9 ms·

Generally, governments in Canada are voted out in roughly 9-year intervals. Trudeau took office in 2015, so nothing unusual there. Moreover, Trudeau is exiting

Generally, governments in Canada are voted out in roughly 9-year intervals. Trudeau took office in 2015, so nothing unusual there. Moreover, Trudeau is exiting with approval ratings just a percent below his predecessor, Stephen Harper (22% vs. 23%, respectively). So, in a wider sense, this is not so unusual. But we're facing a trade war with the States and less-than-joking threats of annexation, so it's a bad moment to have our leadership in a shakeup.

redeux 2y ago
I haven’t been following the news recently. What is the talk of annexation? First I’ve heard of it.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Trump I feel like a single word should explain it, but I know HN abhors single word responses. Trump has threatened tariffs and has mentioned annexing Canada. He's also mentioned buying Greenland, trading Puerto Rico for Greenland, and a bunch of other notions.
  - gpm 2y ago
    Taking back the Panama Canal comes to mind. It seems to me that he really wants to do some empire building, but hasn't figured out a way that people would actually accept (and isn't interested in the modern version of treaty based "empires").
    - busterarm 2y ago
      In fairness, the US paid for the Panama Canal and have continued to sustain it despite no "ownership". Panama is only relevant because of the US investment in the Canal and they claim ownership when it suits them and then cry poverty every time investments need to be made. Panama is currently playing with fire by courting foreign interest that doesn't align with the US, who are effectively their paymasters. It's not a sudden "empire-building" move by the US. The fact that the canal exists at all has always been because of the US Empire. Panama is playing a dangerous game of FA&FO.
      - csomar 2y ago
        You can replace Panama with Ukraine, or Taiwan. The double standard is getting out of control. Respect for Trump for laying it as it is without all the BS.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      To me, the canal thing is the only thing he's mentioned that is possible. There's a stipulation that does allow for that, just like there's a stipulation that the crown can do away with parliament in the UK. Doesn't mean it's an unlikely provision to be invoked without a lot of negative baggage to the point they are not likely to happen.
    - throaway89 2y ago
      Trump is just throwing out every threat he can. There's simply no realistic way to unilaterally take Canada, or the canal, or Greenland.
  - nemo44x 2y ago
    Greenland actually makes a lot of sense. I think if every citizen there was offered $5million they’d vote yes. And it’s entirely reasonable from the USA perspective as it’s not that much overall for the US. Probably wouldn’t make a state but treat like Puerto Rico where they continue to self govern and citizens can freely move to the USA as they’d have USA passports. For USA very strategic naval passages and mineral extraction. It’s not that crazy really and I think there’s a deal that’s mutually beneficial where everyone wins and is better off long term.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      Normal people would try to negotiate trade relations. Megalomaniacs would decide to just take something even if they try to soften the taking with money.
      - nemo44x 2y ago
        [flagged]
        dylan604 2y ago
        The USA bought stolen land from those that stole it. People often forget about that fact.
        dgfitz 2y ago
        100% of land in the history of humanity has been either bought or stolen. What exactly is your point?
    - mcphage 2y ago
      > I think if every citizen there was offered $5million they’d vote yes. And it’s entirely reasonable from the USA perspective as it’s not that much overall for the US. That's almost $300 billion dollars?
      - 2y ago
- mlekoszek 2y ago
  There's a good summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Justin_Trudeau_and_Donald_Trump_(starting_in_January_2025) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_r... At least one Canadian business magnate (Kevin O'Leary) has tried to position himself in on the deal and visited Trump at Mar-a-Lago to talk details. https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/kevin-oleary-donald-trump-canada-united-states-union https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/kevin-oleary-donald-t...
  - redeux 2y ago
    If this is true and Canada has not arrested O’Leary then they’ve already shown how weak they are to naked sedition and it’s only a matter of time before something terrible happens.
    - gpm 2y ago
      As far as I'm aware we have no laws about going and making a moron out of yourself advocating for giving the country away. Nor do I particularly think we need any, morons can be morons, the rest of us can ignore them (and I say this as someone strongly against the idea of joining the states). Naked sedition would be promoting an actual invasion, not just floating the idea of Canada joining as the 51st state voluntarily and figuring out the logistics of how that could happen (which as far as I can tell is all this is). We don't have an equivalent of the American Logan Act that would make this illegal.
    - vivekd 2y ago
      I don't think there's any need to arrest anyone as a show of strength. I don't feel the threat of an actual American invasion and I like living in a free society that doesn't go around arresting people for political show. Most of us are offended by Kevin being a self appointed negotiator on behalf of Canada but it's not like government is bound by anything he says so if he wants to talk in private with Trump as a private citizen so be it.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- auxym 2y ago
  Since December, Trump has repeatedly "joked" on social media about Canada being the 51st US state and Trudeau being a "Governor". The whole thing is pretty stupid, but Trump is so chaotic that chances of bad things happening are feeling somewhat above zero.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- nashashmi 2y ago
  US should take the areas below the 47 degree Lat N. The rest can remain Canada. And please Keep Quebec too. Or maybe Canada should pull a Russia and sell the Northwest Territories and Yukon. That would generate a lot of interest and money.
dylan604 2y ago
> less-than-joking threats of annexation This is an interesting statement in that, sadly, the person making the threats is not joking yet to those that have not drunk the kool-aid it is an utter joke of a concept.
- MattGaiser 2y ago
  > those that have not drunk the kool-aid it is an utter joke of a concept Problem is that they aren't the ones in power in the USA.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Right, but even if the US actually wants to annex Canada, Canada would have to allow that to happen. That's what makes it insane. Russia wanted to annex Ukraine, and it didn't go so well. So playing the tape to the end, what do people think Trump is actually proposing? A war? A "special operation"?
    - NewJazz 2y ago
      It didn't go so well because the US and the rest of Europe resisted the invasion of Ukraine. Who will help Canada? They'll be blockaded on day one by both land and sea. They won't have any food.
      - dylan604 2y ago
        A whole group of countries joined together and came to the aid of Kuwait when Iraq attempted to annex them. Edit: are you suggesting that Europe would not come to the aid of Canada just because it's Canada or because they would be going against the US? The rest of the world could turn around and isolate the US with sanctions and tariffs at a minimum. Would that be worth it for the US?
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
aaron_m04 2y ago
Annexation is not a joke?
krashidov 2y ago
> and less-than-joking threats of annexation If Poilievre gets elected, will he willingly join the USA? It seems that the world is more and more aligned by political spectrum rather than national allegiance.
- tokioyoyo 2y ago
  Not being a part of the states is our national identity. It’s just very fringe minority who dabbles with the idea of joining the USA.
  - mlekoszek 2y ago
    I think the Overton window has become much easier to slide around with social media influence campaigns. If someone powerful wants something -- even if it's against everyone else's interests -- it's now much easier for them to drum up popular support for it through underhanded tactics. Remember that Brexit started as a joke.
    - tokioyoyo 2y ago
      Everyone gets manipulated one way or another. It’s up to the person to carry the weight and responsibility of their actions. When it comes to US - Canada relations, if Canadians decide to be a part of the states, then it’s their will. I don’t support it, but if super majority changes their minds… well, we live in a democracy, and such is the will of people. Frankly, I think US is in a panic mode as they realize they can’t outcompete China anytime soon by themselves. So they’re trying every possible thing to see what sticks to increase their chances. China is also in panic mode because of internal issues that stem from the younger generation’s dissatisfaction. Natural fix is to claim some wins to rally and unite people. So the ideas of reunification, playing to win in manufacturing, showing how much better they can overcome the economical problems using their 1B population are on the play now. For whatever reason, I think the common lives of people who live in countries that play for both sides will be the only ones that get elevated. And frankly, I think, Canada should do the same.
BunsanSpace 2y ago
This is the crux of the issue honestly. Trudeau should have had the humility to read the writing on the wall in the fall, and stepped down so we could have a stable government to deal with the incoming US administration and give his party a fighting chance next election. He could have rested on his laurels knowing history would likely forget his shortcomings & scandals, and be remembered as the prime minister who got us legal weed, navigated the covid pandemic, brought clean drinking water to FN reserves and advanced social programs (childcare, dental care). Instead he's likely going to be known as the prime minister who had to be forcibly walked to the door by Canadians and his party, while leaving the country in a precarious position during tumultuous times.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Neither Freeland nor Carney want to be the next Kim Campbell. The Liberals are going to lose the next election badly whether or not Trudeau is leading it. I'm sure that Trudeau made the decision to step down ~6 months ago and is now just playing with the timing to maximum effect. Stepping down now basically pushes the election three months further out than it would otherwise be due to a prorogation to pick a new leader. That gives Pollievre 3 more months worth of rope and Trump time to sabotage Pollievre.
  - cmrdporcupine 2y ago
    Yeah my expectation is this next leadership campaign will be half-assed and "fought" by people who know they will never be PM. Instead they'll expect 4-5 years of PP and somewhere in the middle another leadership campaign that they'll then try to win. I do think Freeland is too tainted by Trudeau now to be a success. Very intelligent woman, but I think her political career is ending. (I should check back on this comment in 5 years)
    - BunsanSpace 2y ago
      I agree she's tainted which makes her a bad choice to be his successor. But people have short memories and I think in 3-4 years the Trudeau stains will have washed off. In that time she'll have a chance to make a name for herself. I think if she wanted she could very well be a contender in the next election cycle.

redeux 2y ago

I haven’t been following the news recently. What is the talk of annexation? First I’ve heard of it.

dylan604 2y ago
Trump I feel like a single word should explain it, but I know HN abhors single word responses. Trump has threatened tariffs and has mentioned annexing Canada. He's also mentioned buying Greenland, trading Puerto Rico for Greenland, and a bunch of other notions.
- gpm 2y ago
  Taking back the Panama Canal comes to mind. It seems to me that he really wants to do some empire building, but hasn't figured out a way that people would actually accept (and isn't interested in the modern version of treaty based "empires").
  - busterarm 2y ago
    In fairness, the US paid for the Panama Canal and have continued to sustain it despite no "ownership". Panama is only relevant because of the US investment in the Canal and they claim ownership when it suits them and then cry poverty every time investments need to be made. Panama is currently playing with fire by courting foreign interest that doesn't align with the US, who are effectively their paymasters. It's not a sudden "empire-building" move by the US. The fact that the canal exists at all has always been because of the US Empire. Panama is playing a dangerous game of FA&FO.
    - csomar 2y ago
      You can replace Panama with Ukraine, or Taiwan. The double standard is getting out of control. Respect for Trump for laying it as it is without all the BS.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    To me, the canal thing is the only thing he's mentioned that is possible. There's a stipulation that does allow for that, just like there's a stipulation that the crown can do away with parliament in the UK. Doesn't mean it's an unlikely provision to be invoked without a lot of negative baggage to the point they are not likely to happen.
  - throaway89 2y ago
    Trump is just throwing out every threat he can. There's simply no realistic way to unilaterally take Canada, or the canal, or Greenland.
- nemo44x 2y ago
  Greenland actually makes a lot of sense. I think if every citizen there was offered $5million they’d vote yes. And it’s entirely reasonable from the USA perspective as it’s not that much overall for the US. Probably wouldn’t make a state but treat like Puerto Rico where they continue to self govern and citizens can freely move to the USA as they’d have USA passports. For USA very strategic naval passages and mineral extraction. It’s not that crazy really and I think there’s a deal that’s mutually beneficial where everyone wins and is better off long term.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Normal people would try to negotiate trade relations. Megalomaniacs would decide to just take something even if they try to soften the taking with money.
    - nemo44x 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - dylan604 2y ago
        The USA bought stolen land from those that stole it. People often forget about that fact.
        dgfitz 2y ago
        100% of land in the history of humanity has been either bought or stolen. What exactly is your point?
  - mcphage 2y ago
    > I think if every citizen there was offered $5million they’d vote yes. And it’s entirely reasonable from the USA perspective as it’s not that much overall for the US. That's almost $300 billion dollars?
    - 2y ago
mlekoszek 2y ago
There's a good summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Justin_Trudeau_and_Donald_Trump_(starting_in_January_2025) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_r... At least one Canadian business magnate (Kevin O'Leary) has tried to position himself in on the deal and visited Trump at Mar-a-Lago to talk details. https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/kevin-oleary-donald-trump-canada-united-states-union https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/kevin-oleary-donald-t...
- redeux 2y ago
  If this is true and Canada has not arrested O’Leary then they’ve already shown how weak they are to naked sedition and it’s only a matter of time before something terrible happens.
  - gpm 2y ago
    As far as I'm aware we have no laws about going and making a moron out of yourself advocating for giving the country away. Nor do I particularly think we need any, morons can be morons, the rest of us can ignore them (and I say this as someone strongly against the idea of joining the states). Naked sedition would be promoting an actual invasion, not just floating the idea of Canada joining as the 51st state voluntarily and figuring out the logistics of how that could happen (which as far as I can tell is all this is). We don't have an equivalent of the American Logan Act that would make this illegal.
  - vivekd 2y ago
    I don't think there's any need to arrest anyone as a show of strength. I don't feel the threat of an actual American invasion and I like living in a free society that doesn't go around arresting people for political show. Most of us are offended by Kevin being a self appointed negotiator on behalf of Canada but it's not like government is bound by anything he says so if he wants to talk in private with Trump as a private citizen so be it.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
auxym 2y ago
Since December, Trump has repeatedly "joked" on social media about Canada being the 51st US state and Trudeau being a "Governor". The whole thing is pretty stupid, but Trump is so chaotic that chances of bad things happening are feeling somewhat above zero.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nashashmi 2y ago
US should take the areas below the 47 degree Lat N. The rest can remain Canada. And please Keep Quebec too. Or maybe Canada should pull a Russia and sell the Northwest Territories and Yukon. That would generate a lot of interest and money.

dylan604 2y ago

> less-than-joking threats of annexation This is an interesting statement in that, sadly, the person making the threats is not joking yet to those that have not drunk the kool-aid it is an utter joke of a concept.

MattGaiser 2y ago
> those that have not drunk the kool-aid it is an utter joke of a concept Problem is that they aren't the ones in power in the USA.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Right, but even if the US actually wants to annex Canada, Canada would have to allow that to happen. That's what makes it insane. Russia wanted to annex Ukraine, and it didn't go so well. So playing the tape to the end, what do people think Trump is actually proposing? A war? A "special operation"?
  - NewJazz 2y ago
    It didn't go so well because the US and the rest of Europe resisted the invasion of Ukraine. Who will help Canada? They'll be blockaded on day one by both land and sea. They won't have any food.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      A whole group of countries joined together and came to the aid of Kuwait when Iraq attempted to annex them. Edit: are you suggesting that Europe would not come to the aid of Canada just because it's Canada or because they would be going against the US? The rest of the world could turn around and isolate the US with sanctions and tariffs at a minimum. Would that be worth it for the US?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

aaron_m04 2y ago

Annexation is not a joke?

krashidov 2y ago

> and less-than-joking threats of annexation If Poilievre gets elected, will he willingly join the USA? It seems that the world is more and more aligned by political spectrum rather than national allegiance.

tokioyoyo 2y ago
Not being a part of the states is our national identity. It’s just very fringe minority who dabbles with the idea of joining the USA.
- mlekoszek 2y ago
  I think the Overton window has become much easier to slide around with social media influence campaigns. If someone powerful wants something -- even if it's against everyone else's interests -- it's now much easier for them to drum up popular support for it through underhanded tactics. Remember that Brexit started as a joke.
  - tokioyoyo 2y ago
    Everyone gets manipulated one way or another. It’s up to the person to carry the weight and responsibility of their actions. When it comes to US - Canada relations, if Canadians decide to be a part of the states, then it’s their will. I don’t support it, but if super majority changes their minds… well, we live in a democracy, and such is the will of people. Frankly, I think US is in a panic mode as they realize they can’t outcompete China anytime soon by themselves. So they’re trying every possible thing to see what sticks to increase their chances. China is also in panic mode because of internal issues that stem from the younger generation’s dissatisfaction. Natural fix is to claim some wins to rally and unite people. So the ideas of reunification, playing to win in manufacturing, showing how much better they can overcome the economical problems using their 1B population are on the play now. For whatever reason, I think the common lives of people who live in countries that play for both sides will be the only ones that get elevated. And frankly, I think, Canada should do the same.

BunsanSpace 2y ago

This is the crux of the issue honestly. Trudeau should have had the humility to read the writing on the wall in the fall, and stepped down so we could have a stable government to deal with the incoming US administration and give his party a fighting chance next election. He could have rested on his laurels knowing history would likely forget his shortcomings & scandals, and be remembered as the prime minister who got us legal weed, navigated the covid pandemic, brought clean drinking water to FN reserves and advanced social programs (childcare, dental care). Instead he's likely going to be known as the prime minister who had to be forcibly walked to the door by Canadians and his party, while leaving the country in a precarious position during tumultuous times.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
Neither Freeland nor Carney want to be the next Kim Campbell. The Liberals are going to lose the next election badly whether or not Trudeau is leading it. I'm sure that Trudeau made the decision to step down ~6 months ago and is now just playing with the timing to maximum effect. Stepping down now basically pushes the election three months further out than it would otherwise be due to a prorogation to pick a new leader. That gives Pollievre 3 more months worth of rope and Trump time to sabotage Pollievre.
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  Yeah my expectation is this next leadership campaign will be half-assed and "fought" by people who know they will never be PM. Instead they'll expect 4-5 years of PP and somewhere in the middle another leadership campaign that they'll then try to win. I do think Freeland is too tainted by Trudeau now to be a success. Very intelligent woman, but I think her political career is ending. (I should check back on this comment in 5 years)
  - BunsanSpace 2y ago
    I agree she's tainted which makes her a bad choice to be his successor. But people have short memories and I think in 3-4 years the Trudeau stains will have washed off. In that time she'll have a chance to make a name for herself. I think if she wanted she could very well be a contender in the next election cycle.