Pieces Falling Into Place For Canada's Air Force

 I have suspected for some time that the decision around which direction Canada was going to go in terms of its next generation Air Force has been made, if not formally announced.  

The latest brick just fell into place, with Stephen Fuhr being appointed to head up the new Defence Investment Agency.  Fuhr has been critical of the F-35 for a long time, so I can suspect that will play _a_ role in where things are going next.  

While I have my own personal opinions about the F-35 vs Gripen discussion, this is more about the political game that is playing out.  

First, consider that Canada has decided to purchase the Saab GlobalEye surveillance aircraft.  The GlobalEye just happens to be based on the Bombardier Global 6500 aircraft, giving a boost to Canadian manufacturing as well as providing a fairly obvious level of cover as Saab and Bombardier would need to ramp up collaboration.  This provides reasonable cover for setting up the supply chains for Gripen manufacturing with Bombardier leading the effort.  

Then add to that Saab's very generous terms for the Gripen which would essentially serve as a restart of Canada's military aerospace program - creating jobs as well as providing a decent aircraft that appears generally well suited to Canada's needs.  

Meanwhile, the F-35 is a high cost aircraft with remarkably poor availability and high maintenance requirements, and Canada looking down the business end of increasing expense just to acquire the F-35, it's not hard to understand why Canada might just decide to pivot towards spending the same money on a platform that will create jobs and industry here in Canada.

My guess is that the Gripen decision has been made, but not announced.  Saab and Bombardier will be quietly setting up the needed manufacturing infrastructure in parallel with the setup needed for the GlobalEye program.  

The one major "fly in the ointment" here is the Saab using a license-built engine designed by GE, which theoretically could mean that the US could veto any sale to Canada through that license agreement.  However, this is potentially offset by Saab adapting the Gripen airframe to accept a slightly more powerful engine from Rolls Royce, bypassing the American veto entirely. 

Politically, the Carney government has shown us that it has both the internal discipline to take on a project like this without telling anyone who doesn't need to know about it, and the political will to do it even if it angers the current occupant of the White House. 

Personally, at this point in time, if the US wants to make everything transactional and volatile, it would seem to me quite reasonable to walk away from the F-35 program even if it is a technically superior aircraft.  I'd rather have an aircraft that meets Canada's needs without being dependent on the mood in Washington.  

Of Trade Deals, Foreign Interference, and Conservative Leadership In Canada

We talk a lot about "foreign interference" in Canadian politics, but we don't very often talk about the single biggest source of interference in Canada's political discourse:  the United States.  For decades, we have quietly accepted the presence of American ties to various political groups and lobbying efforts, either turning a blind eye, or out of some naive belief that the US and Canada are much the same and therefore it's not really interference when there is cross border collaboration between various politicians and parties. 

Conservatives in particular have taken advantage of this, appearing regularly at US conservative conferences and networking events like the CPAC conference or the "Prayer Breakfast" events.  These connections are well documented, and sustained by events like Danielle Smith travelling to Mar-a-Lago, or former PM Harper's 2018 visit to the White House.   Visits like Smith's and Harper's are not mere social calls - they are very much "kiss the ring" moments where a "client" leader swears fealty to a more powerful leader.  That's important to recognize.  

American influence in Canada's politics is everywhere - it's so pervasive that we often don't think about it or give it the consideration it deserves.  The events of the last couple of weeks should give Canadians pause and motivation to reconsider that.  Let me draw you the picture I see emerging.

Conservative Desperation?

 So, the last week have been quite a whirlwind of activity from conservative circles in Canada, and much of it looks concerningly desperate:

1. MP Dean Allison is creating a "panel" to "investigate vaccine injuries"

2. Preston Manning has been dragged out from retirement to bolster Alberta separatist grievances

3. This morning, Poilievre held a press conference (on a Sunday?) 

The SCC Ruling In Democracy Watch

At the end of July, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its ruling in Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General).  This ruling has enormous implications for governments across Canada.

One of the key issues in the Democracy Watch case was the presence of clauses in the relevant legislation that foreclosed appeal to the courts.  This all stems from the Federal Ethics Commissioner's investigation and ruling in the WE Charities debacle.  I want to be clear here:  I am not about to engage in a re-examination of the WE Charities debacle - I have many thoughts about it, none of which are really relevant to this ruling.  

The underlying issue in this case is S66 of the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA), which reads: 

Orders and decisions final

66 Every order and decision of the Commissioner is final and shall not be questioned or reviewed in any court, except in accordance with the Federal Courts Act on the grounds referred to in paragraph 18.1(4)(a), (b) or (e) of that Act. 

Poilievre's Plummeting Polling

The CPC is polling just a hair below 30%, and Pierre Poilievre's "favourability" as next PM is now tied with "Undecided" at 18%.  Add to that, another CPC MP just announced they are leaving elected office - the 7th MP to leave caucus since last year's election. 

I'm not sitting here writing this to gloat over the smouldering ashes of Poilievre's leadership career.  Frankly, that's not the point at all.

No, this is about the much more bizarre reactions I am seeing online to this.  Instead of seeing CPC supporters rationally saying "hey, this isn't working, we need to make changes", a lot of them are doubling down - getting angry at Carney instead.  I see comments like "how come nobody's talking about the departures from the Liberals?", or "Carney's done nothing for Canada".  

I don't actually care what your opinion of Carney is.  I don't particularly like Carney, but I also really don't like Poilievre.  So what?  

The issue is that ever since the election, Poilievre has been on a downward spiral in his personal popularity.  That has dragged the party down in the polls as well.  Polling at 30% is getting down to the CPC's "core base support" - meaning it's mostly coming from the prairie provinces.  A look at 338 Canada's current projection map supports that conclusion.  

Yes, I know - land doesn't vote, people do.  But look at that map for a moment - outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the CPC simply doesn't hold a whole lot of support - it's concentrated in the Prairie provinces mostly.  This is very much reflective of the problem we saw for years with Reform and Canadian Alliance (Reform, with different logos).  While they swept the Prairie provinces, they struggled to make real inroads.  Under Poilievre, a party which garnered its largest proportion of seats in years in the 2025 election is now set to retreat to its old stomping grounds as a "Prairie rump party".  

Great ... you'll have secured the Prairie provinces, where apparently getting elected has more to do with the colour of your shirt than anything else.  At this point, people in Ontario and Quebec have made it pretty clear where they stand, and it's not with Poilievre.  

But the problem for the CPC doesn't end when Poilievre resigns as leader.  Like Andrew Scheer, it seems he's likely to stick around as MP, and will continue to be a drag on party perception unless he simply goes quiet.  

The problem the CPC is now facing is in fact the same fundamental problem that makes Alberta's UCP so toxic:  policy wise, it has been taken over by a highly radicalized fringe movement.  A new leader not only has to deal with that fringe, but they somehow have to find a way to shift the party's direction away from the far right.  I am not convinced that is likely to happen.  I don't see anyone in the CPC's "front line" that is capable of not only sounding reasonable, but in fact being able to redirect the party away from the Trumpian cliff Poilievre has set it hurtling towards. 

Journalists Missing The Picture

I woke up this morning to CBC's Jason Markusoff and The Toronto Star's Richard Warnica talking about Alberta separatism on the Front Burner podcast.  As I listened to the discussion, I found myself getting increasingly angry at the fact that neither of the two speakers seemed to have a clue what is really going on, and were "puzzled" by the apparent lack of a full throated federalist campaign against the separatists.

There is an answer here, and it's not the one you think it is.  If you are expecting a "Federal Prime Minister vs Separatist Premier" grudge match as we've seen in past Quebec referendums, you're misunderstanding the picture on the ground in Alberta. 

Anti-Transgender Hate Arguments

So, the other day, I ran across a new anti-trans group here in Alberta (shocker, I know).  This one calls itself "Women and Girls Alberta".  As you might expect, they make the usual assortment of arguments as to why transgender women have to be shoved out of society.  

Now, a few things caught my attention, and I think warrant a moment or two of my time to comment on.  

First is their discussion about crime and in particular violence towards women.

The opening assertion here is that recognizing trans women somehow erodes women's safety.  I want to be clear here:  I don't think anybody is here to discount the impact of violence on women - least of transgender women.  There's a "yabbut" here though: they are going to proceed to claim that transgender women present unique dangers to women because ... they had a penis once. 

There are a series of claims made in this type of argument to establish alleged danger, and I'm going to go through them and explain the problems with the claim and the evidence upon which that claim is based.