An overwhelming majority of Israelis do not support their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

They want the war in Gaza to end and the remaining Israeli hostages to be returned, even if that means not achieving total victory against Hamas. Many of them don’t like settlement expansion in the West Bank, either.

You might think, then, that if Canada’s prime minister criticized the Netanyahu government for continuing the war in Gaza or expanding the settlements, Canadian Jews would have little to say.

But you’d be very wrong.

When Prime Minister Mark Carney joined his French and British colleagues in a harsh condemnation of the Netanyahu government last week, what appears to me to be a significant majority of Jewish Canadians were at best uncomfortable, if not furious.

I can only speak for one Jewish Canadian, but here’s a personal perspective that I hope will make it easier for anyone baffled by the situation to understand.

As a Jew with a privileged but also relatively traditional upbringing in mid-town Toronto that included meetings at school with Holocaust survivors and a trip to the death camps in Poland, I came to believe at an early age that anti-Semitism was unlikely to ever go away.

We could diminish it, we could coat it in stigma and repress it to the margins of society, but after thousands of years it remained one of the most persistent and resilient forms of irrational hatred that society had ever experienced.

For diaspora Jews like me, Israel has always therefore been the ultimate Plan B – if anti-Semitism at home becomes too great to endure, there is always a place you can escape to.

If you see Israel as your Plan B, no matter how repulsive you might find the Netanyahu coalition’s approach to governance, you might still object to anyone who condemns the Israeli government too harshly.

Criticism risks empowering Israel’s enemies who have made it clear that they will not stop until there is no longer a Jewish state.

I sympathize with Jewish Canadians who have interpreted the Carney government’s position as a betrayal.

I also object to the unflinching support for the Israeli government that others provide no matter its behaviour.

The religious extremist members of the current Netanyahu coalition reject my marriage because it was not officiated by an Orthodox rabbi. They do not recognize some of my nephews and nieces as Jewish because their mother is from a different faith.

Failing to hold them to account increases their power and ultimately makes Israel less hospitable to Jewish families like mine.
 
As both a Canadian Jew and a long-time foreign policy analyst, I recognize the difficulties Ottawa faces in laying out a credible, sustainable Middle East policy.

I certainly have my own views, but it is easy to understand – professionally – how some might argue differently.

We all should be able to agree, however, that Canadian governments at every level must take anti-Semitism here at home more seriously.

That Canadian Jews make up less than 1% of our population while nearly 20% of all hate crimes committed in Canada are motivated by anti-Semitism is inexcusable.  

The way that some governments insist on pairing the need to stand up against anti-Semitism with a commitment to combatting other social ills diminishes and minimizes the problem we face.

Partisan claims that only one political party truly supports efforts to combat anti-Semitism are equally unserious and offensive. (One has no business being proud of having failed to convince the rest of Canada that anti-Semitism is a blot on our social fabric.)

Cross-party, cross-jurisdictional cooperation must be the starting point for any serious, empathetic commitment to make Canada a safer place for its Jewish communities.

I’m still waiting for that to happen.

Until then, Prime Minister Carney should anticipate significant blowback whenever he comments on Middle Eastern affairs.

***
I continue to find the University of Ottawa's Thomas Juneau to be the go-to source on analysis of Canada and the Middle East.

***
To be notified of my next post, follow me on X (Twitter) @achapnick, on Bluesky ‪@achapnick.bsky.social‬ or on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-chapnick/.

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.

It was never going to be easy for Kamala Harris to become the United States’ 47th president.

There remains a small percentage of Americans who will not vote for a Black presidential candidate, a small percentage that will not vote for a woman presidential candidate, and a small percentage that will not vote for a Black woman presidential candidate.

These small percentages add up in a tight race.

Add to that the perils of incumbency in the current political context, the failure of the political left across the Western world to express sufficient empathy for the struggles of young and working-class men, and the Trump campaign’s moderation of its stance on abortion, and it seems to me that Harris’ campaign needed to be almost perfect to have a chance.

I’m not convinced that more time would have helped.

Through my outsider’s lens, Harris’ best bet was to exploit the natural excitement around her candidacy – and the contrasts between her and Joe Biden – for as long as possible, and then hope that enough Americans had made up their minds before it inevitably dissipated.

When the election pitted Trump against Biden, America’s focus was on President Biden’s suitability and capacity for four more years in office as a frail 81-year-old man. When Biden withdrew, attention moved to his increasingly erratic 78-year-old opponent.

Trump repels at least as many Americans as he attracts, and the official debate between him and Harris enhanced her strengths and exposed his weaknesses.

If you follow my line of thinking, the turning point in the election might well have been the vice-presidential debate between the until then much maligned Senator JD Vance and the untested yet earnest Governor Tim Walz.

Typically, vice-presidential debates are meaningless, but the way Vance won was, at least to me, critical.

As Anthony Zurcher of the BBC put it: “If Vance was picked because he puts ideological meat on the bones of Trump’s conservative populism, on Tuesday night he put a polite, humble face on them, as well.”

Vance gave undecided Americans who were disappointed with the Biden administration yet also uncomfortable with Trump himself permission to see past the former and future president’s many flaws.

Once the ballot question was no longer Trump’s personal suitability, Harris didn’t have much of a chance.

Now that the election has been decided, I am surprised by how little attention has been given to Vance more broadly, both in the popular press and within Canadian political circles.

Donald Trump is an old man whose health is deteriorating.

He did not enjoy parts of being president the last time, and I find it hard to believe that he will like the work of the presidency any more in 2025.

Once his legal battles are behind him, the office of the president will become increasingly less valuable to him personally as well.

Indeed, even if he is healthy enough to remain in office past his 82nd birthday, I suspect that others will do most of the real work.

Vice-presidents are rarely powerful figures in US politics, but there have been exceptions.

JD Vance has impressive political instincts. As inexperienced as he might be in US politics, he has managed to get himself elected as a senator and now as vice-president in little more than two years.

I’m going to spend part of the winter break reading Hillbilly Elegy.

I hope that at least some people in the Prime Minister’s Office and in the Office of the Leader of the Opposition do the same.  
 
***

On this Remembrance Day, I hope you can take some time to reflect not just on the contributions of members of our Canadian Armed Forces but also on those of their families. If each of us could find our own way of demonstrating a similar commitment to service and a willingness to sacrifice, Canada would be a much better place.
 
***

To be notified of my next post, follow me on X (Twitter) @achapnick or on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-chapnick/.

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.

It has not been a good week for proponents of a serious conversation about Canadian foreign policy in the Middle East.
 
As Paul Wells notes in a recent Substack, on Monday, first Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and then Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre tainted what should have been a solemn ceremony marking the first anniversary of the October 7th terrorist attack against Israel with crass partisanship.
 
Even more disappointing to me, however, were Poilievre’s musings on Israel’s right to defend itself against Iran's most recent attack and the government’s shallow response.
 
Amid a lengthy explanation of his unwavering support for Israel, Poilievre declared:
 
“Israel must be able to prevent Iran from using nuclear weapons. If necessary, that means proactively striking Iranian nuclear sites and oil installations to defund the terrorist regime.”
 
The following day, he doubled down:
 
“I think the idea of allowing a genocidal, theocratic, unstable dictatorship that is desperate to avoid being overthrown by its own people to develop nuclear weapons is about the most dangerous and irresponsible thing that the world could ever allow. If Israel were to stop that genocidal, theocratic, unstable government from acquiring nuclear weapons, it would be a gift by the Jewish state to humanity.”
 
In response, members of the Liberal Cabinet called Poilievre’s approval of strikes against Iranian nuclear sites evidence of a “disastrous foreign policy that would contravene international law and quash hope for peace in the Middle East.”
 
Whether condoning an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities runs counter to international law is debatable, and it seems to me that we would all indeed benefit if Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons were permanently curtailed.
 
But seen through the lens of Canadian foreign policy, those issues are tangential.
 
Rather, there are two significant, inter-related problems with Poilievre’s statement.
 
First, it is unserious.
 
An Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would almost certainly lead to an escalation of the Middle East conflict that would implicate the United States.
 
Presumably, given Poilievre’s staunch support for Israel, it would therefore implicate Canada as well, only it couldn’t because the Canadian Armed Forces have nothing to contribute.
 
The CAF is stretched thin in Latvia as it is; Canada has promised a greater military presence in the Indo-Pacific; and we owe our American NORAD partners substantial investments in the north.
 
Poilievre is therefore freelancing on a policy that Canada is incapable of supporting but could endanger American lives.
 
What’s more, he’s doing so in direct contradiction to President Biden’s opposition to such Israeli action.
 
From where I sit, assuming Poilievre chose his words deliberately, he must either believe that his views on the Middle East are so insignificant that Washington won’t care what he thinks, or that Canada has something to gain from undermining America’s position.
 
The former might well be true, but it is no justification for such irresponsible comments. The latter is simply baffling.
 
In sum, I’m glad that both Trudeau and Poilievre want to stand up for Israel and against antisemitism during this difficult time.
 
But Canada is an insignificant player in the Middle East, and any influence it might have can only be exerted through cooperation with more powerful allies.
 
Tough talk with nothing behind it helps no one. Failing to react to it seriously isn’t much better.
 
***
 
I continue to be impressed by the University of Ottawa professor Thomas Juneau’s take on all things Middle East. He is thoughtful, clear, and balanced (in both official languages).
 
***
 
My new book (with Asa McKercher) Canada First, Not Canada Alone: A History of Canadian Foreign Policy is now available for pre-order. Please check it out.
 
***
To be notified of my next post, follow me on X (Twitter) @achapnick or on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-chapnick/.

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.

Six months ago, this blog focused on my concern about the growing incivility that has overtaken our political discourse.
 
Since then, things have gotten worse.
 
Last week, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh won accolades online for his decision to stand-up to a couple of ignorant bullies who were following him through a parking lot on Parliament Hill.
 
Not much later, after Pierre Poilievre went after Singh personally in the House – calling him a fake, a phony, a fraud, and a sell-out – he appeared ready to use his martial arts training to silence the Conservative leader.
 
I’m glad he didn’t, but I’m also confused by what he did instead.
 
When Singh went to Twitter (X) to capitalize on the positive response to the parking lot incident, he seemed to offer a plausible narrative to justify his party’s denial of support to a pending Conservative motion of non-confidence in the House of Commons:
 
“By now you've probably seen the video. For days now, bullies in Ottawa have been spewing hate and harassing Canadians who don't agree with them. An Indigenous woman being called a Nazi. Staff being harassed. Journalists being yelled at. That’s the country Pierre Poilievre wants. Me? I believe everyone should feel safe walking our streets. I believe we need to stand up to bullies and shut down hate. Canadians believe in lifting each other up. Not tearing each other down. Stand with us.”
 
For reasons I don’t understand, the official announcement of the NDP’s refusal to back the Conservatives was framed less in terms of bullying than in terms of the programs that the Tories would cut if they formed a government, making me wonder why Singh “ripped up” his supply and confidence agreement with the Liberals in the first place.
 
Singh could have said that the NDP would not support any motion of non-confidence coming from the Conservative leader until the Official Opposition had ended its boorish behaviour inside and outside the House of Commons.
 
He could have built on his personal history of standing up to bullies to appeal to a Canadian public that has become disaffected with federal politicians writ large and, apart from Conservative partisans, is not desperately seeking an election.
 
Cutting off the Conservatives would not tie Singh’s hands in Parliament. The NDP will soon get its own opposition day, during which it can introduce its own motion of non-confidence if it’s unsatisfied with the government’s performance.
 
Nor would Singh be prevented from supporting a non-confidence motion brought forward by the Bloc Québécois, and the NDP can also still vote against the next supply bill.
 
Although this focus on bullying might fluxom the Conservatives – they would be left with the choice of either demonstrably changing their tone and risk handing Singh a win and the political momentum that comes with it, or maintaining their bully tactics and giving up their ability to pressure the Liberals into an election – it could ultimately serve their interests as well.
 
Current polling projections suggest that even if Singh were to unite the left behind an anti-bullying platform, it is unlikely that anything can stop Pierre Poilievre from becoming our next prime minister.
 
The Liberals have done significant damage to our immigration system, have run up overwhelming deficits funding programs outside of the federal government’s jurisdiction while underspending on those within it, and have undermined their own message about the importance of addressing climate change.
 
Part of the problem might well be the messenger, but it is rare that any political party can maintain a focus on good governance for more than eight years.
 
And when Canadians believe that government is the source of what ails them, they tend to turn to the party that favours a smaller state apparatus.
 
Meanwhile, the challenges we face domestically and on the world stage are not getting any easier.
 
After the next election, we will need a government that understands that Canada fares best when its people are united and confident in the capacity of their public institutions.
 
Empty braggadocio that undermines faith our system of governance and the officials that serve within it will not resolve the very real problems we face.
 
If the Poilievre Conservatives acquire some humility now (rather than when it is inevitably thrust upon them by world events), Canadians will be better served over the next four years.
 
***
To be notified of my next post, follow me on X (Twitter) @achapnick or on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-chapnick/.

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.

I recently finished reading Health for All: A Doctor’s Prescription for a Healthier Canada, by the former Canadian member of Parliament Dr. Jane Philpott. (disclosure: Philpott spoke to my class in 2020 via Zoom.)
 
Philpott is a remarkable human-being. Smart, hard-working, resilient, selfless – she’s a role model for all of us, and just the kind of person you hope would go into politics.
 
She did enter the political fray and, whether or not you liked the results, there is no denying that she achieved a lot over a short period. (Marijuana legalization, assisted death legislation, healthcare funding agreements with all of the provinces, the task force on Syrian refugees.)
 
She was the grown-up in the room, actually answering questions during Question Period, speaking directly and honestly to the press, and fully committing to her ministerial and constituency obligations.
 
Nonetheless, by the end of her four-year term as a member of Parliament, she had been excommunicated from the Liberal party. (She ran as an independent candidate in 2019 and was not re-elected.)
 
Readers of this blog are likely familiar with the SNC Lavalin affair. Philpott’s role was tangential: she did not support her government’s treatment of Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould and therefore resigned from Cabinet. In her words:
 
“I did not want my presence in cabinet, or my silence, to imply my consent for actions that I deemed to be wrong. I had no other option but to resign” (207).
 
There is something to be said for this, but I am perplexed that Philpott, who hoped to continue to sit as a back-bench Liberal MP, seems surprised by the negative response of so many of her former party colleagues – who all but told her not to let the door hit her on the way out.
 
It seems to me that the challenge that people as decent and honourable as Philpott sometimes face is that, while they have overwhelming empathy for those who are obviously less fortunate, their humility can prevent them from having similar feelings for those who they perceive (often wrongly) as equally successful.

(In my experience, a significant number of senior military leaders are similarly unable to recognize how extraordinary their willingness to accept unlimited liability in the service of their country really is.)
 
For Philpott, being an MP was one of many career highlights. For many of her Liberal MP colleagues, it is, or was, the best job that they will ever have.
 
For them, life after politics will be difficult – many cannot go back to the careers they left behind, and both the private sector and the non-for-profit community will be hesitant to hire them for fear of displeasing a new government of a different political stripe.
 
When Philpott, one of the most respected MPs in Ottawa, made her disappointment with her government public, she damaged the already teetering Liberals in the polls.

To a number of her fellow MPs who, through no real fault of their own, now found their jobs and futures at risk, her principled resignation was the self-righteous act of a person of immense privilege. 
 
Philpott has not ruled out a return to politics, and I hope she does consider running again – provincially. Her thoughts on universalizing primary health care in Canada deserve attention and have a much greater chance for success if built out slowly, province by province.
 
If she does launch a political comeback, though, I hope that she recognizes that continuing to assume that her extraordinary strength of character is the norm will do her no political favours.
 
***
For more thoughtful work on the future of Canadian healthcare, see Danielle Martin’s Better Now: Six Big Ideas to Improve Health Care for All Canadians.
 
***
To be notified of my next post, follow me on X (Twitter) @achapnick or on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-chapnick/.

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.

According to Marie Woolf of The Globe and Mail, shortly before Parliament shut down for the summer, Immigration Minister Marc Miller tried unsuccessfully to convince his Cabinet colleagues to approve a “regularization” program for select Canadian residents who are, for whatever reason, living here without the proper paperwork.
 
According to The Globe, “under the plan, migrants without documents, including people with Canadian children who have lived here for several years, would be able to apply for permanent residence.”
 
Miller’s predecessor, Sean Fraser, had been instructed to develop such a program in 2021, so it appears that officials have been working on this proposal for a while.
 
In the meantime, the best guestimate (it’s really hard to track people who don’t exist on paper) is that the number of “migrants without valid papers” in Canada has reached somewhere between 300,000 and 600,000.
 
According to Woolf, those in favour of mass regularization make what is largely an economic argument.
 
Immigrants to Canada without the proper paperwork can’t open bank accounts or get credit cards. No matter their level of education, they are limited in the jobs they can take and the work they can do.
 
Regularizing them would benefit the Canadian economy and enable better public policy development and analysis. (You can’t figure out how many more houses we need to build if you don’t know how many people are living here.)
 
Opponents focus on how allowing people who have somehow gamed the system to jump to the head of the permanent residency line would undermine public confidence in Canadian institutions, create significant resentment among migrant families who have waited patiently and followed the rules, and encourage still more to attempt to immigrate illegally in the future.
 
Both sides make reasonable arguments.
 
Nobody wins by sending home an international student whose only reason for being here "illegally" is that Ottawa could not process their visa renewal paperwork fast enough.
 
On the other hand, a country that believes in the rule of law cannot reward asylum seekers who refuse to leave after their claim has been rejected.
 
But that is not the whole picture, nor does it make clear the urgency of the problem. 
 
We must also consider the implications of an increasing number of undocumented residents on Canadian multiculturalism's long-term prospects.
 
Among the many reasons that Canada has been more successful at integrating immigrants than many of its like-minded allies is that we have not, until recently, had anything resembling an illegal immigration problem.
 
Typically, the greater the prevalence – real or perceived – of illegal immigrants in a country, the less accepting its citizens are of immigration writ large.
 
It follows that if we want Canadians to open their arms to newcomers (and since our economy is unlikely to sustain our aging population without more workers, we need them to), we must keep the number of undocumented immigrants living here to an absolute minimum.
 
The other factor missing from Woolf’s article is the potential impact of even just the perception of a Canadian immigration problem on American attitudes towards their northern border.
 
The US election campaign has seen both parties portray immigration in negative terms. The last thing Ottawa needs right now is to be seen as a security liability.
 
All of this is not to call for indiscriminate regularization, or a heartless crackdown. But it should be clear that punting the problem indefinitely is a mistake.
 
Far better would be to identify any subsection of the undocumented group that could indeed be regularized immediately – without significant controversy – and doing so, while at the same time moving more quickly against obvious abusers of our processes.
 
There is too much at stake to wait for the perfect solution. We need action now.
 
***
On immigrant integration, see the work of Queen’s University’s Will Kymlicka.
 
***
To be notified of my next post, follow me on X (Twitter) @achapnick or on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-chapnick/.

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.

I read Paul Wells’ new book, Justin Trudeau on the Ropes: Governing in Troubled Times, the moment it arrived as part of my Sutherland Quarterly subscription.

I think Wells is one of the best political journalists in the country, and I always learn from what he has to say.

The book didn’t sit quite right with me when I finished it, so I left it for a week and re-read it today. It still isn’t sitting right.

Wells highlights two factors that he believes help explain the sorry state of the Trudeau government.

The first is a comment by David Axelrod, one of President Barack Obama’s senior advisors, at a Liberal convention in Halifax in 2018.

In a conversation with Trudeau’s then principal secretary, Gerald Butts, Axelrod suggested that in dark political times, “You have to be prepared to push back” (50).

According to Wells, with this statement, Axelrod gave the Liberals’ permission to abandon the sunny ways of their 2015 election campaign.

The second factor is an overwhelming increase in what political scientists call “affective polarization,” or, in Wells’ words, “partisan disdain for the other side” (54).

In such an environment, it made sense for the Liberals to focus on consolidating their base rather than attempting to convince swing voters, or their opponents, to come around to their ideas.

Together, these factors transformed Trudeau into an unfeeling, out of touch, close-minded leader, a far cry from the person Canadians thought they had chosen to govern them in 2015.

Even if Wells is right in the macro-sense, I can’t help but think he’s left something important out.

At some point between 2018 and 2023, Justin Trudeau’s marriage collapsed.

(Wells’ analysis makes a single, passing reference to family troubles - Trudeau’s need to decompress alone after a day of public events “didn’t always make him popular at home” (77) - but never links it to the prime minister’s change in outlook.)

Based on how often Trudeau credits Sophie Gregoire for being his voice of reason in his memoir, Common Ground, I cannot imagine a scenario in which the break-down of the prime minister’s marriage did not have a profound effect on his governing style.

This theory would also help explain why the Liberal government seemed to sleep through much of 2022 and 2023.

From a communications point of view, the Prime Minister’s Office managed Trudeau’s separation brilliantly.

There were no leaks, and media coverage of the announcement was both civil and fleeting.

That success, however, likely came at the expense of everything else the PMO was supposed to be doing.

Over the last 9 months, the Trudeau government has made countless efforts to reboot (a Cabinet shuffle, a Cabinet retreat, a budget, a new executive communications director, a new policy expert).

Based on the polls, nothing has worked.

I wonder what might have happened if, rather than claiming infallibility, demonizing the opposition, and tinkering around the edges of his government, the prime minister had apologized to Canadians – for being human.

Could he not have explained that it took him a long time to realize how distracted he had become by the challenges he was facing in his personal life?

He might then have announced that he was recommitting to governing in the best interests of all Canadians, no matter who they planned to vote for.

Such humility would have been a breath of fresh air in what has become an unbearably toxic political environment.

***
For more on this issue, why not take a look at Common Ground. In a couple of weeks, you’ll be able to contrast it with Andrew Lawton’s forthcoming biography, Pierre Poilievre: A Political Life. And be sure to check out Paul Wells’ Substack - it’s excellent.
***
To be notified of my next post, follow me on X (Twitter) @achapnick or on LinkedInat https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-chapnick/.

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.

Last week, two of Canada’s most capable and credible defence analysts, Philippe Lagassé and Justin Massie, released a scathing account of the state of the Canadian military on the highly-regarded US website, War on the Rocks.

“Don’t count on us: Canada’s military unreadiness,” is difficult reading.

Lagassé and Massie declare that “Canada’s ability to meaningfully contribute to major allied operations is in doubt for the foreseeable future,” and they present the evidence to prove it.

Their essay offers a sweeping history of decline stemming from a combination of a national strategic culture that undervalues the importance of hard power and a decades-spanning series of short-sited policy interventions from Ottawa that have left the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) in what their own minister has called a “death spiral.”

The authors don’t conclude hopefully, but they do make three recommendations.

First, spend more – now: “While money is not a panacea, spending 2 percent of gross domestic product in defense could help address the shortage of personnel and crumbling infrastructure, as well as acquiring the missing capabilities to sustain operations in the current threat environment.”

Second, fix the defence planning process. Ottawa needs to make procurement decisions more quickly, and then follow through more reliably.

Finally, do away with the “complacent and self-righteous attitude” that has prevented national leaders from acknowledging the scope of the problem that Canada faces.

It’s hard to quarrel with this piece.

​It should be required reading on Parliament Hill, and a wake-up call to those who continue to live in a fantasy world about the state of Canada’s defence preparedness.

But it worries me deeply that current and potential future members of the Canadian Armed Forces who read it will get the wrong impression.

Lagassé and Massie are right to argue that Canada’s ability to contribute to collective security and defence is unforgivably inadequate and will continue to be so for years to come.

Canadian allies should indeed ratchet down their expectations about the quantity of people and materiel that Ottawa will be able to contribute to alliance missions for the foreseeable future.

That does not mean, however, that individual CAF members are not playing – and cannot continue to play – significant, meaningful roles in national and global affairs.

Canada’s allies express open disappointment in Ottawa’s defence posture because they recognize the value of what they are missing.

The CAF’s historic willingness to accept difficult missions, its members’ professionalism, and the quality of their training make those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces ideal partners in the defence of Western interests around the world.

In spite of the cuts and the controversies, individual CAF members continue to be commended for their personal and professional contributions abroad.

And those who serve will continue to be welcomed when they deploy oversees because the CAF’s reputation on the ground precedes them.

In sum, Lagassé and Massie are right: Canada is set to be little more than a minor player on the international security stage.

But let that not be a reason for the best of the CAF to leave or for those thinking about applying not to join up.

***

For the text of the Minister of National Defence’s most recent summary of his view of the state of Canadian affairs, see here.

***

To be notified of my next post, follow me on X (Twitter) @achapnick or on LinkedInat https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-chapnick/.

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.

Last week, the mayor of Ottawa, Mark Sutcliffe, issued an impassioned plea for greater civility in Canadian politics in The Globe and Mail.
 
The problem was not just social media, he wrote, which could be managed by avoiding it, but rather the physical threats that Canadian holders of elected office, their families, and their staff were facing all-too-regularly.
 
“We’ve worked hard to ensure that bullying, threats and abusive behaviour are not tolerated in workplaces or classrooms,” he noted. Why do so many Canadians believe that the political space was different?
 
The abuse is causing some politicians to resign mid-mandate, and potential leaders to refuse to seek public office in the first place.
 
I empathize with Sutcliffe’s plea – I recently encouraged an extraordinary leader to apply for a position Senate and they refused because of the increasing toxicity within it. (And the Senate is not nearly as bad as the House of Commons.)
 
Still, I am afraid that in his efforts to fight back against charges that elected officials should just ‘suck it up,’ – which he rightly dismisses as victim-blaming – Sutcliffe minimizes the role that the political class has played in creating this atmosphere.
 
Whether they like it or not, elected officials in liberal democracies are role models. Their behaviour shapes national norms.
 
When Canadians see the shameless mudslinging, crass behaviour, and deliberate dishonesty that characterizes not just Question Period, but now also discussion in certain Parliamentary committees, not to mention provincial legislatures and even municipal council meetings, some inevitably conclude that such behaviour is reasonable.
 
Add social media, which only increases the intensity of everyone’s emotions, and it’s not hard to see how we end up with vandalism, threats, and even violence towards politicians.
 
There is no easy solution here, but there is an obvious first step that every elected official can take.
 
Behave in public settings in a manner that would make Canadian children proud. Stop heckling, and call out those who don’t – even if they come from your political tribe. Keep in mind that you are elected to represent Canadians writ large, not just the ones who voted for you.
 
(Indeed, based on what they say about one another, one might think that the prime minister and the leader of the opposition don’t see one another as Canadians at all.)
 
In sum, Sutcliffe is right that politicians, their families, and their staff don’t deserve the abuse that they now face regularly in their public and private lives.
 
But that does not absolve elected leaders of the responsibility to stop perpetuating an environment in which such toxic behaviour thrives.
 
***
One institution doing consistently good work on trying to bring decency back to politics is the Samara Centre for Democracy. We need more of that.
 
***
To be notified of my next post, follow me on X (Twitter) @achapnick or on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-chapnick/.

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.
 
 
 
 
 
 
k here to edit.

For the first time since the 1990s, Canadians appear to be approaching a consensus on the need to boost spending on national defence.
 
Whether it’s because of the increasingly dangerous world we seem to be living in, the sad state of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), or the growing unwillingness of our NATO allies to countenance our failure to live up to an alliance-wide pledge to spend 2% of the value of gross domestic product (GDP) on military preparedness, the general public’s traditional reticence to take Canada’s national security seriously is waning.
 
The most recent evidence of this change is Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s pledge earlier this month to cut “wasteful foreign aid that goes to dictators, terrorists and multinational bureaucracies” and reallocate that money to the CAF to enable Canada to “work towards” meeting NATO’s 2% of GDP spending target.
 
Since I don’t believe in basing defence (or international assistance) spending on an arbitrary percentage of GDP, I’m ambivalent about Mr. Poilievre’s hedge on meeting the NATO commitment.
 
It’s not as if the current government has been any better, and while being a good ally certainly matters, NATO's feelings (positive or negative) are ultimately less important than allocating what it takes to defend our country and its interests, be that 2% of GDP, more, or less.
 
Still, I have serious concerns with the specifics of Mr. Poilievre’s proposal and, more important, the defence community’s (lack of) response to it.
 
As I have suggested in this blog before, militaries do not fight 21st century wars alone.
 
We need diplomats at relevant international fora; intelligence gatherers in the field; humanitarian aid workers on the ground; immigration officials administering the increasing numbers of refugees and displaced persons that conflict creates; settlement workers supporting those refugees once they arrive here; mental health professionals dealing with their trauma.
 
The Canadian Armed Forces are one element – albeit a critical one – of a larger national security apparatus, all of which has been neglected by successive governments in Ottawa and all of which requires re-investment.
 
Members of the defence community learned this lesson all too often in Afghanistan (first during struggles to implement a comprehensive approach to provincial reconstruction in the field over a decade ago and then again during more recent efforts to evacuate endangered Afghans after the return of the Taliban).
 
Depleting the capacity of Global Affairs Canada in order to rebuild the CAF risks re-balkanizing a national security community that is at its best when all of its members work together.
 
In sum, when a leading politician who looks likely to be our next prime minister pledges to pit one element of the national security community against another, defence advocates should be up in arms.
 
Kudos to The Globe and Mail’s editorial board and to John Ibbitson for expressing their objections, but I have yet to find similar thoughts being expressed from within the defence community.
 
For the sake of our national interests, that must change.
 
***
One of Canada’s premier defence analysts, Philippe Lagassé, has a new Substack, Debating Canadian Defence. If you’re interested in such issues, it’s a must-read.
 
***
To be notified of my next post, follow me on X (Twitter) @achapnick or on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-chapnick/.

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.