Opinion: What a family vacation taught me about Canada's strength under fire
My youngest was especially eager to see the sites of battles from the War of 1812, particularly around Niagara, where American forces were halted. Meanwhile, my high-school-aged daughter was interested in visiting the universities in those cities.
By chance, we joined a campus tour, and most of the prospective students were American. Some parents shared that they were encouraging their children to study in Canada due to growing concerns back home.
I became a Canadian citizen through marriage just three years ago, and I'm constantly learning something new about my adopted country. This trip prompted me to reflect more deeply on Canada's past, its current challenges, and its future.
While biking around Ottawa, we came across the locks of the Rideau Canal, where recreational boats moved gracefully between different water levels. I assumed most Canadian children learn about this in primary school, but I had never heard of the canal before. I was fascinated to learn how and why the 202-kilometre waterway was built.
After the War of 1812, the British feared another American invasion and recognized that relying on the St. Lawrence River, running along the U.S. border, was too risky for transportation. The Rideau Canal was constructed as a secure inland route linking Lake Ontario to the Ottawa River, completed in 1832. Nearly 1,000 workers died during its construction, mostly from disease.
Another aspect that left a strong impression on me was learning about the history of French Canadians, as recounted by a tour guide in Quebec City. She described the deep grievances that many Québécois still hold toward English Canada. The stories included examples of political, cultural, and economic repression following the British conquest. Let's just say that the complaints from some in my home province about being mistreated by the federal government seem minor by comparison.
I enjoyed the surroundings of the iconic Château Frontenac. Built by the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) after Confederation, the Château was designed as a luxury hotel and was part of a broader strategy to promote tourism and national unity. At the time, English-speaking Canada was heavily focused on westward expansion, aiming to connect the country from coast to coast and secure British Columbia's place in Confederation amid fears of an American invasion. However, many in Quebec were skeptical of the project, raising geographical, cultural, and economic concerns.
To gain support in the province, the CPR made strategic decisions, one of which involved extending the railway to Quebec City and constructing the opulent Château, which opened in 1893. The hotel became both a symbol of the railway's ambition and a political gesture to more closely integrate Quebec into the new Canada. It may have even provided a job for our guide, though she didn't mention this during the tour.
The Rideau Canal and the Château Frontenac are more than just beautiful landmarks. They remind us of a time when bold decisions were made to secure Canada's future. These projects can still inspire us today to modernize our national innovation system — from infrastructure and regulation to how the public and private sectors, along with society, collaborate. We need to take a clear-eyed look at the real risks we face and act accordingly.
Accelerating progress was no easy feat for early Canadians; nonetheless, they managed to set priorities and get things done. Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but since the completion of the Rideau Canal and Château Frontenac, Canada has not faced a direct attack from the United States. Today, there are no muskets or cannons, but we are in a serious struggle to defend our economy and sovereignty.
The challenges are different, but the need for bold, co-ordinated action is just as urgent.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
36 minutes ago
- CBC
Can Mark Carney move fast and not break things?
It's easy to move fast if you're not worried about breaking things. The greater challenge is moving fast while fixing, improving and building things. On the day, two months ago, that his new cabinet was appointed, Carney boasted that it was "among the fastest" swearings-in after an election and that the return of Parliament would be "one of the most rapid" in Canadian history. The government, he said, was "starting as we aim to go on." "Our government will deliver its mandate for change with urgency and determination," he said. "We've been elected to do a job. We intend to do it quickly and forcefully." That followed from Carney's earlier insistence that Canada needed "big changes" and that responding to the threat posed by Donald Trump would require doing "things that we haven't imagined before, at speeds we didn't think possible." On a number of fronts, Carney's government is moving quickly toward those goals. The government's first major legislation — Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, which allows for the expedited approval of large infrastructure projects — was tabled in the House of Commons just 19 days after the cabinet was sworn in. Twenty days after that the bill had passed both the House and Senate — a breathtakingly quick passage for legislation of such potential significance. A few days after that bill was tabled, Carney announced the federal government would significantly accelerate its plan to spend more on national defence. During the campaign, the Liberals promised to exceed the NATO target of two per cent of GDP "before" 2030. In June, Carney said the government would hit that mark in the current fiscal year. WATCH | What critics are saying about Carney's 'move fast' approach: Prime Minister Mark Carney's need for speed 16 days ago With the defence budget now slated to rapidly grow — and with Carney having promised to impose new discipline on overall federal spending — the prime minister has given ministers until the end of the summer to complete a federal program review aimed at finding billions of dollars in cuts or savings. Federal departments have also been given 60 days to identify federal regulations that can be eliminated. Meanwhile, Carney has appointed a new clerk of the Privy Council and seemingly given him a mandate to make government itself move faster. "Our internal processes have become quite complicated. When that happens, there is always the risk that following the process is so time-consuming that everything slows down — at a time when we need to speed up because the world is moving as fast as it is," Michael Sabia wrote in a note to public servants soon after his appointment. "Windows of opportunity open and close. The world waits for no one." The case for moving fast Beyond the world's general state of impatience, there are a number of reasons why Carney might want or need to move fast. The first and most obvious — the overarching challenge that Carney has framed his government within — is the economic and political crisis posed by Donald Trump. And to that one could add a housing crisis and a climate crisis. As a newly elected prime minister — and one whose initial actions seem to be impressing a sizable number of voters — Carney will likely never have more political capital than he has right now. But having fallen short of winning a majority in the House, he also can't be sure of exactly how much time he'll have before facing voters again. Moving fast might also be one way to demonstrate change — both in substance and style. The Trudeau Liberals came to office promising a more active government, but also a more consultative government — a reaction to the idea that the previous Conservative government had been too heavy handed. And while Justin Trudeau has an incautious streak, his government could be methodical and tentative. The government was also dogged by criticism that its ambitions exceeded its execution. And by the end of Trudeau's time in office, there was a new desire for action — particularly on housing. Even without the crisis posed by Trump, Carney might have come to office with a need to get things built and improve state capacity. WATCH | First Nations leaders meet with PM: Chiefs voice unhappiness with Carney's First Nations summit | Power & Politics 8 days ago The Power Panel discusses Prime Minister Mark Carney's summit on the new major projects law with First Nations leaders. Some chiefs are calling it a 'disaster.' "Focus, change, action" is apparently something of a mantra in Carney's office. Purportedly a demanding boss, Carney comes to the job having spent significant time working in both the private sector and in and around government (the latter of which may have left him with a view about how governments work and how they don't). But for the sake of both making the case for active government and rebutting the populist challenge, Liberals — and progressives in general — might also have a special interest in wanting to see government moving and acting as quickly and efficiently as possible. In the American context, consider the regrets expressed by some of former president Joe Biden's advisers and the calls for an " abundance agenda." The challenges of moving fast While officials in Ottawa are scrambling this summer to complete a spending review and stand up a new major projects office, there might be at least one noticeable gap in the government's rush to action. If there was one way for the government to show that it was making a tangible difference in the lives of Canadians, it would be by attacking the housing crisis. And during the campaign Carney promised his government would help build new homes at "a pace not seen since the Second World War." But while the government has been demonstrably busy negotiating with Washington and pushing C-5, tangible movement on housing is so far less obvious. There are also signs of potential danger ahead. Policy analysts and public sector unions are already expressing concern about the potential consequences of the program review — and how quickly the government is moving to find cuts. However necessary it might be to increase spending on national defence or other areas, and whatever the public's general desire for greater fiscal discipline in Ottawa, the results of this spending review could expose some painful trade-offs — or at least compel Carney and his cabinet to defend some significant sacrifices. C-5 may have also shown that there are real risks governments run when they try to move fast — at least when the rights of Indigenous Peoples are involved. The sheer speed of the bill's passage seemed to feed suspicions. "I think the main issue I'm hearing about this bill is that it's being rammed through without consultation or first nations' free, prior and informed consent," Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, told a House of Commons committee in June. The summits convened with First Nations leaders since C-5 received royal assent might have helped to address some concerns — and much will really depend on how the government makes use of C-5. But the lesson of C-5's initial reception might be that moving fast requires even greater effort than moving slow.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Let's not panic about Taiwan yet
Opinion 'I hope I am wrong. My gut tells me we (the U.S. and China) will fight in 2025,' wrote General Mike Minihan, head of U.S. Air Mobility Command, in a private memo two years ago. There's still five months to go, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he's wrong. Don't take my word for it, because my recent record in these matters is bad. I didn't think Russia's Vladimir Putin was crazy enough to invade Ukraine although I knew he was largely detached from reality, and I was wrong. For a long time I would not use the word 'genocide' to describe what Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu was doing in Gaza, and I was wrong again. In my defence, I had not spent quality time with either man and I was reluctant to predict their actions based entirely on other people's estimates of their characters (especially since most of those people didn't know them personally either). I still felt compelled to weigh the pros and cons of the case, on the mistaken assumption that facts had some influence on their decisions. The possibility of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is a far greater threat to the peace of the world (such as it is) than the relative sideshows in Ukraine and Israel/Palestine. Aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons on both sides. A few poorly planned displays of 'determination,' and the U.S. is in a war with China — with the two Koreas and Japan not far behind. China's President Xi Jinping will never rule out using force to 'recover' Taiwan, but the story that he has set a 2027 deadline for that terrifying gamble is just a Washington think-tank special. He does harp about it a lot, though. Successive American administrations have practised 'strategic ambiguity' (i.e. maybe the U.S. would fight to defend Taiwan and maybe it wouldn't), and the fickle enthusiasms of Donald Trump muddy the waters even further. He is widely seen as a strategic coward (TACO), but he is sufficiently erratic that his response is really incalculable. As for Taiwan, President Lai Ching-te of the cautiously pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) serves up the usual word salad: 'The message of history is clear. Today we share the same values and face similar challenges as many of the democracies that participated in the European war (1939-45).' Evasiveness as policy, so as not to rile China. So I will risk my reputation as a soothsayer once again and assume that both Xi Jinping and Lai Ching-te are rational men. In that case, it is unlikely that either man will risk everything on one roll of the dice. Xi will not set the machinery in motion for a sea- and airborne invasion of Taiwan, and Lai will certainly not declare independence for Taiwan. No government of Taiwan, even back in the decades when the KMT (now reformed) was the tyrannical and maniacally anti-communist single ruling party, has ever seriously considered abandoning the sacred fiction that there is only one China including Taiwan. There is just a persistent non-violent dispute over which government is legitimate, Beijing or Taipei. As for Xi, who is effectively president-for-life, he faces no special deadline to claim his prize. 'Reunification' is his legacy project, but he has just turned 72 and there's lots of time yet. And always before him is the nightmare example of Putin's three-day 'special military operation' to bring Ukraine back under the rule of the Russian 'motherland.' Above all, there is Taiwan's 'silicon shield.' The island state manufactures 47 per cent of the world's advanced semiconductor chips, including all of the most advanced ones. Even the United States is one generation behind, and so is China despite its 'Deep Seek' triumph in producing much cheaper high-performance AIs (on Nvidia chips made in Taiwan). Invade Taiwan and all that is gone. It might be irrational, but even the Trump administration might feel that Taiwan is a treasure that it must defend come what may. The game is not worth the candle, and Xi will not invade for at least three years. He probably never will. There! I said it! Now we wait and see. Gwynne Dyer's new book is Intervention Earth: Life-Saving Ideas from the World's Climate Engineers.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Warpath to profitability?
Opinion The defence industry is often overlooked by investors. It's perceived as boring compared with technology or worse, it's just an unethical way to put profit in the portfolio. Since the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia, however, the defence industry has drawn significant investor interest. Notably, the perception has changed. That includes some of those who might have felt investing in defence was distasteful; they now see it as a needed buttress against rising authoritarianism. Of course, another shift is financial — based on the forecast injection of hundreds of billions of dollars in additional spending by NATO members. Pexels NATO members (including Canada) are forecast to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in additional annual spending in defence in the years to come. Canada alone is expected to increase military spending about $70 billion annually to meet its most recent defence commitment of five per cent of gross domestic product. The big question for many intrigued investors is whether they've already missed the warship. 'Our view is that type of information gets incorporated into market prices really quickly,' says Ben Felix, chief investment officer with PWL Capital in Ottawa. 'The implication of that is by the time you read about it in a Free Press article, any advantage that you may have got by investing in that theme is already gone.' That said, the defence industry landscape and recent performance are still of interest to inquisitive investors who might consider putting their money to work when prices pull back periodically. For the time being, however, many defence company share prices have hit lofty heights, including a handful of Canadian firms such as satellite technology company MDA Space Ltd. Its share price is up more than 50 per cent year to date. As well, aerospace company Bombardier's share price 'has almost doubled in recent months, so obviously, all of the talk that has been going on is certainly helping,' says Brian Donovan, New Brunswick-based president of provider of valuation models for investors. 'It tells you that there is an interest shift into this space.' StockCalc tracks performance of thousands of North American equities, including about eight Canadian firms with defence industry revenues. One even has a footprint in Winnipeg: Magellan Aerospace Corp., which makes components for military aircraft. Its share price is up more than 80 per cent YTD. If those gains sound lofty, consider some firms listed in the United States and Europe. Notably, artificial intelligence firm Palantir is up 106 per cent this year. Even more impressive, its share price is up nearly 1,600 per cent over the last five years. A key driver is its defence contracts with the U.S. and partnerships with other technology and manufacturing companies involved in defence. That includes L3 Harris Technology, which, like Palantir, operates in many industries. Its drone technology business is a big defence revenue driver. (That said, its share price growth YTD is much less than other defence stocks.) In Europe, the most notable defence growth story is manufacturing conglomerate Rheinmetall AG. Among the many defence technologies it manufactures are Challenger and Leopard tanks. Its share price is up about 200 per cent YTD, and more than 2,000 per cent in the last five years. The big driver is Germany planning to spend more than a trillion dollars on defence in the next five years. That investors are now turning onto the defence sector is understandable (given the headlines) and somewhat ironic at the same time because it has not been a lacklustre industry for long-term performance. Publicly traded companies involved in the U.S. defence industry have collectively provided returns on an annual basis that have outpaced the S&P 500, says Scott Sacknoff, manager of the SPADE Defense Index in Washington, D.C. 'There is a long history of defence outperforming.' And it very well could continue to outperform, given the U.S. defence budget is expected to surpass US$1 trillion annually for the first time in history, he adds. If anyone has deep knowledge of the defence sector, it's Sacknoff. The SPADE Index, which he manages, consists of leading U.S.-based defence companies and has outperformed the S&P 500 by roughly more than 1,000 basis points (or 100 percentage points) over the last 25 years. Yet until Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to invade Ukraine in 2022, defence was a profitable but sleepy market corner. The explosion in defence spending has changed that, leading to greater investment and even a rush of new investment products, notably exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Prior to 2022, investors largely had three ETFs to choose from, including one of the longest running: Invesco Aerospace & Defense ETF. For investors looking for exposure, the Invesco product is worth a look. Since launching in 2005, it has had steady growth. Investment data firm Morningstar data shows US$10,000 invested in 2005 would be worth nearly US$120,000 today. In turn, the ETF has Morningstar's highest rating. Sacknoff notes the ETF's performance is driven by the underlying SPADE index, which uses a modified market cap weighting to address the downsides of passive investing that lead to over-concentration in overvalued stocks. 'In simplest terms, this involves ensuring that large companies aren't too large, and small companies aren't too small.' He adds the index's annualized return over 15 years is 17 per cent. 'You have never lost money in any product tracking our index if you invested and held onto it for at least three years.' Yet one might ask, would that still hold true today? 'The big question is whether earnings and revenues will catch up to the high valuations,' Sacknoff says. Only time will tell. Yet not all companies on the index are surging in price, including Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the F-35 fighter that Canada and other NATO countries have contracts to buy. Its share price is actually down slightly this year. Wednesdays A weekly dispatch from the head of the Free Press newsroom. What's more, U.S. President Donald Trump's scattershot economic policy is likely to lead to downside market volatility, presenting buying opportunities for defence companies. Yet their long-term tailwind is likely not going away soon. For the time being, however, this high-flying sector seems more of a minefield than a warpath to profitability. Joel Schlesinger is a Winnipeg-based freelance journalist joelschles@
