Trying To Understand The Carney Government’s Actions

Online, I am seeing a ton of reactions to what the current Liberal government in Ottawa is doing.  These range from outrage over a perceived non-reaction to Trump’s latest temper tantrum, to anger over cuts to various parts of the civil service.  

I get it - a lot of people are thinking “this isn’t what I voted for!”, and to some extent they are right to criticize the government’s actions.  There’s a very visceral desire to punch back every time Trump does something so utterly bone-headed, and while doing that hearing Carney talk about tax cuts and cuts to the government seems like we elected Poilievre with a better personality.

I’m not going to spend a lot of time here talking about specific details, or directives given to ministers.  What I want to do is tease apart the big picture of what we are facing and highlight how this all fits together.  

Make no mistake about it, Canada is very much in the Trump administration’s crosshairs.  What exactly their intentions are is hard to say, but it’s clear that the US government has started a trade war with Canada, and in doing so has made it very clear that our current relationship with the US is no longer a thing going forward. 

Second, on the world stage, Trump has pulled back from its traditional allies and role.  This includes all but walking away from NATO, the G7, and the UN.  This makes the world as a whole a lot more unstable, and dangerous for traditional “middle power” nations like Canada. 

Canada’s place in the world is now much more precarious than it was before January 20, 2025.  The country we traditionally relied upon both as a key customer for our economic activity and as a key partner in defence has turned against us, potentially with territorial ambitions. 

In normal circumstances, the negotiations currently going on with the US over trade and defence relationships take place behind the scenes with diplomats and policy specialists doing the heavy lifting.  Normally, national leaders don’t say anything much until those efforts are mostly concluded and an agreement is imminent.  This time, Trump is routinely making extreme, if not outrageous, statements that likely undermine those negotiations entirely, or make the job of the diplomats exponentially more difficult. 

Like it or not, Carney has taken a “I’m not going to react to Trump’s bellicosity in public” approach.  In some respects, this is appropriate.  Trump is a bully.  If you react to his provocations by coming out swinging, you’re playing his game.  He’s stated many times, “you hit me, I’ll hit you back twice as hard”.  So, yeah, while punching back would feel momentarily satisfying, the escalation it would produce would not be helpful. 

Meanwhile, Carney has stated that he is planning to re-orient Canada’s economy in a big way.  Not only is he committing to a much bigger military than we have traditionally managed, he is wanting to change procurement so that our military purchases aren’t automatically from the US.  That’s no small matter at all - putting our military on track for a spend at 2.5% of GDP, escalating to 5% of GDP over the next decade is an enormous change all by itself.  (We’ll come back to this) 

Then there is what Carney is clearly doing behind the scenes with other trading partners and allies, in particular the EU.  He’s in the process of starting to diversify our trading relationships with the longer term aim of reducing the enmeshment with the US we currently have.  This is a huge project in its own right - we can’t just “slam the doors shut” on the US border (nor can they, realistically).  Canada’s economy is big enough to make us part of the G7 - you cannot change the direction of something that size “on a dime”.  Doing so is a complex and difficult process.  I applaud Carney’s approach here where he is reworking trade relationships with Europe first (which is collectively a huge economy as well), while continuing to negotiate “in good faith” with the US.  

On top of that, Carney has to do this in the context of a minority parliament, which is almost guaranteed to be fractious once Poilievre returns to the house in a few weeks’ time.  He also has to (one way or another) get enough buy-in from the various provincial premiers to be able to move major policy goals forward such as dismantling inter-provincial trade barriers that make it easier to sell to the US than to our neighbouring provinces (and yes, that includes somehow finding ways to keep Danielle Smith from going completely rogue).

I don’t know how many people realize that doing this relatively quietly so as to not immediately anger Trump’s administration is a very careful balancing act.  This is “diplomatically threading the needle” stuff.  It’s hard to do, and even harder to communicate to the average person on the street who is sick of hearing Trump go off every few days on some incoherent rage-filled tirade.    

Trump’s rambling about tariffs and threats to annex Canada united a lot of people behind Carney who made it clear that he wasn’t going to be Trump’s patsy, while the conservatives under Poilievre continued a campaign that basically said “look at me, I’m mini-Trump”.  As much as I loathe nationalism, it made Canadians stand up and take notice of what was going on.  

We have to put Canada onto a “war footing”, and that’s going to be a monumental task because this isn’t just a bunch of military posturing, like the Cold War, its real impacts and tactics take place in the realms of the economic and diplomatic.  I don’t think a lot of people have thought about it in those terms - it will mean decisions that people won’t like for one reason or another, and it will mean that our “comfortable lives” may well get turned upside down.  

This isn’t to say that you shouldn’t criticize Carney and what he’s doing.  But it would be worth your time to think about how all of these things fit together and how a given action fits into the picture before going off. 

A Week In Alberta Politics

 Alberta’s politics are an awful mess right now, and this past week has been quite a spectacle even for Alberta. 

Devin Dreeshen kicked things off by making a fuss over bike lanes in Calgary (and Edmonton, no doubt). To put it bluntly, Dreeshen is a privileged little twit that lives out in rural Alberta - he has no experience with urban planning whatsoever, much less has he ever lived in a major urban area for any length of time.  He has no clue about what it takes to get around in Calgary or Edmonton.  He needs to leave the municipalities alone on this one. 

Then we move to newly-minted “Municipal Affairs Minister” Dan Williams, who saw fit to come out with guns blazing over city hall implementing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies.  Ah yes, the wonderful world of “merit hiring” - which is really a code phrase for there being a shocking number of fragile white men who are utterly terrified that someone who is not white might actually be their equal.  We’ll come back to this in a bit, because just when you think the week’s done, the UCP gets worse.

Yesterday, Education Minister Nicolaides decided it was a good time to roll out what amounts to a book ban in school libraries. In spite of the minister's claims to the contrary, this is really a ban on 2SLGBTQ material in school libraries.  Back in May, when the minister foreshadowed this action, it was pretty clear that this was based on a bunch of "Parents Groups" borrowing from a moral panic strategy that has already played out in the United States.  Of course, the proposed list of books comes from a number of US conservative aligned sources. 

None of this should surprise us - the Canadian Social Conservative movement is tightly enmeshed with its American counterpart, and at least in Alberta, they are practically drooling over the prospect of having a government so cowed by the fact that they ejected former Premier Jason Kenney a couple of years ago that they think they can push their extreme agenda even further.  It doesn't matter what Danielle Smith thinks or believes - she's shown that she kowtows to the loudest, most obnoxious voices in her party. 

Where is all this going?  Backwards for the most part.  Like her attack on transgender people started in January 2024, this is all about rolling back rights, access, and equity.  The UCP wants all them damned queers back in the closet.  The smaller the closet, the better, and they don't care who they trample in the process.  

But, it doesn't stop there.  There is a whole host of "SoCon" hobby horse issues - and it doesn't stop at abortion either - although LaGrange is obviously chuckling with glee as she tears our healthcare system apart at the seams - breaking it so badly that I suspect healthcare in Alberta will look increasingly like "if you aren't wealthy, you're screwed" - Alabama will look amazing.  

Going after trans youth was the "thin edge of the wedge" in the UCP's strategy.  Trans youth have the least voice politically, and even less resources to fight back with.  The government engaged in performative "consultation", but excluded voices of trans kids, their parents, and the people who actually provide treatment.  

Then they came along with a ban on trans women in sports.  Again, they listened to a small group of people who loudly proclaim that having trans women in sport is somehow "unfair", but ignored the voices of trans women, and any evidence that challenges the assumption that trans women have "automatic advantages" athletically because at some point their bodies may have produced testosterone.  The resulting policy is far reaching, and unreasonable to say the least. 

The recent "book ban" policy is clearly built on similar grounds.  When you look at it objectively, it's about erasing 2SLGBTQ voices from school libraries.  Did the government engage in meaningful consultation?  No.  They consulted with Action4Canada and a couple of other known anti-2SLGBTQ groups who helpfully provided them with book lists from similar campaigns in the US.  The "public consultation" was such an obvious "push poll" designed to provoke outrage it wasn't even worthy of being considered a fig leaf of consultation. 

Can you see the wedge being hammered in even further?  

If you think this government is going to stop at attacking trans people and library books in schools, I have news for you.  Williams' shot at "DEI" is a warning - they are coming after everything.   Think that you lost out in a job hiring process to a "diversity hire"?  Cool, they'll back you.  Do I expect them to go after the Alberta Human Rights Commission?  Absolutely - they are going to make it just about impossible to make a successful complaint if you aren't white, male, Christian, and wealthy.  

As for women's issues?  Well - get used to having to fight for everything from health care to voting, because that's on the agenda too. There is no shortage of religious hardliners who want to make it impossible for women to vote, and the fight over abortion is always about bodily autonomy. 

The point here is that Alberta is the beachhead in Canada for this extremist influence coming up from the US.  If we don't stand against it now, we're all screwed.  

It's Not So Simple ...

 I hate seeing headlines like CBC's this morning in the wake of the US attack on Iran:  "In Wake of US Attacks, Iran Faces Pivotal Choice: Dash to Build a Weapon or Negotiate".

Very little in the world of foreign affairs can be characterized in such simplistic terms.  It's not "either/or", and in fact Iran has a number of options open to it that this ignores.  

Does Iran already have a nuclear weapon?  Officially the answer is "no", but that's inference based on the fact they have never openly tested such a device.  On paper Israel hasn't tested nuclear weapons either, but it is broadly understood to have a cache of nuclear warheads.  I don't have access to sources that could confirm or deny Iran's possession of nuclear assets.  At this stage, they could easily run a "test fire" to augment their "negotiating position, or just to make themselves less desirable as a target. 

The other aspect of Iran's nuclear capability is the ability to create so-called "dirty bombs" (basically a conventional warhead with a "surprise package" of nuclear waste wrapped around it).  Those are trivial for any country with a handful of reactors used for power generation to create, and are potentially just as deadly - especially if detonated high in the atmosphere. 

We also should not ignore the probability of Iran having covertly purchased nuclear weapons from other states.  It's quite possible that they have weapons purchased from elsewhere.  

Iran has many paths through which it could acquire nuclear weapons capability, not merely through its own program of development.  

Much has been made of "we must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons", but like North Korea, such threats do little to stop a country that is determined to develop that technology for itself. 

Is this a "negotiate or else" situation?  Not even close.  Iran has many paths forward - it may choose to "negotiate", while concurrently "sprinting to build a bomb", or it may choose to reveal weapons it has already in its hands to make its "hand" stronger at the negotiating table.  

Similarly, because there are significant religious components to this situation, we can also suspect that they may choose to go "scorched earth" and simply unleash the most destructive weapons they have on hand.  

Of course, all of this is speculative on my part - I don't have any information not in the news media, and I merely infer from what I do see.  By no means should we assume that Iran is "cowed" by recent events, nor do I see a willingness on the part of Israel's government to engage in any kind of good faith negotiations. 

Recognizing Bias and Deceptive Journalism

The Telegraph published this piece of drivel decrying the number of "biological males" who undergo gender reassignment surgery (GRS) in the UK.  It's trash journalism at its worst, but it is a good example of what to look for in detecting bias because it's loaded with all kinds of "weighted wording", dubious narratives, and sources that are not in the least bit authoritative on the subject. 

Structure and Wording

The structure of the article is itself an interesting example to consider.  It starts off with a review of some statistical information drawn from the UK's NHS.  From there it dives into arguments about de-transition, the claimed lack of evidence that GRS helps with Gender Dysphoria, and winds up with talking to the founder of a known anti-transgender organization.  

Note that in the entire article, there is absolutely no effort whatsoever to describe the scope of what transition means and the role of GRS in that much bigger picture. 

Just for fun, the article is full of scare wording designed to portray GRS in the worst possible light:  "penis cut off" is one such phrase (which is a crude and inaccurate description of the most common surgical technique used).  Add to that a focus on the surgery being "irreversible" (most surgeries are like that), and "causes infertility" (well - duh - although I do need to point out that by the time most transgender women have surgery, they've been on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) long enough that they aren't producing sperm anymore, and won't if they stop HRT either).  

Bogus Arguments

The article then leaps into a series of utterly bogus arguments.  The first is, of course the "what about regret / detransition" trope.  Yes, some people attempt transition, and discover that it's not for them.  That's been true for a very long time.  However, the portrayal of things is troubling - as it implies that the person was "railroaded" into having surgery, and I know that isn't how things work.  The NHS is particularly notorious for delays and extended waiting periods that render any accusation of "I didn't have a chance to back out" utter nonsense. 

They then claim that "there was never an opportunity to deal with other mental health issues".  Okay - but that raises the very clinical question - did those issues come up in discussion during assessment?  Clinicians aren't telepaths - if there is no indication of other mental issues, why would they assume that those issues exist? 

Then they go on to talk to someone who asserts that "there's no evidence that those surgeries do anything to alleviate gender dysphoria".  Of course that claim is false on its face.  The regret rate for people who pursue transition and do undergo GRS is low - much lower than that for most other kinds of surgery. 

Lastly, they talk to a founder of TransgenderTrend, a known anti-transgender lobby organization who makes a number of misleading statements.  

Missing

What is missing from this article?  Credible, unbiased sources.  It's riddled with anecdotes cast in a particular light, and utterly devoid of any attempt whatsoever to engage with sources with actual expertise in the matter. 

Did they portray transition journeys accurately? No.  Did they portray GRS accurately? No.  Did they even go so far as to cite a standard of care document?  No.  

This is an article that should be dismissed for being utterly inaccurate.

Alberta “Separatism”

 I’m old enough to have lived through both Quebec referendums (to date) on sovereignty, and I’ve watched the sleazy grievance politics of “Western Alienation” attempting to ape Quebec’s situation.  I remember Elmer Knutson and Doug Christie running around western Canada in the late 70s yammering on about how “Ottawa was so terrible to Alberta, and things would be so much better if …”.  More recently, the Premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan have taken up the banner, mostly at the behest of groups like “Take Back Alberta” and a handful of “oilbros” who see their fortunes as threatened by the upsurge in patriotism in the wake of Donald Trump’s return to power. 

Dealing With MisInformation and Bias In The Media Sphere

One of the bigger takeaways in the 2025 election cycle is the difference between journalism and the partisan slop that is served up by various obviously partisan “news” orgs.  This needs to be brought to heel now.  

The antics of Ezra Levant’s “The Rebel” at the leader debates were disgusting.  They ultimately denied Canadians of the Q&A back and forth that was desperately needed.  

How To Respond To the UKSC Ruling On Trans People

 This week, the United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC) issued a ruling that on the face of it invalidates transgender women’s rights under the law.  I haven’t finished reading through the entirety of the ruling (I’m also not a lawyer - so reading this stuff is often slow going for me!), and I’m sure that others will have more clear headed things to say about the ruling itself.

However, my objective here isn’t to perform a deep dive into the ruling.  This is more about how a ruling like this can be turned back on itself.  The objective of these cases is clearly to shove transgender women (in particular) out of public life.  To do so, proponents of these suits often dive behind what they think of as “scientific wording” - in this case, the phrase “biological woman” comes to the fore very quickly. 

In a sense, such simplistic phrases are perfect for weaponizing, and they can be weaponized very effectively by transgender people and their allies.  Even the UKSC ruling, while it adopts this language doesn’t attempt to provide any kind of meaningful definition of what this means.  

A trivial version of taking it apart is a bit like the snarky quip about “organic vegetables”:  It’s clearly a vegetable, and by definition it is organic in that no human being assembled it.  Similarly, a transgender woman might well say “I’m biological, and I’m a woman - I don’t see a problem here”.  It’s a bit facetious to do so, but given the approach being taken by the anti-transgender panic brigade, not entirely wrong. 

The other end of it is when cases get before the courts, (and they inevitably will), we start off with bringing in biologists and have them give lessons to the court on the complexity of human biology when it comes down to reproductive biology and sex development.  It’s strange - oh so strange - and efforts to treat it as some kind of rigid dichotomy are hugely problematic.  

Pretty much every time you hear “biological woman”, you know you’re talking to someone who has absolutely no idea what they’re saying - biology isn’t simple, and it’s beyond laughable to try and reduce any human being to “the bits between their legs”.  Every time the antis bring up transgender people as some kind of abhorrent problem, slap them down with all of the exceptions that already exist even if transgender people didn’t.  

The logic they’re using is so rigid it’s brittle.  Twist it on them until it breaks at every turn. 

Will it be easy?  Nope.  But it needs to be done.  Every single argument the “antis” are making to justify shoving transgender women out of public life is based on falsehoods.  Their suppositions about transgender people are rigid and false, and that makes them vulnerable to attack - even when they think they’re backed up by the highest courts in the land.