)

Leave a comment to explain your vote.

Leave a comment

Readers against “unCanadian” weapons

Last week’s newsletter looked at secretive plans to outfit Canada’s new submarines with Tomahawk cruise missiles. One military official called weapons “unCanadian” because only the big powers wield cruise missiles, and Canadians aren’t prepared for a new, aggressive military.

Four out of five readers (83%) said they were opposed to Canada buying cruise missiles for the Navy.

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.73k times

A thorough media scan reveals practically no discussion about this important escalation, which would put Canada among only a few Western navies (the United States, the United Kingdom, and France) that operate submarine-launched land-attack weapons.

Dr. Peter Jones of the University of Ottawa, who served as senior analyst for the Security and Intelligence Secretariat of the Privy Council of Canada, writes that Canada is on the cusp of a major military transformation by adding cruise missiles to its submarine fleet.

“Are we ready for this?” he asks, writing in The Walrus. “Do we understand that with this capability comes an expectation from allies and adversaries alike that we will be prepared to use it?”

The Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) is preparing to replace its fleet of four aging Victoria-class submarines, which were themselves second-hand British vessels with a troubled operational history, with up to twelve new, state-of-the-art submarines. It will be the most expensive military program in Canadian history, with a cost estimate of $100-billion – a price tag that could dwarf the cost of new fighter jets, such as the F-35.

This development comes amid a broader defence spending increases, with Canada aiming to meet NATO targets by raising defence expenditures from $30.9 billion annually to potentially $150 billion by 2035, which will support a larger, modernized military.

Vice Admiral Angus Topshee, commander of the RCN, has openly acknowledged a “very unCanadian capability” in the submarines’ ability to stealthily threaten adversaries, signalling a departure from Canada’s historically defensive and peacekeeping military posture toward a more assertive, power-projection role.

But where is the public discussion about the role of Canada’s submarines and the Navy’s ambitions to add cruise missiles to its arsenal?

Documents outlining the desired characteristics of potential new submarines make no mention of land-attack cruise missiles, according to media reports. The government has narrowed the contest down to two submarine-builders, one based in Germany and the other in South Korea.

A general online review of the two submarines suggests Canada’s choice is between a submarine intended for highly covert Arctic patrols, intelligence gathering, and deterrence in contested northern passages (Germany’s Type 212CD built by TLMS), and one for strategic reach across the Pacific and Atlantic (South Korea’s KSS-III built by Hanwha).

I alerted Canadian Senators that tough questions need to be asked about the submarine program when I presented to a Senate committee last Fall. “While the submarines could be used in the Arctic, their real point is as an offensive system, not a defensive one.”

Prime Minister Mark Carney wants to move quickly on the purchase of the new fleet and government officials have said the plan is to have a contract in place sometime early this year.

As Peter Jones says, “The subs are only the beginning. We are preparing to pour unprecedented sums into our armed forces.”

Canadians deserve to have a voice in this important decision that will affect our and future generations.

Most readers think more Liberal MPs will break ranks

Just before the holidays, PeaceQuest looked at growing unease among Liberal MPs about the policy direction of the Carney government. For example, former Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault stepped down from Cabinet after the pipeline agreement with Alberta was announced.

A small majority of readers (53%) agreed that more Liberal MPs will protest PM Carney’s rightward drift in 2026, while nearly a third said they didn’t know or were unsure (30%).

Share

Did you miss the last article?

Viewed 1.6k times

Many people didn’t believe the reports when they first appeared in newspapers describing British and German troops in France singing Christmas carols and playing football in the killing zones between their trenches on Christmas Day, 1914.

Even after incredible photos taken on personal cameras by soldiers of the remarkable event were sent home and printed in the press, for decades after many still disbelieved the story.

The German soldiers had been demonized so viciously, such civilized behavior for a Christmas celebration – utterly unsanctioned by their military commanders – would have seemed impossible.

The UK’s Imperial War Museums (IWM) took a closer took at the story and asked, what was the real story behind the truce? Why did it happen and did British and German soldiers really play football in no-man’s land?

Subscribe now

Indeed, as historians have found, the story is true.

The photographs, letters and interviews in IWM’s collection tell the real story of the Christmas Truce. In this video by the IWM’s Head of Documents and Sound, Anthony Richards explains how the truce came about, its impact on the course of the First World War and why it never happened again after 1914.

Former Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault’s resignation from Cabinet following Prime Minister Carney’s pipeline deal with Alberta surprised many people – but not everyone. As Chris explains, there is growing unease within the government’s benches over PM Carney’s post-election policy shifts.

Steven Guilbeault and the Resistance We Need

For the good of country and party, more Liberals need to boldly step away from Carney’s agenda.

By Christopher Holcroft. Published December 15, 2025 by The Tyee

• Read the article on The Tyee Steven Guilbeault and the Resistance We Need | The Tyee

In response to the federal government’s memorandum of understanding with the Government of Alberta on a new oil pipeline, prominent Quebec Liberal member of Parliament and longtime climate activist Steven Guilbeault resigned from cabinet, declaring the agreement a “fire sale.”

His act of conviction is one that more Liberals need to emulate, for the good of the country, and their party. The stakes could not be higher.

Canada faces four immense and interconnected threats: widening income and wealth inequality, deepening disinformation and societal division, the worsening climate crisis, and rising fascism exemplified by Donald Trump and the U.S. MAGA movement.

Through its policies and political decisions, the Mark Carney-led Liberal government has only intensified these threats. Without a significant course correction these threats risk becoming entrenched.

Eager to appease?

Consider the pipeline MOU. After months of Premier Danielle Smith and U.S. dark-money-funded, pro-oil-and-gas think tanks warning of Alberta separation if the federal government did not scrap a number of environmental laws and give more public subsidies to the fossil fuel sector, the federal government surrendered.

Prime Minister Carney is proving himself willing to abandon federal climate change policies, ignore concerns from the government of British Columbia and undermine Canada’s relations with Indigenous Peoples. He is also ready to appease Smith and her separation threats even as she stomps on multiple Charter rights.

What, then, would Carney sacrifice to appease a potential Parti Québécois premier of Quebec? Or President Trump?

If it is not appeasement, then it is agreement.

Currently, there is no credible political alternatives to the Carney government. The NDP is without a leader, the Greens are without a caucus, Conservatives are flirting with far-right views, and the Bloc Québécois remains fixated on sovereignty. And so opposition must come from Liberals, inside and outside of Parliament, who believe in progressive values, or are at least committed to the “elbows up” mandate the party was elected on.

Signs of resistance within the Liberals

Encouragingly, Guilbeault is not the only Liberal speaking out.

Victoria MP Will Greaves expressed his own opposition to the pipeline MOU.

Toronto MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith has raised concerns about his government’s recent budget.

Another B.C. MP, Ernie Klassen, publicly refused to join his Liberal colleagues in a standing ovation in the House of Commons for Charlie Kirk.

Two unnamed Liberal MPs denounced the invitation to Project 2025 architect Kevin Roberts to address cabinet, with one calling it “an utter disgrace for a self-respecting democracy facing the rise of fascism next door.”

Nor is the pushback limited to current Liberal MPs. Catherine McKenna, a past Liberal minister for the environment and climate change, was critical of Energy Minister Tim Hodgson’s dismissive approach to Coastal First Nations’ meeting requests about the Carney-Smith MOU.

A former adviser to Justin Trudeau, Supriya Dwivedi, lambasted Carney’s “capitulation” to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Lloyd Axworthy, who served as foreign affairs minister under Jean Chrétien, has raised a number of alarms, including about the government’s underwhelming commitment to international law.

And former deputy prime minister Sheila Copps has warned Carney should not take female supporters for granted after his refusal to embrace a feminist foreign policy.

Tearing the tent

The Liberal Party of Canada is, and has long been, a “big tent” party, made up of “blue,” free-market-focused types and activist, “small-l” Liberals. That tent is key to the party’s electoral triumphs. Notably, though, the party’s activist wing has supplied most often the rhetoric and policies that have won Liberal campaign victories, including the last one. With rare exception, the Liberal party performs better when it runs from the left.

Activist Liberals also have had the most success advancing progressive policies and blocking regressive actions within the party. This wing of Liberals pushed a cautious Chrétien government forward on same-sex marriage and persuaded the Paul Martin government to back down on joining the George W. Bush-era U.S. missile defence scheme.

Given such precedents, more Liberals should be willing to confront the reality that their party under Carney — a neophyte to both politics and the party — is not just occupying one side of the tent but increasingly straying outside it.

Consider last month’s federal budget. Rather than the promised transformation, Carney delivered a “trickle down” investment strategy reminiscent of the failed policy approach of former U.S. president Ronald Reagan. While providing subsidies to the fossil fuel and big tech sectors, the Liberal government is eliminating 40,000 public service positions (in addition to the jobs that will be lost due to cuts to Canada Post).

While helping the wealthy by scrapping the luxury tax on yachts, fancy cars and unoccupied second homes, Ottawa is making life harder for those struggling by reducing tuition grants to low-income students, mandating a new co-payment for refugees to access some health-care services and even ending free postage for people who are blind.

As they embrace the oil and gas industry, the Carney Liberals are cozying up to the tech sector, including with generous public funds for artificial intelligence despite widespread concerns and expert warnings.

In fact the Liberals are taking policy and speech ideas from Build Canada, a controversial coalition of tech elites promoting a policy vision deemed “indistinguishable from Silicon Valley clichés.” That news followed the revelation Ottawa is embedding tech industry representatives within government, a specific Build Canada proposal.

It’s shocking that the Liberals are doing this even as the leadership of these industries continues to work, directly or through dark-money-funded surrogates, to undermine Canadian ideals and achievements like Medicare, the Charter and even our national sovereignty.

Equally baffling is the government’s lowering of its elbows with regard to the Trump administration even as the U.S. releases a new national security strategy that provides a blueprint for foreign meddling. Vice-President JD Vance foreshadowed this recently, claiming Canada’s living standards “have stagnated” and blaming “diversity” and “immigration insanity” that was the “fault” of Canadian leaders and voters.

The time is now

For Liberals who think they are playing for time in pacifying Trump or being politically astute in appropriating Conservative policies or undercutting Alberta separation by signing the MOU, it is worth invoking the now-clichéd phrase “Skate to where the puck is going.” As it stands, the Carney government is fanning on the shot and sliding headfirst into the boards.

The private sector jobs the Liberals promise to “catalyze” are, at best, in the future. In the present, too many Canadians are struggling to afford food, rent and mortgages. Public sector workers whose jobs will soon be cut will only increase the number of Canadians struggling. There are no new income supports being provided by the government to help these Canadians, and the promised generational investments in housing are proving underwhelming, squeezed out by military spending.

Share PeaceQuest

Carney’s disparity-widening tax cuts for higher-income Canadians are likely to breed resentment that will be exploited by powerful private interests using tech platforms the government declines to regulate.

The Liberals’ rollback of climate policies will exaggerate, not ease, health and safety risks from floods, forest fires and heat waves.

Eventually, the compounding layers of public despair will create the conditions for authoritarian movements to thrive.

None of this bodes well for the Liberal party. There is a wide body of evidence demonstrating that adoption of right-wing policies does not benefit progressive political parties. Indeed, oligarchs and authoritarians do not like Liberals, which is why they backed the Pierre Poilievre Conservatives in the last election.

More importantly, none of this bodes well for Canada.

This moment demands, in the words of former interim Liberal leader Bob Rae, “our moral integrity.” Canadians need a much stronger, more ambitious and more values-based effort from the Carney government — one that more closely aligns with the mandate given by voters last spring.

It is time to fight. Guilbeault stepped down from cabinet to do just that. It is time more Liberals — from ministers and MPs to party elders and grassroots partisans — step down, speak out and stand up for the good of the country.

Christopher Holcroft is a writer and principal of Empower Consulting. Reach him by email christopherholcroft@hotmail.ca

Subscribe now

Leave a comment to explain your vote.

Leave a comment

Two-thirds of readers predict PM Carney will warm up to UN Nuclear Ban Treaty

Last weekend’s article pointed to small, but encouraging signs from Rob Oliphant MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that Canada may be willing to become an observer at the next UN meeting for the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). This, after years of siding with the big nuclear powers deeply opposed to the Nuclear Ban Treaty. Two-thirds of readers said Canada’s government will warm up to the Nuclear Ban Treaty (68%).

Readers’ comments:

• “I am very optimistic and there many other MPs/Senators who support signing the TPNW - or in the least having Canada attend as an observer of the first review conference November 2016.” – M. Cuff-Eisenbarth

• “I hope Canada will join the nuclear ban treaty even though I have doubts.” - H.

• “Rob Oliphant has strong Yukon connections, having been a United Church minister here with us and I will contact him with that in mind. We have a U.S. missile base right next door, near our border.” – E. Millard

Read more comments

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.87K times

For years people in Canada who support nuclear disarmament have been disheartened by Canada’s disinterest in the UN Nuclear Ban Treaty, more widely know by its official United Nations title, “The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons,” or TPNW.

But recently Canada’s Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Rob Oliphant said something in Parliament that caught the ear of former Ambassador for Disarmament, Senator Doug Roche (ret.).

Subscribe now

“This afternoon in the House of Commons, Rob Oliphant, Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs, responding to Elizabeth May’s advocacy, said he personally agreed with her that Canada should send an Observer Delegation to the upcoming meeting of states parties to the TPNW. and would argue for this with his colleagues,” said Roche.

“I wouldn’t call this the greatest breakthrough in the world, but it is certainly an advance when an official of the government speaks in the House on the value of the TPNW and says he will argue that Canada send an official delegation to the upcoming meeting.”

Peace groups have seized upon MP Oliphant’s comments, encouraging him to convince the government to support the TPNW, or at least attend its next official meeting in March at the United Nations.

What is the Nuclear Ban Treaty?

The 2017 treaty is the arguably the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons, with the ultimate goal being their total elimination.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the non-governmental group that championed the treaty and won the Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts, says the agreement fills a significant gap in international law.

“It prohibits nations from developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, transferring, possessing, stockpiling, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons, or allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory. It also prohibits them from assisting, encouraging or inducing anyone to engage in any of these activities,” as their website describes it.

As of September 2025, 74 states have ratified the treaty, most recently Ghana.

Why does NATO oppose the Nuclear Ban Treaty?

The transatlantic military alliance of NATO relies on nuclear weapons as part of its military strategy. Three NATO states have nuclear weapons (the U.S., the U.K. and France), and five others have American nukes based in their countries.

“NATO has long maintained a strong unified position in opposition to the new treaty, meaning that under current circumstances it is unlikely that any NATO member will join the TPNW,” writes Steven Hill. “But the reality for NATO, its members and partners is that the TPNW is now here to stay.”

Where does Canada fit in?

Like a man with a proverbial foot on the dock and a foot in the canoe, Canada has been opposed to the Nuclear Ban Treaty while saying it supports the abolition of nuclear weapons.

Hiroshima survivor Setsuko Thurlow and Bianca Mugyenyi say Ottawa’s opposition to the prohibition treaty appears driven by the military and political establishment’s ties to the United States and NATO.

“Initially Prime Minister Trudeau dismissed the UN conference that negotiated the treaty, stating, ‘there can be all sorts of people talking about nuclear disarmament, but if they do not actually have nuclear arms, it is sort of useless.’ As support for the TPNW has solidified, the government’s tone softened.”

Canadians haven’t given up

Nearly ten years later, many Canadians still want Canada to join the Nuclear Ban Treaty. This year a group of citizens based on Vancouver Island called Peace Train Canada, with the support of NDP MP Gord Johns travelled across Canada and to the United Nations urging Canada to sign the treaty.

What you can do

Take a moment to send a personal note to Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Foreign Affairs Rob Oliphant and encourage him to attend the upcoming meeting of countries who support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

His Ottawa email address is rob.oliphant@parl.gc.ca

Keep me posted of any replies to your letter you might receive.

Leave a comment explaining your vote.

Leave a comment

Readers not hopeful PM Carney will take action on Caribbean conflict

Last week we looked at the risk of Canada being dragged into the U.S.-led conflict with Venezuela, where U.S. forces continue to attack alleged drug-smuggling boats and most recently seized an oil tanker. Many have said some of the actions break international law, amounting to war crimes.

Unfortunately, most readers think Prime Minister Carney will remain quiet. Three out of four (74%) said PM Carney won’t take action to prevent U.S. war crimes in the Caribbean.

Readers’ comments:

• “I can’t see Canada explicitly condemning the wanton killing of sailors, who might or might not be drug runners. We are too deeply enmeshed with U.S. forces, unfortunately.” - S. Walke

• “I don’t think Carney has the guts to do it. Although he would probably say that behind the scenes diplomacy is more effective.” - S. Craig

Read more comments

Did you miss last week’s article?

Viewed 1.77k times

Meanwhile, the U.S. ratchets up its war rhetoric against oil-rich Venezuela, and Canada’s Navy cooperates with U.S. forces in the volatile region.

“I would say it is within the purview of U.S. authorities to make that determination,” Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand said in response to a reporter’s question asking whether the U.S.’s shoot-first-ask-questions-later attacks are war crimes.

Since September 2, U.S. Air Force planes have blown up twenty-one-and-counting vessels in those same waters, killing at least eighty people. Without offering evidence, U.S. President Trump claimed the boats were smuggling drugs into the U.S.

Subscribe now

U.S. build-up biggest since 1960s Cuban Missile Crisis

President Donald Trump has ordered an unprecedented military deployment of Navy forces off the Venezuelan Coast.

The Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group, including the flagship aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, its assigned air wing of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, and the destroyers USS Winston S. Churchill, USS Mahan, and USS Bainbridge, is operating alongside a U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress, reports Newsweek.

Canada’s Navy has been active in the region, too, in what is dubbed “Operation CARIBBE,” a multinational force led by the U.S. Coast Guard.

Ottawa Citizen reporter David Pugliese says the Canadian military is a major player in U.S.-led counterdrug operations in the Caribbean with Royal Canadian Navy ships and Royal Canadian Air Force long-range patrol planes playing a role.

Canada sharing targeting information with Americans

Canadian warships find and track vessels of interest at which point U.S. Coast Guard law enforcement teams then approach and intercept them, according to the Canadian government. RCAF CP-140 Aurora aircraft and their crews also detect and track vessels and aircraft of interest.

National Defence, however, has not halted its information-sharing in Operation CARIBBE, say Stephen Kimber and John Kirk in The Walrus.

“What guarantees does Canada have that the U.S. Coast Guard won’t share our spotting data with the U.S. Air Force, which it can then use to bomb suspect vessels?” they ask.

“Kill everybody” double-tap attack

U.S. War Secretary Pete Hegseth, following the first striking of a boat in the Caribbean in September, issued a verbal directive to American service members to “kill everybody” with a second strike that would leave no survivors, according to a new report from the Washington Post. The secretary strongly refutes such claims.

If true, such an attack would violate international laws preventing attacks against combatants who no longer pose a threat, such as prisoners, considering it akin to extrajudicial executions.

As one commentator put it, Russian troops accused of killing Ukrainian prisoners taken in combat are being tried in the International Criminal Court, but here we have an example of the United States doing what amounts to the same thing.

Canadian human rights groups urge Canada to take action

Common Frontiers and the Americas Policy Group sent a letter last month to Foreign Affairs Minister Anand and other ministers calling on the Canadian government to use all diplomatic means to publicly condemn and call for a halt to U.S. airstrikes on civilian boats in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The human rights groups also urge Canada to suspend Operation CARIBBE and its Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. to avoid any risk of Canadian intelligence being used in unlawful, lethal attacks.

Canada’s government has shown no inclination to take either diplomatic or military measures, despite the controversy over Secretary Hegseth’s purported command to kill survivors, and other countries such as the U.K. halting intelligence-sharing with U.S. forces in the region.

As The Hill Times points out, Canada’s Foreign Minister’s comments deflecting an opinion on potential war crimes is a departure from previous instances where Canada has alleged foreign countries have committed international law violations. For instance, last month Minister Anand was one of more than a dozen signatories to a joint statement, “condemning atrocities and violations of international humanitarian law in Sudan.”

Leave a comment to explain your vote

Leave a comment

Most readers disbelieve Canada will join Trump’s Golden Dome

Last week’s newsletter shared an estimate that Trump’s Golden Dome plan will require 250,000 space weapons. Despite the Prime Minister’s commitment to Trump that Canada will join Golden Dome, a majority readers think PM Carney’s commitment won’t be fulfilled.

More than half (53%) says “No, its just for show,” while one third say they don’t know or are unsure. A minority say Carney will join if he thinks it will help Canada’s economy (15%).

Comments from readers:

• “The golden dome is the most scary, most wasteful and most destructive idea ever.” - Hanny

• “For Carney, helping “our” economy means the fortunes of the 1%, and it seems that is his only guiding star, whatever the collateral damage.” – B. Stuart

• “I hope this is just a show for Trump, but I am by no means confident of this.” – J. Carmichael

Read more comments

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.76k times

But there will ultimately be few winners in this race – only losers as countless billions of dollars are poured into contracts to build and operate Trump’s Golden Dome, while making the world much more dangerous.

Subscribe now

This week the Pentagon issued secret contracts to American weapons-makers to build the first generation of space weapons.

The contracts have not yet been publicly announced, however sources told Reuters that the list includes Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman – two of the biggest defence companies in the world.

The contracts will fund the development of competing prototypes for orbiting space weapons, called interceptors, that will shoot down a missile as it boosts into space like a bullet hitting a bullet.

The ultimate prize is substantial: production contracts worth $1.8 billion to $3.4 billion annually, according to a July Pentagon presentation seen by Reuters.

How many weapons will be put into space?

There are many variables in determining how many space weapons will be needed, but the estimated number is mind-boggling.

According to missile defence expert Todd Harrison of the American Enterprise Institute, if the technology can achieve a level where a space-based interceptor works most of the time, the system will require two orbiting interceptors to be fired at each incoming missile to achieve a reasonable success rate (but still not 100%).

But the problem is the interceptors don’t hover over an enemy launch site in space – they are in orbit, circling the earth. That means many interceptions will need to be in orbit over the launch site to ensure there are two interceptors in range at any moment.

According to Harrison, 1,900 interceptors will be needed to provide continuous coverage of all points on Earth. The cost would be in order of $11 billion to $27 billion US. But the catch is – that’s only enough for a good chance at intercepting just two missiles.

250,000 space weapons will be required for Trump’s Golden Dome

President Trump’s Executive Order for Golden Dome calls for, “Development and deployment of proliferated space-based interceptors capable of boost-phase intercept.” This is a tall order, says Harrison.

Considering that Russia and China currently have 1000 land-based and submarine-launched intercontinental nuclear missiles combined, the number of orbiting interceptors is mind-boggling.

The most robust defence, capable of intercepting 250 missiles in a single attack, would require 250,000 interceptors in orbit, according to Harrison. “And that still would not be enough to intercept everything if Russia and China launched all their ICBMs at once,” he noted.

Using his online calculator, over 7,000 launches are required just to put that many interceptors in orbit and replace them as they wear-out over 20 years.

The total system cost is $7.5 trillion dollars US, which includes development, procurement, launch, and operating costs over 20 years in constant dollars.

Space-based weaponry is the most difficult, and expensive, option by far

Harrison is the first to point out that the design parameters are key factors in the cost and number of space weapons required.

In a recent interview by Space News, he wondered if the Trump administration would reword its Executive Order to avoid the term, “boost phase” which requires space-based interceptors to hit enemy missiles shortly after lift-off.

For instance, he noted that the window to intercept a missile in boost phase would be between only three and four minutes after launch.

This means that the time available for satellites to detect a launch, calculate the missile’s trajectory and decide whether it is a threat, and finally, to make a decision to attempt to shoot it down from space – would be about two minutes. This leaves only one minute for the interceptor to launch, acquire the enemy missile, fly toward it, maneuver in its path, and then collide with it.

Prime Minister Carney remains quiet on Golden Dome

In May, President Trump stunned everyone when he announced from the Oval Office, “Today I am pleased to announce that we have officially selected an architecture for this state-of-the art system that will deploy next-generation technology across the lands, sea and space including space-bases sensors and interceptors, and Canada has called us and they want to be a part of it.” (emphasis added)

Over the summer, President Trump said the cost for Canada would be $61 billion US, then later he increased it to $71 billion US, or $100 billion Canadian dollars. He added that it would be negotiated in a deal separately from the broader trade and economic deal being sought by Canada for tariff relief.

Unphased by the price tag, apparently, Prime Minister Carney said, “We’ll be working together on a Golden Dome for the two countries.”

The Prime Minister’s first federal budget committed nearly $82 billion in defence spending increases over 5 years, but there was no mention of Golden Dome.

Will Canadians have the opportunity to ask questions, such as why the government is overturning decades of our country’s opposition to space weapons? Will Parliament have the opportunity to get answers, for that matter?

In Ottawa, only a handful of powerful people know the answer, and they aren’t talking.

Leave a comment explaining your vote.

Leave a comment

Readers support public hearings on Canada’s defence policy

Last week I asked if you support the government asking Canadians for their views on Canada’s defence and foreign policies in a public review. Nearly everyone agreed that Canadians deserve a voice (96%).

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.67k times