Ayami Sato first woman to play on a professional Canadian men's baseball team

Kudos to Toronto for signing up - and actually playing - the first women to play for a professional men's baseball team in Canada. 

Just so you know, this was not the Toronto Blue Jays in Major League Baseball, mark you, but the Toronto Maple Leafs Baseball Club, the rather confusingly-named team in the Intercounty Baseball League.

Ayami Sato is widely regarded as the best female pitcher in the world, and is a six-time Women's Baseball World Cup champion with Japan. She struck out one and did not allow anyone on base in the first two innings of the Maple Leafs game against the Kitchener Panthers yesterday. The Leafs ultimately lost the game 6-5.

This is maybe not on the scale of Jackie Robinson's first game for the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947 (the first Black man to play in Major League Baseball), but it is nevertheless a pretty big step, and an inspiration for thousands of young Canadian girls who idolize Sato.

Every vote counts - we have proof!

Never scoff again when someone tells you that every vote counts. 

A recount in the Montreal area riding of Terrebonne yielded an almost unbelievable result: after the initial count found that the Bloc Québécois has won the riding by an ultra-slim margin of 44 votes, a recount found that, in fact, the Liberals scraped in by just one single vote! 

After the recount, Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné of the Bloc garnered 23,351 votes, while Liberal Tatiana Auguste registered 23,352, the closest result in recorded history. The swing gives the Liberals 170 seats in parliament, still two short of a majority.

The recount is a process that automatically clicks in when a result is within 0.01% of the total votes, considered the margin of potential error. Three other judicial recounts are underway in other close calls, but none of them give the Liberals a path to a majority.

This would probably have caused riots in the USA, so it's a testament to the robustness of the Canadian system that the revised result (and the recount itself) has been accepted with good grace. I wonder how Ms. Sinclair-Desgagnè is feeling today, though?

Alberta is rich, so why are they still whining?

I have never understood Alberta's vociferous and ongoing complaint that they are being unfairly targeted by Canada's equalization system.

Equalization was brought in to provide "reasonably comparable level of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation", i.e. to ensure that all Canadians benefit from all of Canada's advantages, and that those provinces that are richer (through accidents of geography, geology, etc) subsidize those that are poorer. It's not a perfect system, but it's surely a laudable goal.

Intra-provincial equalization payments are calculated according to a formula and, while you might quibble about some of the details, it is broadly designed to make sure that there are no egregiously have-not provinces, through no fault of their own.

But the big thing is, equalization is a federal program. The government of Alberta has not paid over a single cent to any other province, despite what Danielle Smith implies; all equalization payments come from federal coffers through federal taxes. If Albertans (as opposed to Alberta) can be said to have paid more than residents of other provinces, that is only insofar as Albertans have higher incomes than the national average. This doesn't make it unfair, except in the eyes of Danielle Smith and the Alberta First crowd.

Because the bottom lime is: Alberta is a rich province, both in absolute GDP and particularly in per capita terms. The province's own economic dashboard admits - nay, boasts - as much. They should expect to be paying more than Nova Scotia or Manitoba. They are not struggling, they are not unfairly treated. They are living in La La Land compared to most Canadians. And the rest of Canada is pretty sick of their constant whining.

Did UK get a good trade deal with USA?

Surprisingly, both for them and for the rest of the world, the UK became the first country to agree a tariff and trade deal with Donald Trump's USA.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been waxing lyrical about the deal, calling it "fantastic" and "historic". and even the BBC seems to think it a good deal and a "significant achievement" (for Starmer at least, even if not for the UK). 

Others, however, are not so sure. The Independent calls it "lipstick on a pig", and The Guardian is equally, well, guarded, likening it to "a bit part in Trump the Musical".

In some ways, a deal with the UK was low-hanging fruit for the Trump administration. For one thing, the US actually has a small surplus in its trade with the UK, which can therefore hardly be said to be taking advantage of the US. And the UK is desperate for a deal with pretty much ANYONE since leaving the EU and is therefore willing not to drive too hard a bargain. (Trump is also quite desperate for a deal, to make his wacko tariff policy look a little less dismal.) Plus, Starmer needs a win of any sort after a rather disastrous local council election.

Starmer kept up the deluge of flattery he has employed since he started dealing with Trump, which arguably is the only way to make a deal with the man, however much it may pain the flatterer. But he received some flattery back too. When Trump himself starts to compliment you, it's probably time to worry.

Anyway, what Starmer ended up with is a deal that leaves the UK only slightly worse off than before: a reduction on the 25% steel and aluminum tariffs, and a decrease on tariffs on cars from 25% to 10%, although only up to a certain quota, and still much higher than the previous 2.5% tariff. The deal increased UK access to US ethanol and beef (although why the UK wants US beef, laden with growth hormones as it is, is not clear). The US, for its part, wanted something on pharmaceuticals and technology and succeeded in that, although exactly what remains to be negotiated. The blanket 10% tariff on most UK goods entering the USA remains, though. This compares with an average tariff in 2023, for example. of just 3.3%.

So, even with its so-called "special relationship" with America, Britain still did not manage to get all the tariffs dropped, not even close. And, remember, this is not really a trade treaty at all, not like the recently-concluded free trade deal between India and the UK (which would require Congress' approval, and a lot more time). All this is happening outside of the official international trade channels, and it's not clear whether it needs to be approved by Congress or not (or whether Congress would in fact approve it). The deal, as even Trump admits, is not yet finalized, despite all the song and dance.

Being first to go is not always a good ploy. Other countries are certain to be deconstructing and analysing this deal, in an attempt to learn where points were gained and lost in the game. Because that's what this has turned into, a pretty high-stakes game. 

The UK is a much smaller trading partner with America than Canada, but this whole process gives a good idea of what to expect in future negotiations.

Actually, America does need Canada

Maybe it goes without saying, but a lot of the stuff Donald Trump says about Canada and Canadian-American trade is a load of cobblers. But if there's one thing that really gets my goat, it's his claim that America doesn't need Canadian goods. It doesn't need our oil, it doesn't need our cars, it doesn't need our lumber, etc, etc. "We don't need anything they have", he says, repeatedly.

If that were true, then why do American companies import $421 billion of good from Canada every year (2024 figure). The top few categories are: fuel, oil and derivatives; vehicles and auto parts; machinery, nuclear reactors and boilers; unspecified commodities; plastics; wood and wood products; aluminum; electrical equipment; aircraft and spacecraft(!); etc.

America could try doing without us, and that is Trump's stated goal, but it would be very tough.

New American Pope - what should we expect?

Robert Prevost, an American, is now Pope Leo XIV. He was born in Chicago, to parents of Spanish and French-Italian descent, but has spent most of his working life as a missionary in Peru and as a functionary and insider  in the Vatican, so he's actually not THAT American. An Italian newspaper calls him "the least American" of the US cardinals.

The significance of his Americanism is lost on no-one (including Donald Trump, who was quick to claim him as one of his own), although he has already proved himself critical of some of Trump's recent actions (including the deportations of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to an El Salvador jail, against a court order), and has specifically spoken about against JD Vance's "Catholic" justification of the same.

Indeed, some of the MAGA crowd are deeply suspicious of the new Pope. MAGA influencer Laura Loomer, not known for pulling her punches (or for common sense or truthfulness) calls Leo "anti-Trump, anti-MAGA, pro-open border, and a total Marxist like Pope Francis". Ryan Selkis calls him a "new woke pope".

His adoption of the name Leo, too, may or may not be significant. The previous Leo, Pope Leo XIII, who was around over a century ago, railed against the American "heracy" of the time, as he saw it, as they were attempting to align American politcal values and cultural ethos with traditional Roman Catholic tenets 3and historical practices. Sound familiar? Leo XIII was also known, ahead of his time, for his concern for workers and social issues, and his criticism of both laissez-faire capitalism and state-centric socialism. Maybe the new Pope sees himself as carrying on that work?

Anyway, new Pope. Should we be excited? Meh, probably not. Leo XIV came up through the Augustinian order, and he was made a cardinal by his predecessor Francis, so it seems likely that he will continue Francis' pastoral and slightly radical trajectory. But, as I have argued earlier, Popes these days are not that influential in the wider world, and we shouldn't really expect any concrete impacts on the world as a whole. 

World Junior Hockey players trial will help define "consent"

The ongoing trial of five members of the 2018 Canadian World Junior Hockey team is likely to be a watershed case in what constitutes consent and what constitutes sexual assault.

It is a particularly important case because the defendant, known as EM, then an awkward 20-year old university student, said and did some things that might have been construed as providing consent for the group sex that ensued. She was much the worse for alcohol, as were the young men, and admitted that she may have appeared permissive and compliant during the incident, even taking on the persona of a "porn star", but that she saw that as a kind of coping mechanism "just to get through" the ordeal. She has also testified that she tried to leave the room several times, sometimws in tears, but was persuaded, although not forced, to stay. 

There is apparently even video evidence of her saying that "it was all consensual" and that she "enjoyed it", although it is still not clear whether the video will be allowed as evidence.

But throughout the extended incident, she says that "I felt like I had no control", and was on "autopilot", almost separated from her body. She did what she did because she felt like she had no choice. Plus, she was so inebriated that she says, "I don't recall how I was acting", and "I don't know exactly what what I was doing". She was not even entirely sure she could identify which men were involved, because they "all looked the same" to her, and she actively misidentified a couple of them.

EM has a whole load more cross-examination to go through, having her credibility questioned, and I really don't envy her. (Court proceedings ended early yesterday, after EM broke down in tears several times.) I'm also glad I'm not on the jury. But the outcome of the trial will create an important precedent on what consent really means, and how much latitude women should be allowed in how they express it (or don't).

Where conflicts are concerned, don't believe everything (anything?) you see online

Deutsche Welle (DW) does a good job of fact-checking some of the more lurid political claims doing the rounds of the world's social media. Most recently it has looked into the videos being circulated by both Pakistan and India about their growing military spat over incursions into  and retailations over, Indian-held Kashmir.

Perhaps not surprisingly, DW concludes that almost all of the video propaganda being promoted by both sides is in fact false. 

For example, footage purporting to show Indian missiles raining down on Pakistan, shared at least 5 million times by outraged viewers, was in fact taken over 7 months ago and actually shows Iranian missiles hitting Israel. A picture showing a wrecked Fench-designed Rafale fighter plane was indeed Pakistani, but actually shows a Mirage 5 plane that crashed during training exercises three weeks ago. In some cases, video of purported Indian air attacks actually turns out to be footage from a popular video game!

There's an awful lot of fake photos and videos out there on the Internet, particularly in this age of AI. Where a war is involved, everything gets amped up a notch or two further, to the extent that it's pretty hard to trust anything you see online unless it comes directly from a highly reputable source. And even then it pays to be pretty sceptical.

Thus begins another major armed conflict in a time of renewed conflicts across the world.

Danielle Smith is at her politicking again

I don't like to give Danielle Smith - and Alberta in general - any more attention than necessary. She tends to make my blood boil, which is not good for me medically. But she does keep making announcements that, well, make my blood boil.

The latest, in the aftermath of a federal election, in which "her" party failed to win but all but swept the board in Alberta and Saskatchewan, is more whining and victim-playing about how badly Alberta is being treated by the federal government (by which she means the rest of the country that voted them in). It just so happens that Ontario and Quebec have bigger populations, and so they often decide elections - that is not a flaw in democracy, that's the way it's supposed to work. And sometimes those large populations will vote overwhelmingly Conservative, just not this time.

Ms. Smith has a way of speaking that particularly grates, and which usually requires translation into the language that the rest of the country speaks. She is at pains to appear straight-talking and reasonable, but hides a barb behind almost every statement she makes.

For example, she talks of "hostile acts" from Ottawa, meaning policies that the rest of the country approves of, but that happens not to benefit Alberta, with its 20th-Century attitudes to oil and gas among other things (most things she says have a link to Alberta oil on some level). 

She says that Albertans are "deeply frustrated" at the election of another Liberal government, indeed that they are "crushed" by it. Well, maybe, but so probably are NDP voters, but you don't hear them whining in the same way. That's just the way democratic elections work: the party with the most seats gets to form a government. Does she want to change that system?

And she is still talking about "Alberta sovereignty within a united Canada", whatever that actually means, as she has for some time now, all while doing her level best to foment divisiveness and fanning the flames of an independence vote. How does that help United Canada? She tends to blame Ottawa (i.e. Liberals) for threatening national unity by their policies (i.e. the ones she happens not to agree with), but she is the one almost single-handedly destroying any national unity that may have existed with her words and her actions.

She says " we will no longer tolerate having our industries threatened and our resources landlocked by Ottawa". Furthermore, "Alberta didn't start this fight, but rest assured we will finish it". Fighting talk indeed. So what is she going to do about it?

Well, with that in mind, she has put forward Bill 54 that would make it easier for a potential secession referendum to be brought forward by Alberta citizens, lowering the threshold from 20% to 10% of voters. She says the timing of this, just after a Liberal election victory is coincidental. 

She is careful to to stress that SHE will not be the one to bring such a separation vote - in fact she says, in very clear language, that "I do not support Alberta separating from Canada" - but if enough Albertans want to, then so be it, what can she do? She even points out that polls suggest that most Albertans don't want to separate from Canada, but she is nevertheless doing everything she can behind the scenes to encourage it. She visibly bristled when a reporter suggested she was being disingenuous in these apparent contradictions.

So, there you have Danielle Smith. Firebrand activist? Principled statesperson? Sneaky backroom wheeler-dealer? You decide. Meanwhile, though, Alberta's economic credibility is taking a hit. Secession remains a highly implausible scenario, but the very fact that the government is even talking about it is enough to put the willies up current and potential investors.

Australian election follows the Canadian trajectory

In an extraordinary parallel to the recent Canadian election, Australia has seen a dramatic late turn-around in their general election too.

Just as with Canada, the Australian Liberals (right of centre, despite the name) were expected to roll over the incumbent Labour Party (left of centre, and the equivalent of Canada's Liberal Party - confusing, eh?)

On the day, though, after a short election campaign totally dominated by Donald Trump and who is best positioned to deal with him, just as in Canada, Australia's Labour Party came through with a comfortable majority, despite the Liberals' apparent dominance in the polls just two months earlier (just as in Canada). Liberal leader, Peter Dutton, lost his own seat, just like Pierre Poilievre did in Canada. Like Poilievre, the  hard-line conservative Dutton was considered too close to Trump for comfort, the kiss of death in the current circumstances.

Quite a turn-around - just as in Canada. It seems like Donald Trump is doing a good job of scaring the world away from hard-right governments.

Germany classifies AfD as "extemist", and USA declares a diplomatic row

Germany's BfV domestic intelligence (spy) agency has officially labelled the country's far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) political party as an "extremist" organization, publishing as evidence a 1,100-page report on the party's racist, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim profile, its activities in deliberately stirring up "irrational fears and hostility" towards individuals and groups, and its incitement to undermine democratic institutions.

This might not seem like a big deal, but the designation legally allows BfV to officially and unofficially monitor the organization, to recruit informants, and to intercept party communications. It open up the way to closer surveillance of the organization, even clandestine spying. Other political organizations classified as "extremist" in Germany include the far-right National Democratic Party, Islamic State and the Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany.

Given that AfD is now one of Germany's major political parties, coming in second to the conservative coalition of Friedrich Merz in last February's elections, and even topping some current nationwide polls, the new "extremist" designation puts an unwelcome spotlight on the party and its machinations.

The AfD is predictably apoplectic at the announcement, calling it politically motivated and defamatory and "a blow against democracy". It has promised legal action, although it has already lost a court case in which it tried to challenge the BfV. 

Almost as predictably, that other right-wing extremist organization, the Trump administration in the USA, has condemned the move, setting off a major diplomatic row between the two countries. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the BfV's announcement "tyranny in disguise", and Vice President JD Vance called it the rebuilding of the Berlin Wall by the German establishment.

*Sigh* When America feels obliged to publicly support such illiberal, anti-democratic organizations as AfD as a knee-jerk reaction, how far down that road has it already travelled itself? Is there any way back?

CUSMA-compliant auto parts are to be exempt from US tariffs - wait, what?

In his latest tariff flip-flop, Donald Trump is now saying that the 25% tariff that is to apply to auto vehicles and parts imported from Canada into the USA will not actually apply to CUSMA-compliant auto parts.

This is seen - on this side of the border at least - as a major carveout and climb-down. But it raises the question: which auto parts are, and are not, covered by the Canada United States Mexico Agreement of 2018? Is it not ALL auto parts? (If not, why not?) I have not seen a simple guide to what this exemption actually means in concrete terms for the Trump tariffs.

Given that auto parts can cross the Canadian and US border several times during production, as we know, it would be a logistical nightmare to identify non-American components of cars and their various parts. If there is a further distinction between CUSMA-compliant and non-CUSMA-compliant parts, the task becomes even more onerous. Is anyone keeping track of the time, effort and cost of the extra admin involved?

The big auto companies are already responding to the imposition of the tariffs, even before they take effect. For example, GM is eliminating one shift at its Oshawa assembly plant, driven, it says, by soft demand and trade uncertainty, involving cuts of over 700 jobs. Does this take into account the latest tariff carveout? Who knows?

Talk about chaos and uncertainty! The announcements are coming so thick and fast that even the people most affected can't keep track if it all. What a mess!

Mental health system not to blame for Vancouver tragedy

After a Vancouver man drove his SUV into a crowded Filipino cultural festival earlier this week, killing 11 people and injuring scores more, there have been many pointed questions about why it happened and why it was allowed to happen and, more specifically, what role the man's mental illness played in the tragedy.

Adam Lo is an involuntary outpatient under the care of a Vancouver mental health team following a forced hospital stint in 2024. He suffers from schizophrenia, paranoia and delusions, and is considered at high risk for his mental health to decline, especially given his occasional refusal to take medications. 

More specifically, Mr. Lo, like thousands of others, has been on what is known as "extended leave", where he has been released from a treatment facility for supervised, mandatory care in the community. This means that his condition is severe enough to warrant forced treatment (e.g. mandatory medication injections), but not so severe that they must be held at a mental health facility. In this way, it is argued, he gets the treatment he needs, but without too much of an infringement of his civil liberties (hence, Mr. Lo still has a valid drivers license, for example).

Lo's Vancouver Coastal Health care team has commented that there was no change to his condition or his non-compliance with medications before the incident that might have warranted involuntary hospitalization. He seems to fit squarely into the parameters for extended leave, with nothing suggesting the need for enforced sequestering in a mental health facility. His act came out for the blue, with no possible way of predicting it.

Many people are understandably angry, and looking for answers (and preferably a scapegoat). But, however much people are looking for somewhere to lay blame for the tragedy, all indications are that Vancouver's mental health system was not to blame.

Poilievre is offered a safe Tory seat

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, whom many Tories seem to look on as the Second Coming (of something or other), was soundly beaten in his own riding of Carleton in last week's federal election, and by a Liberal political neophyte at that.

But so convinced are Conservatives in the man's value to the Party that they have prevailed on a long-time successful Tory MP to stand down and offer up his safe seat to Poilievre, who clearly cannot get himself elected any other way. 

It's an embarrassing climb-down for a party that has now lost to the Liberals in four consecutive elections. But Damien Kurek, who has easily won the Battle River-Crowfoot riding in Alberta since 2019, says he is more than happy to lend Poilievre his safe Tory seat. For he so loved his party that he gave his only begotten seat... If he'd had a sword handy, he would almost certainly have fallen on it.

"An unstoppable movement has grown under his leadership", quoth Kurek. "This is what's best for Canada, and is what's best for Battle River-Crowfoot". Well, except the movement just got stopped in its tracks in the last election, and Canada decided that the Liberals are best for it at the moment. How people get caught up in hype and propaganda!

This is a strange and embarrassing situation for Poilievre, although the man is not easily embarrassed. It's also a rather strange move for the Conservative Party, which lost the last election because (among other reasons) Poilievre is so unlikable, and because of his angry demeanour and tedious three-word slogans. Still, if that's what they want to do...

Poilievre is not humble man. "Sorry" or "regret" are not in his vocabulary. He has got to where he is today by being aggressive, acerbic and in-your-face; he does not do touchy-feely. It seems inconceivable to us outsiders that the Tories would even want to keep him as leader of the Party, especially given that his particular brand of divisive, populist politics has not yielded the results he promised, and he has brought the Conservatives no closer to power than Erin O'Toole and Andrew Scheer before him (arguably further away, given that the Liberals are now just a few seats short of a majority).

I wonder if this will play into the hands of the Liberals who are, as we speak, rumoured to be having talks with Conservative and NDP MPs with a view to getting a small handful of them to "cross the floor" to give the Liberals a majority in parliament.

And if Poilievre were to lose this by-election too? Well, wouldn't that be something?

Ukraine resources deal is morally very grey

I have mixed feelings about the recent minerals and resources deal struck between Ukraine and USA. But first, what's actually in the deal? 

What's significantly NOT in the deal is any mention of Ukraine paying back $350 billion in US wartime aid to Ukraine that Trump was insisting on when this was last publicly discussed (remember that embarrassing Oval Office interview streamed live to air for all the world to see). This, then, seems to have been a win for Ukraine, although of course Trump would never admit that publicly.

Specifically mentioned is that the deal should not hamper Ukraine's ambitions to join the EU. Ukraine already has a strategic partnership with the EU on raw materials, and the text of the deal acknowledges that and pledges that the US deal will not step on any European toes.

The wording of the deal is also distinctly more anti-Russian than the Trump administration usual employs (maybe the Trump-Putin bromance is petering out?) which will hearten Ukraine and its other allies. For example, for almost the first time, the deal calls out "Russia's full-scale invasion".

On the other hand, the deal as it stands also includes Ukraine's oil and gas, not just its strategically important rare earth minerals (in fact, Ukraine has hardly any rare earth minerals, certainly not as much as Trump thinks it does, but it does have significant reserves of natural gas, oil and coal - I guess someone explained that to him recently). This marks a step up from the US's previous ambitions, although the document states that the resources in question will technically stay "in Ukrainian ownership" (for what that's worth).

There are still no concrete security guarantees built into the deal, and technically the US could walk away from it at any time. Implicit in the agreement is the idea that the US would not want to walk away from it because it is in its own commercial interests. This is not a strong guarantee, but it may be the best that can be negotiated with this intransigent American administration. 

Of course, the payback for Ukraine for giving away a share of its precious mineral wealth, is a renewed commitment of military assistance from the US. However, this is not spelled out in detail, and it will probably not be on the scale of Joe Biden's previous commitments, even if it is the whole raison d'etre for the deal as far as Ukraine is concerned.

One interesting element of the agreement (or at least of an additional "technical" deal that is proposed to accompany it) is that, for its first ten years, the USA will forego its share of the proceeds, which will be fully invested in Ukraine's economy, either in new projects or reconstruction. This seems very generous and un-Trumplike, so let's see whether it gets included in the final deal.

So, the deal represents a strange hybrid of the expected cynical realpolitik from the Trump administration, and something altogether more humanitarian and unexpected. Of course, coming from Trump's America, I really would not trust it to come to fruition or be upheld without a bunch more last minute changes.

I'm also very unsure about this kind of hard-negotiation arm-twisting in order to provide something that was freely given for years under the previous administration. Equating Ukraine's existential issues with commercial transactions and "filthy lucre" seems morally reprehensible somehow. But you can see why a desperate Ukraine might be tempted to agree to it, when their very existence is on the line.

Doug Ford goes full Trump

Doug Ford has gone off on a rant again - he admits as much himself. Still smarting from an Ontario Supreme Court ruling that stops him from taking out a bunch of recently installed bike lanes in Toronto, which Mr. Ford finds inconvenient on his commute into Queen's Park, he has gone full Trump, painting the whole judicial system as full of "terrible, terrible, bleeding heart judges" who make decisions based on "ideology". 

This comes about a month after another Ontario judge ruled against Ford's ill-advised (and apparently illegal) plan to shut down all supervised drug consumption sites. So, maybe Ford's oversized ego is feeling a little bruised.

"I can't wait until they retire", he rants, "matter of fact, I'll pay them to retire early ... just get out of the system". He went further: "Let's start electing our judges, holding them accountable".

Of course, what Ford means is that he respectfully disagrees with their decisions, decisions made impartially on their own merits, based as they were on Canadian and Ontario case law and statutes. But that's a long way from what he actually said, and he overstepped his boundaries by a long chalk. Clearly, it is actually Ford who is acting on ideology. He is saying that these respected judges' considered decisions are wrong just because they don't jibe with his own political views.

And calling for American-style elected judges? - and we've seen how THAT is going - that is just beyond the pale. Maybe Ford was just having a bad, frustrating day, but a professional politician just doesn't say these things out loud, whatever they may say in the privacy of their own toilet. 

This was an unfortunate and embarrassing rant, and it even elicited a joint statement by Ontario's three chief justices, chastising Ford for his inappropriate outburst and defending an independent judiciary as "a cornerstone of our constitutional democracy", reminding Ford that "an independent judiciary protects the public, not just judges. It means a society governed by the rule of law."

For a guy who set himself up as a bulwark against the excesses of Donald Trump during the recent provincial election, he sure sounds like Donald Trump sometimes.

Renewables blamed for Iberian power outage - again!

Predictable as clockwork, some people are blaming renewables for yesterday's massive electricity blackout in Spain and Portugal (and some parts of Southern France). "Net zero blamed for blackout chaos" blared a headline in Britain's Daily Telegraph, for example, even though various experts interviewed in the article did NOT in fact come to that conclusion.

It happens every time, but, just as predictably, they are quite wrong. It is still not clear exactly what did cause the blackouts, which were rectified pretty quickly, but it seems to have been a grid problem, not a renewables supply problem. Some 2MW of renewable power was disconnected, but as a RESULT of the grid disturbance, not as a cause. In a statement, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez specifically ruled out renewable or nuclear energy as a cause of the outage, calling such claims "lies" and "ignorance".

Both Spain and Portugal do have a high proportion of renewable energy in their grids, but they have developed over the years good systems for handling intermittent sources of energy, and have a robust system of energy storage in place. I wish we had something comparable.

The actual causes of the blackout are still being studied, whatever the Daily Telegraph may have already decided.

Trump not the only factor in Canadian election

The Liberals have been returned to power with a strong minority government (just 4 seats away from a majority as I write this, although with over a dozen seats still too close to call, a majority is still a possibility). And this from a party that, just two short months ago, was languishing 24 percentage points back from the Conservatives. How was this miracle accomplished?

Well, read pretty much any article, whether Canadian or American (even the BBC and the Times of India), and the answer would seems to be Donald Trump and his bizarre fixation with tariffs. Trump himself seems happy to take credit for it: "You know, until I came along, remember that the conservative was leading by 25 points. Then I was disliked by enough of the Canadians that I've thrown the election into a close call, right?"

Of course, this is just the narcissist in Trump seeking the limelight anywhere it can find it. But not everything is about Trump all the time (even though it might seem like it).

For one thing, Trump didn't DELIBERATELY manage the Canadian election. He is also on record, repeatedly, as saying that he doesn't really care who wins the Canadian election. Indeed, you'd think he would actually have preferred Poilievre to win, given that he is much closer to Trump in his politics (although that very closeness may have had something to do with Poilievre's decline - in that respect at least, Trump's ascension may have indirectly precipitated the Conservatives' rout).

But a bunch of other factors led to the extraordinary Liberal turnaround too, not just Trump. 

For example, the precipitate decline of the NDP under Jagmeet Singh (culminating in Singh's defeat in his own riding and his subsequent step down as leader, as the NDP's seat count tanked from 25 to 7, losing party status in the process), and to a lesser extent of the Bloc Québécois under Yves-François Blanchet (which saw a reduction in seats from 32 to 23, although they may still hold the balance of power, depending on how the final results pan out). With  these two parties more less out of the picture, the left vote was not hopelessly split for once, something that has quietly benefitted the Conservatives for decades now: this was the closest thing to a two-party race in decades.

Although Poilievre has enjoyed good polls for the last couple of years, until very recently, I'm not sure that Canadians ever really warmed to him as a person (even after an attempted media makeover). Something about his hectoring tone and that grating voice, his negative, disdainful and patronizing attitude, his bludgeoning use of three-word slogans - none of that really endeared him to the average Joe in the Canadian street. And when people actually had to vote in a consequential election, rather than just in a throwaway poll question, they realized they couldn't quite stomach the man.

The single most important factor in the Liberals' rise and the Conservatives' fall, though, was undoubtedly the resignation of the unpopular Justin Trudeau (whatever you might think about Trudeau, no politician retains popularity for more than ten years). That, and the subsequent election of Mark Carney as Liberal leader, was when the polls really started to change, not the election of Donald Trump.

And finally, given the chaos going on around the world (and not just Trump), Canadians judiciously decided to vote for a calm, sensible, smart operator who has experience in dealing with economic crises, rather than for a guy with anger issues who dispenses simplistic three-word slogans. Yes, voters saw Mark Carney as the best PM candidate to deal with Trump, but also to deal with inflation, productivity and all the other things a Prime Minister is supposed to manage.

And finally finally, remember that Canada uses the "Westminster system" of elections - we don't vote for a leader for the country like Americans do, we vote for individual regional MPs and it is the plurality of elected MPs that dictates who we have as Prime Minister. I think this is important. Some voters may still vote according to the leader they want to see, but most are voting for individual MPs and the policy platforms of the party as a whole. The cult of personality does not hold sway here like it does in the US.

So, yes, Trump was a factor in the Canadian election. But don't be fooled by simplistic media reporting into thinking that he was the only factor. That only serves to boost his ego still further. And that's the last think we need.

Disgraced Liberal candidate endorses Conservatives

Ruby Dalla is a nasty piece of work. I saw her interviewed after she was officially disqualified as a Liberal leadership candidate for violating many different leadership voting and expenses rules. Of course, she denied all culpability - very few politicians actually admit to errors these days, they just bluster their way through it; we can thank Donald Trump for that - and of course she accused the Liberal Party of discrimination, as a woman, as a visible minority, and probably as a few other things as well.

Well, clearly Ms. Dalla did not forget this embarrassment, because just yesterday, the day before the federal election, she chose to publicly whine about it again, and effectively endorse Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives. "Make the right choice for change", she advises, parroting Poilievre's favourite by-line.

So, not really a died-in-the-wool Liberal after all, just a professional politician on the make, willing to take whatever steps she needs to get a bit of power and influence. It seems to me that the Liberals dodged a bullet with her. Don't be surprised to see her standing as a Conservative sometime soon. If they'll have her, that is.

What would Poilievre actually do about the DEI initiatives he despises?

Pierre Poilievre doesn't like to be characterized that way, but some of his policies are dangerously close to those of Donald Trump. One example is his crusade against DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) policies in government contracts and grant-giving.

DEI initiatives are meant to address systemic inequalities and racism in government dealings, and they were a particular focus of the Trudeau government, which even set up a DEI ministry to deal with such matters (a ministry that Mark Carney has since removed, astutely taking out in the process one of Poilievre's major debate points).

The Conservatives, on the other hand, airily dismiss such equity concerns as "woke ideology" and "woke culture", in the universal language after all those opposed to dealing with inequities and inequalities, and argue that such mandates wrongly prioritize race or gender over merit. Their election platform talks about a "woke criminal justice agenda" and a "woke agenda on spending", and Poilievre regularly says in his campaign speeches that "we need to reverse that, get back to Canadian values" (by which he presumably means white Canadian values or, more specifically, Conservative values). This plays very well with some segments of his core support, however un-Canadian it may actually be.

When pressed, Poilievre seems unable or unwilling to elaborate on exactly how he would deal with all this "woke" nonsense - presumably, he doesn't actually know - but we have seen how America has been dealing with it in Donald Trump's presidential orders and the rapacious work of Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

I'm not saying that Poilievre would necessarily institute such a draconian crusade as has been occurring south of the border (although, with the precedent set, that is a possibility). But, like a dangerous iceberg hidden beneath the surface, this is just one of the many matters on which I don't trust Poilievre, a potential atrocity lurking behind relatively innocuous and reasonable-sounding words.

Yes, there is still a war in Gaza

In case you were wondering, due to the almost complete absence of coverage in the mainstream daily news cycle, there is still a war going on in Gaza. Or rather, there is an ongoing genocide going on, because "war" presupposes two sides engaging each other.

In fact, the war in Gaza is probably as bad as it has ever been, but it hardly makes an appearance in the news because it's no longer, well, new. (Similar to the ongoing war in Ukraine - yes, that one's still going too.) 

The latest dispatch from Gaza describes how the World Food Program agency, which has been providing most of the hot meals for the beleaguered people of Gaza, has now officially run out of food because Israeli forces are still enforcing the closure of all crossings from the outside world into Gaza. Food stockpiled during an earlier ceasefire has now all but run out, and 2.3 million Palestinians are starving. Thousands of tons of food supplies are currently stuck at the border crossing.

Remember much earlier in the war, when there was great international outrage at the Israelis blocking access to food supplies? Well, that is happening now, and in fact this is the longest closure Gaza has ever faced. And yet it is hardly being reported. Israel says it has to enforce the blockade because they can't risk food supplies being siphoned off by Hamas, something of which there is no good evidence anyway, but I think we know their real motives.

Oh, and Palestinians continue to be killed in large number by Israeli bombs, 78 in just the last 24 hours. The Israeli military issues short-notice orders to residents of particular towns to evacuate (to where?), and then proceeds to blow up what remains of the housing stock there. Like I say, not really a war, more of an ethnic cleansing.

Liberals are aping rhe Conservatives to get elected

With the federal election up for grabs next Monday, and the two top parties almost neck-and-neck in the polls, it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell the Liberals and Conservatives apart.

Part of Mark Carney's strategy when he became Liberal leader last month was clearly to try to steal Pierre Poilievre's thunder by adopting a bunch of Conservative platform policies and claiming them as his own. Thus, within days of assuming the leadership, Carney vowed to scrap the consumer carbon tax and to walk back unpopular plans to increase the capital gains tax inclusion rate. 

On many other issues, from housing to pipelines to maternity benefits to unbalanced budgets, the two parties are now pretty much in lockstep, regardless of their previous stances, as the Liberals pull out all the stops to try to be all things to all people. 

This is partly a ploy by the Liberals to distance themselves from any policy that might remotely be considered to be unpopular or controversial, but it is partly to take away any vote-winning advantage from the Conservatives. It makes (political) sense that the Liberals try to remove as many policy objections as possible, and to try to make the election more about individuals than platforms. That way they can take advantage of many people's instinctive dislike of Pierre Poilievre, and their apparent trust in Carney to deal with the Trump administration.

It has been quite a successful strategy for them, marked by a miraculous come-back in the polls from about 25% behind to 5% in front (although slightly softening in recent days). But it's most disconcerting to see the Liberals espousing populist policies they once vociferously objected to, and it doesn't really feel very good, I have to say. But if it's the only way to ensure that Pierre Poilievre doesn't get his greasy mitts on power, then I will go along with it.

I have to assume that both candidates are deliberately steering their platform policies towards the centre in order to get elected, and that, once elected, their true colours will come out. Thus, Poilievre would almost certainly veer sharply towards the right if elected - of that, I have long been convinced. The best I can hope is that, once elected, Mark Carney will also revert to form and veer further to the left, re-establishing his concern for the environment among other things, which seems to have been all but abandoned during this election campaign.

That is my hope. But that's really not how politics is supposed to work.

Toronto gets a(nother) new area code

It used to be that you saw a 416 area code, and you knew that a caller was from Toronto. Well, that's still true, but in addition Toronto is getting yet another area code as the region starts to run out of new phone numbers to accommodate its burgeoning population.

After the old 416 code, 647 was allocated to Toronto in 2001, followed by 437 in 2013 when that still wasn't enough. Now, starting this month, 942 will also be a Toronto area code. 

It's getting to the stage that it's hard to remember all the codes, so it's not so easy to see that you have local call coming in or an international spam call.

Tories wilfully misinterpret Liberal research document

You may have heard a rather desperate Pierre Poilievre talking about it, or read some hyperbolic inflammatory pieces by various right-wing outlets. Canada's conservatives seem to see it as a kind of Hail Mary pass that might arrest their precipitous decline in the polls in the run-up the next week's federal election.

I'm referring, of course, to a policy document published by Policy Horizons Canada, a "foresight organization" that explores trends and possible future scenarios for the government, with a view to helping it develop robust and resilient policies to deal with potential future problems.

As Poilievre sees it, "The report paints a terrifying picture of a spiral of economic depression and cost inflation. What they are anticipating on the current trajectory is a total meltdown, a societal breakdown in Canada if we stay on the current track". 

Other right-wing political hacks, like Rick Bell or David Staples or Michael Higgins, paint even more garish pictures, choosing to deliberately misinterpret the report's function.

The particular Policy Horizons report in question, entitled "Future Lives: Social Mobility in Question", explores the possibility of a scenario whereby Canadians may find themselves stuck in the socioeconomic condition of their birth and even face downward social mobility in a 2040 world where post-secondary education may no longer offer a path to social mobility, and where expanding AI has shrunk the value of human labour.

It is not, as Policy Horizons is at pains to point out, a prediction of the future under current or future Liberal policies, as the Conservatives claim. Rather, it is just one scenario that may or may not transpire after the efforts of several different governments over the next 15 years. And, quite honestly, kudos to the Liberal government for even trying to look that far ahead, given the uncertain times we live in!

So, the report is nothing to do with the Liberals' "current trajectory", whatever Poilievre & Co would like you to think. Rather, this is the Conservatives clutching at straws as they face down another potential electoral loss.

The argument against religious and "philosophical" vaccination exemptions

Kudos to Globe and Mail health columnist André Picard for once again telling it like it is, this time regarding the morality of vaccinations.

The column begins by noting that first California then New York have already passed laws over the last ten years disallowing parents from refusing vaccinations for their kids on so-called religious or philosophical grounds (an exemption on medical grounds remains for those with severe allergies to some ingredients of vaccines, or severe immune deficiencies). 

I had no idea this had been pushed through - in 2015 and 2019 respectively - and I can imagine it was pretty contentious. Both states, let it be said, were reacting to major measles outbreaks, mainly among religious (Jewish) communities.

Well, Ontario is currently going through its worst measles outbreak in three decades, with its origins in the vaccine-resistant Mennonite community. Isn't it time Ontario passed such a law, along with a determined educational effort to win over the vaccine-hesitant?

As Mr. Picard explains, it is currently way too easy to claim an exemption from childhood vaccinations on religious or "philosophical" grounds. Resistance to vaccinations is not a tenet of any major religion; religious anti-vaxxers are just making their own interpretations of religious beliefs, usually something along the lines of they feel it interrupts the divine plan for a person's life, or it is interfering with God's will in some ill-defined way. The "philosophical" objection is even more woolly, usually to do with "parental rights" to decide what is best for their own children.

Freedom of religion is one thing, but it was never meant to exempt people from their societal obligations, such as protecting the health and well-being of children (their own and others'). As has been codified in major court cases, the state cannot tell you what to think, but it can tell you what do, especially where it involves the greater good of society. Religionists and libertarians hate that, but it's true. 

Personal beliefs do not supersede the public good or the laws of the land. Just as we don't allow patents to beat their children, or marry them off as minors, and just as we insist on seat belts in cars to save lives (remember the fuss when that was instituted?), we should not be allowing those with anti-science views to harm others. We should not be mollifying the selfish and the self-righteous at the expense of the general populace, as Mr. Picard notes.

The truth about Canada's debt ratio

The Liberal government has, for years now, made a virtue of claims that Canada has the lowest net-debt-to-GDP ratio among G7 countries. The Conservative opposition, predictably, say that this is misleading, and a better measure is the gross-debt-to-GDP ratio, in which Canada appears as, not the worst, as they often try to insinuate, but somewhere in the middle. 

Conservative mouthpieces like the Fraser Institute, for example, can smugly claim that "we're deeper in debt than Ottawa tells us". But that is at least as disingenuous as the original Liberal claim. Both parties are cherry-picking data to suit their political ends.

What, then, is the truth behind it all?

Firstly, it is worth looking at what "net" and "gross" actually mean in this context. Gross debt is the total public liabilities held by a country (federal, provincial and municipal), including things like Treasury bonds, public service pension liabilities, etc. Net debt is gross debt minus public financial assets held (land, buildings, financial assets like pension plans, etc). Which you consider the better measure of a country's financial health seems largely to be a political decision: there is merit in both measures.

In comparative terms, Canada is indeed a leader in net-debt-to-GDP: its ratio in 2023 was just 14%, compared to Germany and USA (both 95%), France 99%, Italy (129%) and Japan (161%). This is in large part due to the substantial non-government investments of the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan.

In gross-debt-to-GDP, Canada had a ratio of 107% in 2023, less than France (111%), USA (123%), Italy (135%) and Japan (249%), but more than UK (101%) and Germany (63%). All in all, not a bad showing,  and below the G7 average. It is also projected to improve by 2029, putting it second behind only Germany in the G7.

There are those who argue that net-debt-to-GDP ratio is actually a superior measure of a country's financial health and strength. Whatever you think about that, it's certainly a stretch to argue that Canada's public debt is out of hand and that it's all the Liberal government's fault over the last ten years.

So, did Pope Francis change the world?

With the death yesterday of Pope Francis, the conversation naturally moves to his legacy and whether he actually made (or indeed could make) any difference in the real world.

It seems undeniable that Francis, a humble and modest individual by papal standards, was something of a radical firebrand (again by papal standards). He was not afraid to involve himself in messy political and social issues. He worked to challenge and change Catholic orthodoxy, for example through his progressive comments on climate change, homosexuality and gender issues, migration and refugees, indigenous people, divorce and nuclear weapons, incurring the wrath of the more conservative wing of the Catholic establishment in the process. 

Some activists, of course, think he didn't go far enough, and that he squandered his position of power and influence, and it's true that he steered clear of issues like abortion, clerical abuse, celibacy and women in the priesthood, among other issues that he might have been expected to weigh in on. In particular, there are questions about whether Francis did enough to deal with sexual abuse by clergy members.

He also sought to redefine and modernize the role of a pope in the modern world. As popes go, he was a breath of fresh air, especially after the stuffy, traditionalistic and reactionary papacies of John Paul and Benedict who preceded him. He had a sense of humour, and the irony would not have been lost on him that almost his final public engagement was with US Vice-President JD Vance, who embodies pretty much everything he railed against during his 12-year papal tenure.

Did he change the world, though? Despite being the leader and spokesperson for the estimated 1.4 billion Catholics worldwide, it's not at all clear that anything he did or said has moved the needle on anything important in any sphere of life. Sure, he may have made some gay Catholics feel a bit better about themselves, and he may have caused a few people to think more seriously about their carbon footprint. But, however nice a guy he may have been, and however pure his motives, how can he be said to have actually made the world a better place? He may well have changed the Catholic Church (and about time too!), but he didn't really change the world.

As we speak, a real live Conclave is about to take place to elect a new pope. During his tenure, Francis elevated a lot of younger, global-south bishops to the status of cardinal, so it will be interesting to see whether another progressive is voted in to continue Francis' work - a BLACK pope, even! - or whether there is a conservative backlash from the Italian/European base to vote in one of their own, to arrest the madness, as they see it.

Alberta thumping the tub again

"Proud Canadian" Michelle Smith has been playing the secession card during the current federal election, all while maintaining that she will not interfere in the federal vote. "A referendum on Alberta's independence is an inevitability", she says, trying not to interfere.

Her mentor, Preston Manning, has likewise inserted his oar, claiming in a Globe and Mail interview that "a vote for the Carney Liberals is a vote for Western secession - a vote for the breakup of Canada as we know it".

However, it's all smoke and mirrors because Albertans don't really want to secede. A new Angus Reid poll suggests that only 30% of Albertans (and 33% of Saskatchewaners) would consider separating from Canada, whether to join the USA or to go it alone.

So, really this is just Alberta stoking up dissent. In fact, interfering in the election.

Trump imposes tariffs on uninhabited islands

Canada, unexpectedly, seems to avoided the worst of Trump's tariffs thus far. But countries across the world are having to deal with them, including some rather bizarre ones.

Heard Island and MacDonald Islands are external territories of Australia, although closer to Antarctica than to Australia. They are tiny, uninhabited, barren piles of volcanic rock, covered in glaciers and home only to a colony of penguins. They are only accessible by a two-week boat journey from Perth, and it is believed the last time they were visited by people was some ten years ago.

But even these little islands - among the remotest places on earth and not even countries in their own right - have not escaped the attentions of Donald Trump's zealous tariff administrators. They too will see tariffs of 10% levied on any goods exported to the USA. This is because, the World Bank shows them as having exported US$1.4 of "machinery and electrical" goods to the US in 2022, although no-one seems to know quite what this might have been, given that there are no people and no buildings on the islands.

Are the penguins engaging in some clandestine business ventures that Australia knows nothing about? Anthony Scaramucci, Trump's ex communications chief, and now a vocal critic, quipped, "These penguins have been ripping us off for years". Good for the Trump administration for spotting this.

More examples of business inefficiencies come to light as tariff threats take hold

As Canadian businesses "pivot" (as they say) away from their excessive reliance on the USA to a more lateral inter-provincial trade, some pretty crazy stuff is coming out.

One example is that, already discussed, of vehicle manufacture, which apparently requires a crazy dance back and forth several times across the border.

Another example is described in today's Globe and Mail, concerning paper and box manufacture. A corrugated packing paper manufacturer in British Columbia has been used to importing paper stock from just across the border in Washington state, but is trying to do the right thing by switching to paper from Eastern Canada (Ontario? Quebec? New Brunswick? We are not told.)

But, the business owner complains, instead of taking less than a day from Washington, shipments take 10 days from Eastern Canada, and he is losing money hand over fist. Well, two things occur to me straight away. One is that it can't possibly take 10 days to transport paper from Eastern Canada to BC. The second is that, after the first shipment from its new source, whether that takes 10 days or less, subsequent shipments will be arriving daily with no delay (they will not have to wait another ten days for the second shipment). Yes, I understand that the distances are longer and the transportation costs are therefore almost certainly higher. But the delay is surely not an issue.

The third thing that occurs to me is that BC has many trees and paper mills. Why is the company bringing paper in from Eastern Canada anyway? "Or even longer from Europe", the article says. Why would they be even considering importing paper all the way from Europe?!

So much of this makes no sense to me. Apparently common business practices seem to defy logic. 

Another example in the same article underlines the issue. There is a recycled packaging and box company in Ontario that imports about 50% of its cardboard stock from the US (first question: why? Don't we produce enough "old corrugated container" right here in Ontario?) There is another similar recycled paper company in Ontario that gets almost all of its used cardboard locally, but then sends it to the US to be processed in its mills in New York. I kid you not.

These two companies are now in talks to swap their supply bases and avoid completely having to have their materials cross the border unnecessarily. This DOES make sense, and I applaud it. But the question remains: why has it taken Trump tariffs to bring these two companies together in this way? I thought capitalism and the free market was supposed to be really efficient and productive!

I'm sure there are hundreds of other examples of this kind of inefficiency and logistical absurdity, many of which may come to light as part of the current forced restructuring.

Most people will be worse off when we abandon the carbon tax

Gas prices are expected to decrease by as much as l8c a litre in Canada when the consumer carbon tax is repealed by Mark Carney on 1st April. Some people are all excited about that.

Unfortunately, they will also be missing out on $210 every quarter (that's what we receive for our carbon tax rebate, the actual amount varies depending on where you live). So, most people will be worse off in net terms: be careful what you wish for. We have an electric car and so don't use gasoline, so we will be precisely $210 a quarter worse off.

But gas prices have just gone up anyway, completely regardless of any carbon tax effects, in some cases by substantial amounts. In Brandon, Manitoba, prices have increased by 14.9c a litre; Calgary, Alberta 13.7c a litre; Kelowna, BC 11.8c a litre. It's not entirely clear why this increase is happening, but it seems to be an attempt by oil companies to take advantage of the situation. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, long a vocal opponent of the federal carbon tax, is asking oil companies not to "rip off consumers". Good luck with that, Danielle. (This is the Danielle Smith who has been speaking to the Trump administration asking for a temporary halt to the tariffs because it's hurting Poerre Poilievre's chances of getting elected as Prime Minister. Her political instincts are less than trustworthy.)

This is the magic of the free market. These people will therefore see next to no net benefit when the carbon tax is lifted. They will not, however, be receiving their quarterly rebate payments. So, overall, they will be substantially worse off. Like I say, be careful what you wish for.

Most of Canada seems to be happy that the carbon tax is being repealed. Almost all the political parties are either resigned to abandoning one of the easiest, cheapest and most effective climate change policies, or positively gung ho in favour of it. It is the will of the people, they say. However, many people have apparently not really thought it through.

Should we be arming ourselves against the USA?

It's crazy to think that Canadians are seriously talking about beefing up out national security as defence against, not China or Russia, but our erstwhile ally, the USA. But that is where we find ourselves. 

Here's the scenario: the USA gradually frames Canada as an enemy by tying it to various political and territorial grievances, and questioning its legitimacy as a sovereign nation (that part is already happening, albeit largely based on lies); the USA gradually expands its rhetoric, painting Canada as an outright security threat, if only because we could at any moment restrict access to critical resources that the USA needs, like energy, potash, water, etc; with this pretext, the US would then end intelligence and miltary cooperation (e.g. NORAD, Five Eyes, etc); demands for territorial concessions, maybe starting with an adjustment to the border of the Great Lakes, would be backed by the explicit threat of military force; at which point a full-scale military invasion is not beyond the realms of possibility.

This scenario is perhaps not a likely one - 10% probability? 5%? 1%? - but as the article points out, its probability is not zero. We would then be very much in a Ukraine situation, and we know how that turned out. It therefore behooves us to prepare ourselves militarily for such an eventuality, so the argument goes. There are even those, in all seriousness, calling for a Canadian nuclear weapons program as a deterrent.

It's easy to pretend that such an eventuality is beyond all sober prospect. It's easy to assume that cooler, less unhinged heads will prevail, that the US courts or military will quash such a scenario before it comes close to reality, or that the American people themelves will rise up in the face of such an enormity. 

But, if that non-zero probability exists, can we afford to ignore it?

Quebec/Vermont library ruling just a sign of the times

It's extraordinary how knit-picking and petty the USA is being over its new-found zealousness on the border and immigration. A good example is the changes it's making to Canadian access to the storied Haskell Free Library and Opera House in Stanstead, Quebec.

Straddling the border line between Quebec and Vermont, the library and opera house were deliberately built right across the border line back in 1904, as a symbol of harmony and cross-border collaboration between the two countries. For over a century, Canadians and Americans have come and gone through the buildings without having to go through any border control or showing any paperwork. A black line through the middle of the library marks the actual border, but people have wandered back and forth across it for decades.

The official entrance to the library, though, is in the village of Derby Line, Vermont, USA, and Canadians have been used to just wwalking around the side of the building to enter it. But now, for the first time, US Border Control officers are insisting that direct access from Canada be closed, so that Canadians would have to travel to the next nearest official border crossing and submit to the usual American security grilling to gain access, even to the Canadian part of the library.

Locals, both Canadians and Americans, are incensed at the decision. There are plans to renovate an old Canadian entrance to the building, although money for such projects is in short supply. They have until October to make such adaptations as they can.

It's just another sign of the mean-spirited times we live in. If this is someone's idea of making America great (again), then it's hard to believe they can be so myopic and insensitive.

Relocating to the USA may not be a good optionnfor Canadian companies

Some Canadian companies are considering moving ("fleeing") to the USA to avoid the worst effects of Donald Trump's punitive tariff increases. Indeed, some have already done so. 

My first reaction is: this is exactly what Trump wants, so why would you have him the satisfaction? But, of course, the companies say, they are beholden to their shareholders, and they must do whatever is necessary to maximize profits and the dividends of their shareholders. 

Well, no, not everything. There are other considerations than profit at play here. Capitalism is not strong on ethics, but it behooves us all to to think about whether products are manufactured using forced labour, equitable and safe employment practices, reducing the environmental footprint, etc, etc. Modern and progressive shareholders demand that kind of thing too, right? Arguably, pandering to the whims and foibles of a crazy guy like Donald Trump is just such a moral imperative.

As we have seen recently, though, when push comes to shove, profits usually seem to "trump" ethics, and we have seen many major companies pulling back from their DEI commitments, their climate commitments, etc (and some never went there in the first place).

The other thing, though, is that it can be complicated and often costly to relocate from Canada to the USA, and it may not even be in the shareholders' best interesNasdaq.

One big impetus for relocation is the potential to get listed on US stock exchanges like the S&P 500 and Nasdaq. But there are already many American companies queuing up to get onto those listings, and it is by no means certain that a newly-located Canadian company will succeed. Plus, there are moves afoot that may soon allow Canadian and other foreign companies to be listed on the S&P index anyway.

There are substantial logistical, legal and other costs involved in redomiciling and establishing a company in a new jurisdiction. It may not even avoid tariff costs, even in the short term: remember, US tariffs hurt American companies even more than the foreign country they are aimed at (which is why everyone else is so confused at Trump's insistence on using such a heavy-handed and inefficient policy to further his aims), and the effects of potential relatiatory Canadian tariffs must also be taken into account. We don't actually know how long these tariffs will be in effect - the landcape changes daily - and relocating is a long and involved process. In addition, there may be significant (political and economic) backlash from the old country at such a move (as at least one Quebec company found to their cost).

Finally, companies should know that there is a 25% departure tax on the relocating company's assets, which for most businesses could prove the ultimate deal-breaker.

So, definitely not a slam dunk. And, in most cases, not a viable option at all.

Does Mark Carney risk conflicts of interest?

The Conservative Party of Canada, rattled by their precipitate slide in the polls, and with a federal election pending (widely expected on April 28th), are taking wild swings at new Liberal leader Mark Carney. In particular, they are trying to make something - anything! - out of Carney's enviable financial position.

Pierre Poilievre, and his attack dog Michael Barrett - yes, the attack dog of an attack dog! - have been casting aspersions that Mr. Carney is playing fast and loose with the ethics and conflict-of-interest rules that Canadian politicians are subject to.

Spoiler alert: he's not. Well, you might have guessed that. The whole raison d'etre of the Tories is to find fault, in any way possible, and even in some ways impossible, of their political nemesis. Deprived of Justin Trudeau as a convenient target, they have been trying to portray Carney as "sneaky", "European,", etc, and also as rich, which carries its own set of political value judgements.

Yes, Carney has done very well for himself - he has not been a lifetime career politician like Mr. Poilievre - and he is clearly a very rich guy. Do we need to know exactly HOW rich, and exactly where his riches lie? Probably not.

Suffice it that he is following the stipulated conflict-of-interest rules - enshrined in Canadian law by Conservative PM Stephen Harper, let it be noted - to the letter, even in advance of the required deadlines. So, he is divesting himself of his personal investment holdings by placing them in a blind trust, so that he has no control over sales and purchases. He will also recuse himself from any deliberations that might directly influence investment that he holds in trust (although those holdings could change without him knowing - that is the whole point of a blind trust in these circumstances). And he is pre-clearing everything with the independent parliamentary Ethics Commissioner. 

It's hard to know what else the Tories can ask for. There is no requirement to name and value his investments at this point, nor should there be. The Ethics Commissioner will be keeping a wary eye on him; that is his job. Yes, there are those who argue that a blind trust is not sufficient to guard against conflicts of interest. But most reasonable people - and all political parties - believe that that the system as it stands is indeed adequate.

Trumpism as a cult

What are we to make of the way in which Donald Trump's supporters support him? 

I don't mean that I am surprised that they support him, even in some of the more legally and morally gray areas that he tends to frequent, even in some of the completely random, unhinged, off-the-cuff decisions that he makes.

I get it that he is their Glorious Leader, and that many of them owe their overpaid positions to him directly. But there is something about the WAY they express their adoration that seems, well, unhealthy. Trump's excesses have given his supporters license to exceed in their own ways.

Because they don't just support him, they bow down to him. 27-year old Press Sectetary Karoline Leavitt is a good example. She will not brook even the suspicion of a criticism of Trump without responding in a completely aggressive and over-the-top (Trump-esque, you could say) manner. Take for example, when a French journalist suggested that today's United States is not worthy of the Statue of Liberty France gave them, Leavitt turns around and snaps that France should be grateful to the US that they are not now speaking German. There are many ways she could have responded, but she chose that way (exactly the way Trump himself would have responded). 

Another example? Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Trump "advisor" (whatever that actually means), when responding to criticism of the distinctly semi-legal manner in which the Trump administration used an 18th Century wartime law to deport over 250 Venezuelan immigrants, didn't just tear into the hapless reporter (a former prosecutor with much more legal expertise than Miller) but ranted in an all-but-uncontrolled manner "He is a moron, and he's a fool, and he's a degenerate ... now he's up there shilling for people who rape and murder Americans". See also Miller's unhinged response to a Saturday Night Live joke. (Incidentally, Trump has called for the judge who tried to enforce an injunction against the deportations to be impeached.)

These people seem to feel that Trump's regular enormities (which no-one outside the Republican Party consider acceptable) give them license to exhibit similarly outrageous and overblown behaviour.

The way they refer to Trump's policies and decisions, and the man himself, in tones of awe and reverence is nothing short of creepy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says that Trump is the "only person on earth" who can negotiate with Vladimir Putin. Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth uses similar language, claiming that Trump is "the only man in the world" who can solve the Ukraine problem. And so it goes.

UPDATE: Here's another example. After Trump officials included an Atlantic journalist on a Signal texting group discussing secretive plans for US airstrikes on Yemen, rather than admitting to mistakes and apologizing (MAGA World, from Trump down, don't do admitting and apologizing), national security advisor Mike Waltz's response was to whine, "this journalist, Mr. President, wants the world talking about more hoaxes and this kind of nonsense, rather than the freedom that you're enabling". You could almost see him cowering and cringing as he spoke. Trump's response? "Michael Waltz has learned a lesson, and he's a good man". Moving on. If you think Waltz would have got away that without publicly prostrating himself and grovelling, then I think you are being naive.

This goes beyond deference; this is the stuff of personality cult. It is not party politics as we have always known it. You can imagine it happening in North Korea or Russia, where a false step can lead to a disappearance or secretive execution. But is that where the USA is now?

Trump has successfully purged the Republican Party of any elements even vaguely disloyal. He himself has said publicly, "We have to Purge the Party of people that go against our Candidates and make it harder for a popular Republican President to beat the Radical Left". It has all the hallmarks of authoritarianism en route to totalitarianism, where dissent is not just discouraged but forbidden.

Poilievre is running out of ideas

Pierre Poilievre is rattled. After months - nay, years! - of Conservative poll leads, the rejuvenated Liberals under new leader Mark Carney are now (at least) neck and neck, with a federal election expected to be announced any day now.

People really don't like Poilievre, and with good reason. The only reason he was doing well in the polls is that they disliked Trudeau even more. But now the Liberals have a new leader and he seems to be more palatable.

And since Carney announced that the unpopular consumer carbon tax is now toast - whatever you might think of that - "Axe the Tax" Poilievre is left without a major plank of his platform. So, what's a populist to do but up the ante?

Yesterday, Poilievre announced that, not only would he axe the consumer carbon tax, but also the industrial carbon tax, if he were ever to be let loose on the Canadian economy This tax, technically known as the Output Based Pricing System, has always done much more of the heavy lifting in the country's climate change strategy, representing about a third of our potential greenhouse gas reductions in the run-up to the 2030 Paris Accord deadline.

Instead, Poilievre says he will "boost incentives" and "expand eligibility for the clean technology and clean manufacturing investment tax credits", although it's hard to see how that would take up the slack from the current industrial carbon tax. We will need those as well, of course, but not instead of.

The industrial carbon tax is actually administered by the provinces in all cases except for Manitoba, PEI, Nunavut and Yukon, which don't have their own system in place, so it's also hard to know whether such a drastic-sounding policy would actually have any effect at all, although you can expect that Alberta will gleefully take advantage of any loophole Poilievre presents. Danielle Smith will do whatever she can to suck up to Poilivre; she does NOT want another Liberal federal government.

Poilievre has not come clean with any revised carbon targets, and quickly changes the subject when this is mentioned. Mr. Carney, currently on his European charm offensive, also points out that, if we are trying to diversify trade away from the USA, trade with the EU, with the UK, with emerging Asia, all require some kind of a carbon price as a prime requirement (this does seem to be true - it's called the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism CBAM), and it's pretty new - despite what you might read in the more conservative corners of the internet). So, what is Mr. Poilievre's workaround for that?

Clearly, the Conservatives had to come up with something to try to arrest their precipitate slide in the polls. But this is not what the country needs. Let's hope the voters can se through Poilievre's electoral machinations.

Doug Ford burns his fingers playing with the big boys

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has tried his level best to insert himself forcibly into the conversation around US tariffs ever since Trump was elected (and even before). Although he is merely a lowly provincial premier, he clearly has national pretentions, and likes to be thought of as "Captain Canada".

A good part of the shtick he used to get himself re-elected last month revolved around his claim that he was the best Ontario leader to deal with the existential threat that Trump represents. He has travelled to the US many times to speak to US representatives, industry leaders and media outlets, although he has rarely been invited to speak to the higher-ups, the actual movers and shakers in this particularly sordid phase of American politics.

However, Ford's hankering to be seen as Captain Canada took a bit of a blow yesterday, when he went toe to toe with Donald Trump and came off with egg on his face. In the face of Trump's announcement of a 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum, Ford gave it his best shot and announced a 25% surchage on electricity exports from Ontario to three US states, Minnesota, Michigan and New York.

Clearly expecting Trump to back off and walk back his tariff announcement after this masterful play, Trump, almost predictably, immediately doubled his tariffs to 50%. Ford then announced that he was abandoning his electricity surcharge, and the Americans, in their turn, reduced the steel and aluminum tariffs back to the original 25%. "Ontario won't back down", said Ford, hours before doing just that.

Good game. Trump 1 - Ford 0. Net result: the 25% tariffs remain. But Trump can do this stuff all day, he positively lives for it, and Ford came off looking rather foolish, with his tail firmly between his legs.

Ford is off to Washington again today to speak to the underlings (Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick this time), chaperoned by federal Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc. But I have a suspicion that Mark Carney and the federal government would much rather Ford butt out of matters beyond his pay grade, and maybe just leave it to the grown-ups. 

The federal government has already announced proportionate retaliatory tariffs on $29.8 billion of American goods. Does Ford really need to be poking his nose in and complicating things, even if Trump does think of him as a "strong man"?

A day later, Trump mused out loud that maybe the USA shouldn't be buying ANY electricity from Canada, the exact opposite of what Ford has been pitching for months. So, careful what you do and say, Dougie, it might come back and bite you (and us, the hapless residents of Ontario, that you're supposed to be protecting).

Don't like Musk? Disguise your Tesla

This is hilarious. You may have been reading about stickers on Tesla cars saying "I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy" and variations thereof. But now there are whole sections of the internet devoted to advice on the best way to remove the Tesla badge and logo from your car.

Even better, there is now a fully-fledged movement to replace the Tesla badges with the badges of other - less controversial and usually non-US-owned - car companies, like Toyota, Honda, BMW.

That's one unpopular guy!