And it raises urgent questions about democracy, sovereignty, and human rights.

A three-part investigative series published this week by Christopher Holcroft in The Tyee pulls back the curtain on a powerful and little-known advocacy group called Build Canada — and what it reveals should concern anyone who cares about peace, democracy, and the public interest.

Subscribe now

Build Canada was founded in early 2025 by wealthy tech entrepreneurs whose policy agenda has been characterized as indistinguishable from Silicon Valley’s. The group publishes a steady stream of policy memos aimed at shaping federal government decisions — and it’s working. Holcroft documents how the Carney government has aligned its policies with Build Canada’s recommendations across nearly 20 areas.

The policy wins are sweeping — and alarming

The list of Build Canada-aligned government actions is long. It includes slashing public spending, eliminating tens of thousands of public sector jobs, embedding corporate leaders into the civil service, passing punitive immigration and refugee reforms, reducing international aid, and gutting climate policy while providing substantial tax breaks and subsidies to businesses.

For peace advocates, one item stands out: developing a military-industrial complex is explicitly on the list of Carney government actions that align with Build Canada’s vision. This is not a fringe position being shouted from the margins — it is now government policy, promoted by a prime minister with deep ties to the tech and finance worlds.

Build Canada’s other proposals include reducing funding for Indigenous programs by up to $12 billion annually, reducing old age security benefits, and weakening copyright laws in favour of AI innovation. It’s an agenda that redistributes wealth upward while cutting programs that serve the most vulnerable.

Selling off Canada’s public digital innovation

Part two of the series digs into a specific and troubling case: the privatization of the Canadian Photonics Fabrication Centre (CPFC).

The CPFC is the only semiconductor facility of its kind in North America. Its chips have applications in aerospace, automotive, defence, and telecommunications — and they are increasingly vital to AI technology. The federal government has invested more than $115 million into the centre over the last five years.

The decision to privatize it came after an AI firm at the heart of Build Canada, Cohere, published a memo calling for the government to “commercialize” the CPFC. Cohere has met with the Carney government 31 times.

Critics are drawing parallels to past privatization disasters. Senator Colin Deacon has cited the example of the Connaught Medical Research Laboratories, privatized in the 1980s, and the loss of domestic vaccine technology that became painfully evident during the COVID-19 pandemic.

There is also a human rights dimension that deserves attention. Cohere has reported but disputed ties to Palantir — a company the ACLU accuses of providing tools to facilitate the violence, lawlessness, and human rights violations of President Trump’s war on immigrants. The government’s choice to contract this firm to transform the public sector with AI raises serious questions about whose values are being embedded into Canadian institutions.

As Holcroft notes, some within Build Canada are also pushing to allow foreign ownership of Canadian telecommunications companies — a move that would further erode the very sovereignty the CPFC was built to protect.

They built a robot politician — and it’s voting against you

The third article is the most extraordinary. Shortly after the last election, Build Canada created what it calls the world’s “first AI member of Parliament.” The “Builder MP” uses OpenAI’s GPT-5 to review every bill introduced in Parliament, summarize it, analyze it against Build Canada’s economic freedom agenda, and assign it a vote.

The results are revealing. The AI MP opposed legislation to create a guaranteed livable basic income, a national ADHD framework, a strategy for children and youth, and housing supports for homeless Canadians — because, in the AI’s own framing, such measures do not promote “economic freedom” or “large-scale prosperity reform.”

On bills concerning First Nations treaties, Indigenous rights, and residential school denialism, the AI abstained or voted no. A bill offering extended bereavement leave to parents of children who have died was rejected because it is “not a large-scale prosperity reform.”

Holcroft connects this to what one scholar calls “Big Tech authoritarianism”: the offloading of political rights, civic responsibility, and democratic accountability from citizens and their elected leaders to private interests and their programmable machines.

Why this matters for peace advocates

For those of us working for peace and human rights, this series raises concerns that go well beyond tech policy. An agenda that promotes a military-industrial complex, slashes international aid, weakens Indigenous rights, punishes refugees and immigrants, and privatizes critical defence-related infrastructure — all while reducing democratic accountability — is an agenda in conflict with the values of peace, justice, and human security.

The Carney government likes to talk about “building Canada.” But as Holcroft asks: building it for whom?

• Read the full three-part series at The Tyee.

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

Share

Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)

Leave a comment

Readers want an economy that respects human rights

Last week, PeaceQuest looked at troubling findings by Internet sleuths, and confirmed by the CBC, that Canadian weapons are being used in horrific conflicts in Africa. In previous articles I have pointed out that one of the central flaws in PM Carney’s plans to dramatically ramp-up Canada’s defence industry is that our arms control regime is far too weak.

I asked you to respond to this statement: “It’s possible for Canada to forge new trade and business ties while protecting human rights.”

Two-thirds (67%) of respondents said they strongly agreed, while one in five somewhat agreed (18%). One-in-twenty disagreed (6%) and one-in-ten didn’t know (10%).

Readers comments:

• “We should also nationalize all arms manufacturing.” - B. Stuart

• “[The government is] giving lip service to human rights and climate change, while blowing carbon emissions targets and inviting more fossil fuel investments, and not keeping Canadian-made weapons out of the hands of international criminals.” - S. Cano

• “Shameful for Canada to be involved in any way in the horrors of what’s happening in Sudan.” - B. Gombay

• “It should be entirely possible for Canada to undertake trade diversification while preserving its commitment to human rights.” - J. Carmichael

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.22k times

Yet that is exactly what a CBC News visual investigation has now documented — again.

The discovery is raising urgent questions about the Canadian arms trade, the enforcement of arms embargoes, and the gap between Canada’s stated values and its real-world record on weapons accountability.

The company is Sterling Cross Defense Systems, based in Abbotsford, B.C. The rifle is its XLCR precision bolt-action model. And the fighters brandishing it in verified photographs and videos are members of Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF) — a paramilitary group accused of civilian massacres, torture, and war crimes.

Images were first provided to CBC News by an online user known as streakingdelilah. CBC independently sourced and verified all photos and videos, sharing them with researchers at Bellingcat and the Centre for Information Resilience, which runs the Sudan Witness project.

Subscribe now

A pattern, not an anomaly

In November 2025, CBC verified at least nine separate images of RSF fighters carrying Sterling Cross XLCR rifles throughout Sudan — some geolocated, others confirmed by matching the distinctive logo on the rifle. The images date back to at least 2023.

The RSF has been one of the primary actors in a conflict that has killed an estimated 150,000 people and internally displaced more than 12 million civilians. The city of El Fasher, besieged for months, fell to RSF forces in October 2024, with reports of horrific civilian massacres following immediately after.

This week, CBC published a follow-up investigation showing the problem is not limited to Sudan. Canadian-made Sterling Cross rifles are now visible in the hands of a Libyan militia unit, and are openly advertised for sale online by arms dealers in Yemen’s capital, Sanaa. CBC identified a specific serial number on one of the rifles offered for sale in Yemen.

Canada has had an arms embargo on Sudan since 2004

Canada has officially maintained an arms embargo on Sudan for over two decades. Material and financial sanctions against entities involved in Sudan’s conflict were added in 2024. Sudan, Libya, and Yemen are all subject to Canadian arms restrictions — and, in several cases, UN arms embargoes — precisely because they are home to groups responsible for widespread human rights abuses and mass killings.

Yet the rifles showed up anyway.

The United Arab Emirates connection

Experts point to the United Arab Emirates as a likely intermediary. The UAE has long supplied the RSF, and Canada exports significant quantities of weapons and military equipment there.

As Emadeddin Badi, a senior fellow at the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, told CBC: the UAE “does not have a domestic defence industry of its own robust enough to supply multiple paramilitary groups across the region” — making it a documented re-routing hub for Western arms flowing into conflict zones.

Prime Minister Carney at the UAE

Our Prime Minister arrived in the UAE last fall to a lavish military welcome put on by UAE Industry Minister Sultan al-Jaber. There was no press conference, and no opportunity for journalists to witness the meetings.

At the close of the visit, Prime Minister Mark Carney said Ottawa is working on a $1-billion project aimed at expanding critical minerals processing capacity in Canada, while securing the equivalent of $70 billion in investment from the United Arab Emirates.

“We welcome UAE investors to visit Canada — I will personally host them — to explore investment in Canada’s transformative projects,” he said, reported The Canadian Press.

Carney also told reporters that he raised the Sudan civil war with UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, whose government denies accusations it is fuelling ethnic violence in that country.

“We did discuss the situation in Sudan,” Carney said, adding that this centred on the so-called Quad process, where the U.S., the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are working on “establishing a ceasefire and peace consistent with the initiative of President Trump.”

Canada not doing enough

It seems clear that the conflict between Canada seeking investment from the UAE is conflicting with the need to confront the Middle Eastern country over illicit sales of Canadian-made arms to RSF forces in Sudan.

“If Canada was doing enough then we wouldn’t see a pattern of the illicit diversion of Canadian weapons systems in violation of UN arms embargoes,” said Kelsey Gallagher of Project Ploughshares.

Canada presents itself to the world as a country committed to human rights, the rule of law, and multilateralism. We sign arms treaties like the Arms Trade Treaty. We impose embargoes. We issue statements of concern.

PeaceQuest readers know that we have frequently pointed out that the growing danger of Canadian arms exports ending up in terrible conflicts or the hands of human rights offenders is a growing threat.

Prime Minister Mark Carney made a pledge in February to expand Canada’s arms industries by 50%. This will be accomplished through a combination of massive Canadian military spending on local contracts, and sales of weapons abroad.

But Canada’s laws that aim to ensure that these weapons don’t end up in the “wrong hands” are completely inadequate.

Peace advocates and human rights defenders in Canada have been raising these concerns for years. The CBC investigations have now provided the documentary evidence the public needs to demand action. The question is whether the government will respond — or wait for the next investigation to reveal the next batch of Canadian-made weapons in the next war zone.

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

Share

Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)

Leave a comment

PeaceQuest readers bucking the trend on climate

Despite pollsters reporting that the public’s willingness to fight climate change may be softening, most PeaceQuest readers say the level of concern among people they know remains unchanged (40%). Bucking the trend reported in last week’s article, nearly a third say concern about the climate has increased - not decreased - amongst peers (30%). Only one-in-five say climate concern is decreasing (18%).

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.22k times

New polling by Environics has some important lessons for everyone in the fight against climate change.

Subscribe now

The well-known polling firm Environics has just released a new study called, “2026 Public Opinion - When Climate Isn’t the Only Crisis.”

The study’s authors conclude that the public discussion about climate change has entered a new phase.

There is some good news, and some bad news…

And ultimately some sound advice for people and organizations working to stop climate change (read to the end.)

Read the report

Good news

Five years ago, climate change rose to the top of the public agenda. Global climate strikes, growing public concern, and increasingly visible impacts (floods, wildfires, extreme heat) created a sense of urgency around climate action.

Bad news

Climate impacts today are just as concerning, but Canadians are navigating a more crowded issues environment shaped by affordability pressures, housing challenges, economic uncertainty, geopolitical instability, and rapid technological change.

Good news

Public debate has finally moved away from whether climate change exists or is caused by humans. That is, it’s real and we’re the cause of it.

Bad news

For some, climate action has become a “nice to have” in a world of more critical imperatives.

Good news

Canadians continue to recognize climate change as a serious issue and support many forms of climate action.

Bad news

Climate occupies less public attention than it did five years ago and public confidence in momentum and progress on climate action is low.

Good news

Large majorities of Canadians continue to describe climate change as at least a somewhat serious problem for the planet (84%), the country (80%), and the area where they live (70%).

Bad news

The share of people describing climate change as a very serious problem at the global, national, and local levels has declined over the past three years. This is true both in Canada and globally.

Good news

Many Canadians continue to expect governments to balance economic and environmental priorities.

Bad news

People may continue to care about climate change and believe action matters, while feeling uncertain about whether meaningful collective progress is happening.

Good news

Most Canadians continue to support phasing out fossil fuels.

Bad news

When asked about priorities for Canada’s climate strategy, respondents place the strongest emphasis on economic resilience and protecting jobs, while fewer prioritize rapid fossil fuel phaseout or meeting international emissions targets.

Good news

People are more likely than not to believe that people like themselves can make a difference on climate change.

The bottom line

How can organizations ​use this research?​

• Ensure decisions are anchored in a coherent and accurate picture of Canadian public opinion and how it is evolving over time (avoiding the swings and distortion of day-to-day social and traditional media coverage).

• Inform communication and engagement strategies that account for the perception gap between experts and the public, and shape messages and language that people understand. ​

• Identify and understand regional nuances and how to address them.​

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

Share

Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)

Leave a comment

Readers pessimistic over prospects for nuclear disarmament

Last week I shared the disappointing news that global disarmament talks at the United Nations had failed to reach a final agreement for the third time in a row. Our poll asked, “When might we rid the world of nuclear weapons?”

One-third of people thought “likely never” (34%) while a roughly equal number felt it would take a frightening crisis first (30%). One quarter of readers answered, “someday, but not my lifetime” (17%) or “sooner than you think” (6%).

Read comments

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.34k times

Now comes France to spread its nuclear weapons and influence across Europe.

Subscribe now

In April we issued a warning that U.N. nuclear talks in New York were set to fail – for the third time in a row… Unfortunately, that’s exactly what happened.

Our friend Cesar Jaramillo points to wars involving Ukraine and the Middle East and tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program that led to “fundamental disagreements” on everything, making it impossible to get a final agreement on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

At the same time, American President Trump is turning up the pressure on NATO, withdrawing troops from Europe and pulling U.S. ships and planes from NATO’s defence plan.

Veteran anti-nuclear campaigner Ray Acheson said the spread of nuclear weapons as a result of the failure of U.N. talks and Trump’s withdrawal is very real.

“We are seeing more countries, particularly in Europe, claim that Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine mean they need nuclear weapons as deterrents, and since many of them no longer see the United States as a reliable partner in NATO, they are looking to acquire their own nuclear weapons or collaborate with France on new nuclear deterrence arrangements.”

Ray Acheson

We took a deeper look at this possibility earlier:

What’s France up to?

The United Kingdom and France are the only nuclear states in NATO-Europe. But the UK’s submarine-launched weapons are deeply integrated with the United States, making France the only NATO member other than the U.S. that develops and deploys its own nuclear forces.

Defense News says French President Emmanuel Macron plans to expand France’s independent nuclear arsenal and implement a policy of “advanced deterrence” that could include deploying nuclear-capable forces to the territory of willing European allies.

President Macron gave a long-awaited speech in March on the country’s nuclear doctrine:

“We must strengthen our nuclear deterrence in the face of the combination of threats, and we must consider our deterrence strategy in the depth of the European continent, with full respect for our sovereignty, with the gradual implementation of what I would call advanced deterrence.”

French President Emmanuel Macron

President Macron has been recruiting countries who wish to shelter under the French nuclear umbrella.

Norway has become the ninth European country to sign-up for French nuclear protection in light of heightened concerns vis-à-vis Russia and broadly faltering trust in U.S. reliability.

Aside from Norway, Germany and Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands, Belgium and the U.K. have also joined the new French forward deterrence scheme (no sign of interest from Canada).

How the policy would be implemented is unclear, but it might require forward-basing French Rafale jets armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. (Five NATO states already store U.S. nuclear weapons and Belarus hosts Russian nukes, but under the rules these nations are not counted as nuclear powers on their own.)

France is increasing its nuclear stockpile, while developing a new hypersonic air-launched nuclear-tipped cruise missile and a submarine-launched strategic ballistic missile.

Warning of a “domino effect”

Nuclear expert Matt Korda says Russia likes to make verbal threats about its nuclear weapons, while NATO prefers the more low-key, “speak softly and carry a big stick” approach. But make no mistake – NATO is just as active in flexing its nuclear muscle as Russia.

Hear more from Korda on this podcast:

The continued reliance upon nuclear weapons by the big powers and their failure to commit to disarmament, as promised in the NPT, may inspire others to acquire their own nuclear weapons.

The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency says there could be many more nuclear states waiting in the wings.

Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), warns that the current atmosphere of intense conflict could push up to 20 countries to reconsider nuclear options if they feel their regional security is threatened.

This makes the possibility of abolishing nuclear weapons more distant, while making it all the more urgent to achieve a nuclear-free world.

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

Share

Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)

Leave a comment

Readers say spend more on diplomacy

Last week I shared some comments from Lloyd Axworthy and Allan Rock calling for a new peace agenda for Canada. I asked you, “Should Canada focus as much on diplomacy as defence?”

A slim majority (53%) of people said that Canada should spend more on diplomacy, while the remainder were divided nearly evenly between spending less on defence (22%) and striking a better balance between the two (26%).

Readers comments:

• “Canada was not named by Trump as one of the derelict NATO nations in the Iran conflict. Because we had no military capability left. In the coming years, this will dramatically change and we will need to exercise our ‘no’ for future requests.” – S. Ross

• “If the health and education are not supported where will the military get strong personnel? It seems there are plans to reduce financially these needs are being drastically cut even more than they are now. We the Canadian civilians require both these needs be met to live full lives and hence able to contribute productively.” – H. Hannah

Read more comments

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.3k times

But former Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy and ex-UN Ambassador Allan Rock are asking an uncomfortable question: is that all we've got?

Subscribe now

In a recent op-ed in the Toronto Star, the two veterans of Canada’s internationalist golden age argue that military spending without a human security agenda is not just incomplete — it’s a strategic mistake.

Committing to NATO’s new targets means hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade flowing into ships, jets, missiles and radar systems.

Security, they write, must also be measured in “wars prevented, civilians protected, famines averted, arms flows interrupted and peace processes sustained.” By that standard, Canada’s current policy is falling short.

Sudan: A crisis Canada is failing

The authors point to Sudan as the defining test. The ongoing civil war — described by journalist Anne Applebaum as “the most nihilistic conflict on Earth” — has produced the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, marked by famine, mass displacement, sexual violence and the deliberate obstruction of aid. Ottawa has acknowledged all of this. It has called for an end to the violence and accountability for atrocities. And then, largely, it has moved on.

Axworthy and Rock argue that’s not good enough. They call for a senior Canadian envoy for Sudan, a sustained diplomatic push at the UN, and concrete support for an African-led peace process that centres Sudanese civil society and women mediators. These are not radical asks. They are the kinds of things Canada used to do — and has quietly stopped doing.

As PeaceQuest readers will know, we have pointed out that the “fatal flaw” of Prime Minister Carney’s plan to create a massive defence industry in Canada is the moment government contracts run out, foreign arms sales inevitably follow to keep the production line running. Sometimes those weapons end up in terrible wars far from home.

In April, Axworthy and Rock said they expressed “deep concern” about the federal government’s decision not to pass legislation aimed at closing what they consider a regulatory gap in arms exports.

An NDP private member’s bill meant to treat arms exports from Canada to the United States with the same degree of scrutiny as other countries under the Arms Trade Treaty was defeated by the government (even though more than a dozen Liberals broke ranks to vote in favour).

“Canada’s bilateral relationship with the United States is long-standing and vital, but our responsibilities under international law are our own. No alliance exempts us from our duty to ensure that Canadian weapons or components do not contribute to gross violations of international humanitarian or human rights law. Transparency and parliamentary oversight strengthen sovereignty — they do not weaken it.”

Lloyd axworthy

Canada Needs a Peace Agenda

Canada is embarking on a major military build-up, committing to NATO’s new defence target of 5 percent of GDP by 2035. Some modernization is necessary after years of neglect. But if new military spending comes at the expense of diplomacy and international development, Canada risks weakening the very tools that prevent wars from starting…

Read more

a month ago · 57 likes · 23 comments · Lloyd axworthy

Axworthy and Rock argue that Canada needs a human security agenda alongside its military renewal.

“If Canada is going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars rebuilding its military, it should also rebuild the diplomatic and humanitarian capacity that helps prevent conflicts from becoming catastrophic in the first place,” they write.

“In short, Canada needs both a robust defence capability and a credible and effective peace agenda.”

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 thorny issue of Alberta’s referendum, and I asked you, “How should PM Carney handle Alberta separatism?” I contrasted Carney’s realpolitik approach of Alberta appeasement on oil pipelines, with demands that Carney not abandon his principles on protecting the climate.

It’s a tough question, so I gave you a few options to choose from. The most frequently chosen answer was, “Stick to his climate principles” (53%), followed by, “Confront U.S. interference” (25%). A smaller number chose, “Oppose separatists strongly” (11%).

Reader’s comments

• “Carney is working hand in hand with US and international corporate interests… Foreign corporate interference should be exposed not aided.” – S. Wilke

• “Foreign interference… can undermine Canadian sovereignty, divide communities, reduce trust in the country’s institutions and put Canadian rights and freedoms at risk.” – M. Larocque

Read more

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.13k times

and now Danielle Smith has confirmed it: the referendum is going ahead.

How should the Prime Minister respond?

Is he compromising too much with Alberta in a “go-along-to-get-along” strategy? Or is he tactically avoiding making a bad situation even worse, and perhaps outmaneuvering Alberta Premier Danielle Smith in the process?

On Thursday night Premier Danielle Smith announced Albertans will be going to the polls in October to cast their vote on separation - but they won’t actually be voting on whether to separate.

Instead, they’ll be choosing whether or not it’s time to hold a binding referendum on quitting Canada.

Subscribe now

As a Globe and Mail writer said, “Alberta Premier Danielle Smith hasn’t quite set Alberta up for a secession referendum. She’s just coming really, really close – about as close as you can get – and nobody, not the separatists, not the federalists, is all that thrilled about it.”

The Premier’s dangerous strategy

Former Senator Douglas Roche, writing from Edmonton, says that Premier Smith is straddling the separation issue. She knows that the majority of Albertans do not support leaving, so she says her position, and that of her government, is to remain in Canada.

But the minority (about 27%) of Albertans who support separation are a majority within her own party. “This means that Smith is dependent on separatists to remain leader,” writes Roche in the Hill Times.

Jen Gerson, an Alberta-based journalist, says Smith’s dalliance with separatists is dangerous politically for her and the country: “There’s no way to know ahead of a catastrophe that you’ve gone too far this time, found the moment you’ve hit something too deep and dangerous to step back from. Some pits open to a darkness that no one can control.”

Gerson points out that Smith knows this risky politics is why no Alberta Premier since Ralph Klein has actually finished their term.

Read more from Jen Gerson:

The Line

Jen Gerson: Saddle up, Alberta. We're referendum-ing

By: Jen Gerson…

Read more

a month ago · 265 likes · 132 comments · Jen Gerson

Weaponizing the separatist movement

On the other hand, the threat of separation is politically useful to the Premier in extracting concessions from the federal government and Prime Minister Mark Carney.

Carney and Smith met in Ottawa this month to move along their memorandum of understanding to lay out a pathway for an oil pipeline from Alberta to the West Coast - something that Premier Smith has long sought out to expand Alberta oil exports, but has met resistance from climate change activists and neighbouring British Columbia.

“Today is also about building trust in a Canada that works” PM Carney told reporters. “We've accomplished a lot together in the last six months,” added Premier Smith.

For many, Carney has gone too far.

Our friend Seth Klein writes on Substack from B.C., the tail pipe of the potential pipeline. “Carney has also gone all-in on supporting new fossil fuel infrastructure. The prime minister is bent on environmental deregulation, exempting projects deemed ‘nation-building’ from some environmental laws,” he says.

Klein feels that many who voted for Carney because they believed he would be an ally in the fight against climate change have been let down, “As plank after plank of Canada’s climate strategy is dismantled, more and more of those climate-anxious voters are feeling a major case of buyer’s remorse.”

Read more from Seth Klein:

When I’m not writing for PeaceQuest readers I work on federal health policy, and the Carney government’s incredibly tepid response to Alberta’s unprecedented health care privatization has been a top concern.

The Prime Minister’s strategy

Still, Doug Roche thinks that Carney is refusing to push back on Smith, because this is exactly what she wants him to do.

Roche agrees with those who say Danielle Smith would prefer if the prime minister was more confrontational. It would fit her narrative better. Instead, “Carney’s strategy is to show Albertans that cooperative federalism works,” says Roche.

Roche might be right, given that the separatists are livid with Premier Smith and calling for her ouster after announcing her confusing referendum. Smith is urging separatists to focus on winning the referendum – not kicking her out of office like every other Premier since Ralph Klein.

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

Share

Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)

Leave a comment

Readers say Ottawa Treaty is major Canadian accomplishment

Last week we looked back at the famous Ottawa Treaty banning landmines. Overwhelmingly (91%) readers felt strongly that the Ottawa Treaty is a key part of Canada’s international accomplishments.

As Jim Carmichael said in the comments, banning landmines was and remains an urgent goal, and, “The partnership between the Canadian Government and the United Nations resulting in the Ottawa Treaty banning landmines, was thus a major achievement in the service of humanity.”

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.23k times

The 29-year-old ban on landmines has been facing a premature midlife crisis lately.

“Despite the ongoing conflict between Hezbollah and Israel which has resulted in thousands of deaths and injuries…Lebanon moved forward with the ban on antipersonnel landmines,” said the Ottawa-based group Mines Action Canada in a statement, celebrating the new addition.

Subscribe now

Membership in the treaty seems to be a revolving door these days - some countries are coming in, while others are getting out.

In 2025, five NATO countries (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and Finland) announced they were withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty, or as known by its official United Nations title, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction.

Last year was pretty rough for the treaty. It was the first time any country quit the ban.

At the treaty’s 25^th anniversary celebrations held in Ottawa back in 2022, Ukraine’s Ambassador joined Lloyd Axworthy, Canada’s former Minister of Foreign Affairs and then Minister Mélanie Joly to mark what some have called the most successful disarmament treaty of all time.

But less that three years later, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signed a decree initiating his country’s withdrawal from the international treaty banning anti-personnel landmines.

The treaty prohibits leaving the treaty during armed conflict, so legally Ukraine is still a State Party to the Ottawa Treaty.

In all six cases, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the perceived threat that other countries along Russia’s Western border could face a similar fate was used to justify the return to using landmines.

Putin’s army has spread landmines widely in occupied Ukraine following the invasion, making the country one of the most mined on Earth. Russia, along with other major powers including the United States and China, never joined the landmine ban.

So when NATO members start pulling out of the treaty, what kind of message does that send to the rest of the world?

As to be expected, many pro-war analysts and military leaders have used the Russian invasion to argue for their countries to withdraw, too – and Canada is no exception.

They say that the world when the treaty was negotiated no longer exists. Using arguments that were echoed by Prime Minister Mark Carney in his famous Davos speech this year, one decried the landmine treaty was a relic of the past, “in an age of great power competition.”

The progress that the Ottawa Treaty has made in preventing terrible deaths and injuries from landmines, mostly inflicted upon civilians, is undeniable.

The International Campaign to Ban Landmines’ Landmine Monitor 2025 says that 94 states have officially completed destruction of their stocks of antipersonnel mines, destroying a combined total of over 55 million antipersonnel landmines.

The Ottawa Treaty, as it’s often called because of the key role Canada played in the late 1990s bringing the treaty about, holds a special place of high-esteem in our collective memory – a time long ago when Canada was a leader internationally.

Drawing on this essential role, Mines Action Canada has called on Canada to speak up and engage with our allies in defence of the Ottawa Treaty banning landmines.

“Landmines are a weapon of choice for those like Russia and ISIS who want to terrorize civilians or a weapon of desperation for non-state actors with no other options,” said Erin Hunt, who heads the group. “The Baltic countries [leaving the treaty] are neither of those.”

“This Canadian success story has saved countless lives over the past 25 years and must stay strong to prevent future harm,” Erin added.

(The article has been updated regarding Ukraine’s legal status within the Treaty. My thanks to Mines Action Canada).

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

Share

Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)

Leave a comment

Readers very concerned about U.S. interference in Canada

Last week’s newsletter looked at reports that both Russia and the United States are supporting Alberta separatists through online misinformation campaigns. The odd de facto collaboration to undermine Canada makes the two countries very strange bedfellows, which seems to be leaving “official Ottawa” unable to respond.

I asked you to choose which country; Russia, China or the United States, posed the greatest threat of foreign interference to Canada. Readers overwhelmingly chose the United States (96%).

Read comments

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.47k times

A new report says the Russians – and the Americans – are coming together to support the independence movement that is pushing for a referendum on Alberta leaving Canada.

Subscribe now

The study by leading information researchers says American and Russian actors are playing a dangerous role through disinformation and “fake news” delivered over social media, reports Global News.

“While homegrown, the movement has become an attractive target for foreign exploitation,” said the new study backed by five think tanks, including DisinfoWatch and the Global Centre for Democratic Resilience. “As they amplify separatist voices and normalize American annexation of Canada, these outside forces are posing a direct threat to Canada’s ‘democratic integrity.’”

Russians are covert – Americans are “in your face”

Russia’s interference supporting Alberta separatism is covert, using shadowy websites that create an echo chamber of disinformation. “Russian government strategy has long emphasized exploiting divisive issues within Western democracies,” says the report.

Meanwhile the Americans are much more bald-faced. “U.S. engagement is overt, escalating, and in some environments, converging with Russia,” the researchers found.

Separatists meeting with Trump administration

Senior U.S. figures in the Trump administration have met with Alberta separatist leaders several times, and endorsed their aims.

“We’re meeting very, very senior people leaving our meetings to go directly to the Oval Office,” claimed a member of Alberta Prosperity Project, a fringe right-wing group. One meeting was reportedly held in super-secure facility shielded from electronic eavesdropping.

“The U.S. is extremely enthusiastic about a free and independent Alberta,” the group’s legal counsel, Jeff Rath, told the Financial Times after attending the meetings.

The group is openly seeking a $500-billion credit facility from the U.S. Treasury to help bankroll the new country if they come out victorious in a referendum.

American Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent sparked excitement amongst Alberta separatists when he described the oil-rich province as “a natural partner for the U.S.” during an interview with right-wing streaming channel.

“The Albertans are very independent people,” Bessent said. “[There is a] rumor that they may have a referendum on whether they want to stay in Canada or not.”

U.S. influencers have amplified separatist and annexation narratives to audiences in the millions, say the researchers.

Watch comments by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent

Privacy controversy

Alberta separatists submitted a petition this week signed by over 300,000 people triggering a referendum on Alberta’s future within Canada.

But their efforts came under a cloud after it was discovered petition organizers gained illegal access to a list of millions of Alberta voters – and posted it to a website. Were some of these names copied to the petition?

Former Premier and Harper-era Cabinet minister Jason Kenney, a frequent target of Alberta’s extreme right, was very alarmed to learn his personal information was shared widely – with no complaint from the Premier who’s staffer was aware of the data breach.

Ottawa unable to respond

Despite over a year of annexation threats against Canada from Trump, the Ottawa political establishment seems to be unable or unwilling to confront the American threat of interference in Canadian politics.

As PeaceQuest readers may recall, progressive voices such as Gordon Laxer and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May urged the government to examine threats from American oil interest as far back as February 2024. The government-sponsored Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference ignored them.

Little has changed since. For instance, the Senate Committee on National Security released a report just last week that fingered Russia as deliberately disseminating false information to Western audiences. But American interference was not addressed.

The Senators recommended the Government of Canada counter Russia through our involvement in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Group of Seven, the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance and other international entities.

But it’s our involvement in these U.S.-led security alliances that leaves us wide open to the Americans.

Prime Minister Carney knows this already. As he described in his now famous speech in Davos, our integration is a vulnerability to be exploited by the big powers.

“You cannot ‘live within the lie’ of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination,” he said.

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

Share

Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)

Leave a comment

Readers support buying Swedish jets over American

A majority of PeaceQuest readers (56%) say that Canada should replace its aging feet of CF-18 jets with new ones built by Sweden - not American-made F-35 stealth fighters.

Canada’s $28-billion F-35 program is under review, and readers say that Canada should go with the Gripen fighter being offered to Canada by Saab. The second most popular answer was “none of the above” (31%). One-in-ten (9%) say a mixed fleet of both F-35s and Gripens would be preferable.

Comments:

• “Any situation that involves dependence on the U.S. must be avoided, for obvious reasons.” – F. Brady

• “My choice was only to buy Gripens.” - M. Laroque

• “Why do we need fighter planes in the first place?” - S. Walke

Read comments

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 7.68k times

Now we know why. And the reason is a warning to Canada’s military pushing to buy a fleet of F-35s.

Subscribe now

It was late January, 2025 at the U.S. airbase in Fairbanks, Alaska, and four F-35 fighters were preparing for a training flight. It was about lunch time, and the air temperature was -18 Celsius. After a delay caused by – you guessed it – technical problems with the other planes, the four finally were cleared for take-off.

The pilot of the third plane ran into trouble immediately. The front landing gear of the F-35 would not retract fully, jamming at an odd angle. The pilot contacted the ground commander and the other pilots for help.

The pilot tried a number of switches, but the other planes confirmed the landing gear was still jammed. A series of highspeed turns, putting 2.5 times the pressure of gravity on the plane couldn’t shake it loose.

Finally, the commanding officer on the ground decided it was time to call “customer support” at the F-35’s manufacturer: Lockheed Martin.

A conference call was arranged between the F-35 pilot, ground control at the airbase, and 5 engineers working for Lockheed Martin in Texas.

For nearly an hour they painstakingly pored over the warning codes being generated by the aircraft’s complex computers, one by one, as the pilot circled overhead burning precious fuel. They could not figure out the problem.

Finally they decided to perform and incredibly risky maneuver called a touch-and-go.

The pilot approached the runway as if to land, touched the jammed landing gear on the ground to try to snap it into place, then climbed back into the sky. It didn’t work.

On a second try the pilot came in to land at an even higher speed and touched the landing gear on the ground again.

That’s when things went very wrong.

As the pilot pulled up with nose landing gear still jammed, the F-35’s controls went haywire. The plane tilted and dove uncontrollably – the pilot’s joystick stopped working properly, and the plane entered a fatal “stall” position where it can’t remain airborne.

The pilot ejected, and the F-35 dropped like a stone to the ground near the runway, exploding into a ball of flames. The dramatic crash was caught on video by people at the airbase and shared widely over social media.

Incredibly, two weeks later a second F-35 from the same airbase had a similar landing gear problem, but was able to land safely.

What went wrong?

The results of the crash investigation serve as a warning for the Royal Canadian Air Force and its pilots.

Improper handing of hydraulic fluid for the landing gear by U.S. military ground crew allowed water into the mixture, which froze in the sub-zero Alaska temperatures.

The primary cause of the crash was related to operating the F-35 in very cold temperatures, just like Canada’s fleet will have to perform in the North.

Perhaps even worse is that even the U.S. air force was incapable of fixing its complex jet itself, and had to call Lockheed Martin engineers (who still couldn’t fix it).

Oddly, during the 50-minute call the engineers in Texas never asked where the pilot was flying, and didn’t know the F-35 was in Alaska, according to the report.

When the pilot performed the second flyby and touched the ground with the jammed landing gear, the F-35’s complex computer thought the aircraft had actually landed, and switched into a ground-operating mode. “Control of the aircraft was not possible,” said the crash investigation report. The pilot was forced to eject twenty-six seconds later.

Lessons for Canada

Critics of the F-35 for Canada have long pointed out how Canada’s airforce will similarly be unable to maintain its own aircraft, and will be utterly reliant upon the U.S. Lockheed Martin corporation, which is under the control of President Trump.

If Canada goes through on its plan to buy 88 F-35s, will we become completely dependent – and vulnerable – on the United States to use them as we see fit (or not use them)?

The review of the F-35 purchase is overdue

After Trump’s tariffs and take-over threats, the Carney government initiated a review of the deal. Rival Swedish plane-maker Saab offered Canada its Gripen aircraft, which is much better suited to Arctic operations and does not need the Americans. Some have proposed Canada buying F-35s and Gripens, creating a mixed fleet of both aircraft.

Canadian Defence Minister David McGuinty told a Senate defence committee this week that Ottawa has not set a timeline for deciding whether to proceed with its $28 billion plan to acquire 88 F-35A Lightning II fighter jets. So far the government has only paid for 16 F-35s which are being built in Lockheed Martin’s factory in Texas.

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

Share

Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)

Leave a comment

Readers hopeful Canada will become peace leader, once again

Last week I shared an appeal by prominent Canadians urging the Prime Minister to play a leadership role at the United Nations. Talks happening right now about the global nuclear disarmament agreement, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), are at risk of sinking into disarray, opening the door to an uncertain nuclear future.

By far, most readers agree that Canada can still play a leading role on the global stage (84%). Some said they didn’t know or were unsure (13%), and a handful disagreed (3%).

Read comments

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.3k times

That’s how close we came to the first use of a nuclear weapon since 1945.

It was just a few years ago in September 2022, and Russian troops were being pushed back by Ukraine whose troops had launched a successful surprise incursion into Russia and captured territory.

Russians had threatened to use nuclear weapons in the past, but the West thought Putin was always bluffing. But not this time.

Subscribe now

The CIA informed U.S. President Joseph Biden that it had intercepted increasing chatter from Russian forces about the possibility of using smaller-scale “tactical” nuclear weapons.

The spy agency warned the President of a 50% chance or higher that Russia would reach for its nuclear arsenal if it found its forces were decimated.

Fortunately, frantic and forceful calls from the White House to the Kremlin had an effect. Even Chinese President Xi Jinping’s help was enlisted to persuade Putin to stand down.

A disastrous escalation to a nuclear conflict between superpowers was avoided.

As the Ukrainians were later forced to withdraw, the pressure to reach for “the button” receded.

President Biden shared publicly the harrowing nuclear close call a few weeks later.

Biden said Russian President Vladimir Putin was “not joking when he talks about the use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons.”

“We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis [in 1962],” the president added.

Trouble brewing at the United Nations?

If Prime Minister Mark Carney is correct and the previous World order governed by treaties and international law is over, then a bad situation may be unfolding in New York at the United Nations.

One of the last nuclear treaties signed by the big powers is under review next week. The UN calls the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (“proliferation,” meaning the increase or spread of nuclear weapons to other countries), or NPT, “an essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament,” and “the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime.”

The challenge is that each of the last two 5-year reviews of the NPT ended with a failure to reach a final agreed-upon statement.

Experts urging Ottawa to get off the sidelines

A group of Canadian “Who’s Who” – all recipients of the prestigious Order of Canada – have written the Prime Minister calling upon the Government of Canada to provide leadership for the NPT and nuclear disarmament efforts.

“This core treaty of nuclear governance is facing a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ result with possibly fatal effects for its authority. A rescue plan is sorely needed to salvage the treaty and prevent this dire outcome,” wrote the “Canadian Leadership for Nuclear Disarmament.” The letter was signed Lloyd Axworthy, Elizabeth May, and Allan Rock among others.

Prime Minister Mark Carney responds

The group released the Prime Minister’s reply to their urgent request on Friday. The response was only two paragraphs long, and despite its brevity, described their call for leadership as, “both timely and appreciated.” The Prime Minister said he had passed the correspondence to his Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The signers might take solace that the Prime Minister responded given the myriad challenges facing the country.

But unfortunately, expectations for anything resembling past Canadian diplomatic accomplishments (remember landmines?) have been turned into dust over the last generation of inaction.

Still, people like me who have spent much of their lives working for peace know that the challenge to avoid nuclear war, and abolish the bombs, is a multi-generational struggle that is passed on from our parents, and then to our children. It may not happen tomorrow, but it will happen.

We have been incredibly lucky for over 80 years, let’s hope it doesn’t run out next time.

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

Share

Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)

Leave a comment

PeaceQuest added to Canadian Peace Museum collection

The Canadian Peace Museum being established in rural Bancroft, Ontario has added archives from the Kingston-based founders of PeaceQuest to its collection. You can access materials produced from 2012-2020 and a special site devoted to peace education called “War and Children” created by educators for teachers.

Learn more

Readers feel Pope Leo XIV has positive influence

Last week we dubbed Pope Leo the new “anti-Trump” when he spoke out passionately against the war on Iran, evoking the social media scorn of President Trump.

In an article that was one the most read and most engaged published by PeaceQuest recently, 95% of readers said, “Yes, the Pope can influence global affairs and promote peace.”

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 2.1k times

“The Masters of War pretend not to know that it takes only a moment to destroy!” he called to a roaring crowd in Cameroon. “Yet often a lifetime is often not enough to rebuild.”

Wow, it hit me like a bolt of lightning.

Subscribe now

“The world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants,” the leader of the Catholic Church said firmly.

“They turn a blind eye to the fact that billions of dollars are spent on killing, on devastation. Yet the resources needed for healing, education, and restoration are nowhere to be found.”

The U.S.-born Pope Leo XIV was speaking in Africa – but we all know who he was talking about in America.

For days he has been the target of a barrage of insults from President Donald Trump after the Pope opposed the attack on Iran. The President accused the Pope of being weak and captive to the “radical left.” Trump event went so far as to post AI-generated images of himself as Jesus, healing the ill.

A group representing Catholic bishops across Canada spoke out against using images of Christ for political rhetoric as being, “disrespectful.”

“Blessed are the peacemakers, but woe to those who manipulate religion in the very name of God for their own military, economic, or political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth,” Pope Leo responded.

The Pope says he will not change his message, despite strong opposition from the American administration.

“I will continue to speak out strongly against war, seeking to promote peace, promoting dialogue and multilateralism among states to find solutions to problems,” Pope Leo said.

“I’m not afraid of the Trump administration.”

Until now Canada’s Mark Carney has been positioned as the intellectual counterweight to Trump and other authoritarians since the Prime Minister’s globally-celebrated speech in Davos.

But I think Mark Carney – who is quadrupling Canada’s military spending at the expense of social programs and health care – should heed the Pope’s criticism of war spending while so many people are in need.

Watch the video clip, or read the full text.

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

Share

Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)

Leave a comment

Save a thought for Cuba

It’s been two months since we last looked at Cuba’s struggle under sanctions from the Trump administration.

Attention has been diverted to the Middle East, but the situation in Cuba has grown worse, my colleague at Common Frontiers tells me.

“Cuba needs access to fuel now. Power outages are constant,” she said. “The situation in hospitals is absolutely dire with medication shortages and decreased access to life-saving equipment.”

Nearly a million Canadians visit Cuba every year – the Caribbean island is close to our hearts and we have had a special, independent, relationship for decades.

Please add your name and send this message to the government urging immediate action to help the Cuban people.

Send your message

Readers divided on PM Carney’s handling of Iran war

The ceasefire in the Persian Gulf seems to be holding, thankfully, and Iran has reopened tanker traffic through the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

Canada originally sided with the illegal U.S. attack on Iran, but managed to keep troops out of the conflict (so far).

PeaceQuest readers are roughly divided evenly over the PM’s handling of the conflict between the U.S., Israel and Iran. Two-out-of-five (41%) said he has handled it well, while slightly more said he has not handled it well (49%).

Read comments

Did you miss last week’s newsletter?

Viewed 1.7k times

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

3 months 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