There was a “keep calm and carry on” vibe outside the House of Commons on Monday as a political storm blew up over Donald Trump’s threat to encourage Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to NATO members he thinks aren’t paying their fair share of the cost of collective defence.
Despite harsh condemnation of the Republican presidential frontrunner’s remarks from allies in Europe, and strong words from the NATO secretary general, two federal cabinet ministers in Ottawa took a more measured, restrained approach to what they’d heard.
One expert was pleasantly surprised with the understated nature of the responses from Defence Minister Bill Blair and Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly — but others warned there can be no room for complacency and said important security arrangements beyond NATO could be thrown into chaos if Trump returns to the Oval Office.
“I’m not going to get drawn into political rhetoric in another country,” Blair told reporters Monday when asked about the former president’s campaign speech last weekend.
“I don’t think we need to overreact, but I think we need to make sure that we are prepared and that we continue to keep our alliances strong.”
Trump, who is running for re-election in November, said during a weekend campaign event that he would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to any NATO member country that doesn’t meet spending guidelines. He said he would not offer such a country U.S. protection.
Blair said his responsibility is to the defence of Canada. He cited the billions of dollars the Liberal government has committed recently to buying new fighter jets, drones and surveillance aircraft.
Joly focused on NATO solidarity, claiming the military alliance is “more united than ever” following the inclusion of Finland and the eventual arrival of Sweden.
When pressed about Trump, she said, “The American people will decide, and meanwhile, we’ll be ready for their choice. We have been able to manage two types of administrations in the White House.”
Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly says Canada will be ‘ready’ for whatever the American electorate does in the presidential election. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)
Given domestic politics in Canada and the attempt by the governing Liberals to paint Conservatives — particularly Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre — as MAGA-lite, foreign policy expert Balkan Devlen said he was happy to see the government take the political high road.
“I would’ve actually expected a bit more of a partisan take on it, which I’m glad they didn’t,” said Devlen, a fellow at the Ottawa-based MacDonald-Laurier Institute.
“This is the most important relationship Canada has, and we cannot … afford to meddle in and get into the weeds with the partisan politics in the United States.”
Preparing for sustained instability in U.S. politics
Canada, he said, should not be responding to the individual policies or preferences of any candidate south of the border — but the federal government should be thinking deeply and broadly about the relationship with the United States and what is unfolding there.
“What we should be preparing for is not so much X coming to power or Y coming to power, but continuing political instability in the U.S., and what that means for Canada for Canadian prosperity and security,” said Devlen.
Still, the implications of Trump’s threat sent shockwaves through the alliance over the weekend. NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg has hit back against the notion that member countries would not defend one another.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg holds a press conference with the Swedish prime minister at Rosenbad in Stockholm on October 24, 2023. (Jonas Ekstromer/AFP/Reuters)
“Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the U.S., and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk,” Stoltenberg said.
“I expect that regardless of who wins the presidential election, the U.S. will remain a strong and committed NATO ally.”
The timing of Trump’s remarks — not long after former Fox News host Tucker Carlson interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin — were seen as suspicious by some commentators.
But Stephen Saideman, who holds the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa, said he suspects it’s personal for the former American president.
“I think he’s also still very bitter about being laughed at and mocked by members of the alliance,” said Saideman, referring to a hot mic incident at the end of the NATO Summit in London in 2019 — where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was caught on camera at a Buckingham Palace reception apparently trash-talking Trump, along with former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron.
WATCH: Trump reacts to Trudeau’s comments at NATO
Trump reacts to Trudeau’s candid comments at NATO
4 years ago
Duration 2:16
U.S. President Donald Trump called Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “two faced” after hearing candid remarks between Trudeau and other leaders during the NATO summit.
Trudeau was referring to an unscheduled, nearly hour-long question and answer session Trump held with mostly Canadian media ahead of a bilateral meeting.
Trump did not let the slight pass and called Trudeau “two-faced” — animosity that Saideman said would be good for us to keep in mind over the next several months as Trump stakes out foreign and defence policy.
“So he’s got a lot of resentment,” Saideman said of Trump. “And I think a lot of his speeches these days are essentially focused on venting his spleen about his resentments.”
The notion of inviting — or allowing — Russia to attack a NATO member that’s not meeting the alliance’s benchmark defence spending commitment (of two per cent of a nation’s gross domestic product) is “not a serious policy option,” he added.
But Saideman said he doesn’t believe Trump would stop at NATO and could go after the NORAD arrangement, even out of spite, in order to get a better deal for the U.S. — a reference to the longstanding 60-40 split on spending for continental defence.
A radar dome is illuminated at the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) Point Barrow Long Range Radar Site, north of the northernmost town in the United States in Utqiagvik, Alaska, on February 3, 2023. (U.S. Air Force/Tech. Sgt. Curt Beach/Handout via Reuters)
“I’m not sure NORAD survives a second Trump administration,” he said. “I mean, part of what worked well for Canada last time was I don’t think he’s aware of it.”
The United States and Canada have embarked on a multi-billion dollar modernization of NORAD under the Biden administration, but Washington has routinely expressed frustration at the slow pace of Canadian investment and planning.
Saideman said he’s convinced that if there is another Trump presidency, more U.S. government officials will be committed to burning down international institutions.
“His administration will be staffed with more arsonists in defence than there was before,” said Saideman. “I’m pretty convinced that the next secretary of defence under the Trump administration will be looking for ways to destroy every multilateral arrangement.”
In light of Trump’s remarks and the political direction of the U.S., both Saideman and Devlan say the Liberal government needs to wrap its head around all of the contingencies — and rule nothing out.
WATCH | Ottawa says Trump’s remarks are campaign bluster:
European leaders call for self-reliance after Trump NATO comments
3 hours ago
Duration 1:46
Donald Trump’s comments about not defending NATO countries that don’t live up to defence spending commitments have European leaders saying they need to prepare to defend themselves on their own. Meanwhile, Canada’s defence minister, Bill Blair, calls the statements ‘rhetorical.’
Last December, the U.S. Congress passed legislation that would make it harder for future presidents to withdraw from NATO.
But Matthew Schmidt, an eastern European expert at the University of New Haven Connecticut, said he questions whether the measure actually limits what Trump could do in a second term.
For example, he said, Trump could stop short of formally withdrawing from NATO while also unilaterally choosing not to commit U.S. forces to respond to an attack — an option open to all alliance members, which are given the choice on how to answer an invocation of Article 5, NATO’s self-defence clause.
“There would be ways that he could get around whatever Congress does,” said Schmidt, who also said he firmly believes NORAD would be up for renegotiation should Trump win.
“If the U.S. pulls out of NATO, Canada is in particular trouble” because of the joint defence arrangements between the two countries and its reliance on American military logistics and other special operations.
British Columbians could find out who wins the provincial election on Oct. 19 in about the same time it took to start counting ballots in previous votes.
Andrew Watson, a spokesman for Elections BC, says new electronic vote tabulators mean officials hope to have half of the preliminary results for election night reported within about 30 minutes, and to be substantially complete within an hour of polls closing.
Watson says in previous general elections — where votes have been counted manually — they didn’t start the tallies until about 45 minutes after polls closed.
This will B.C.’s first general election using electronic tabulators after the system was tested in byelections in 2022 and 2023, and Watson says the changes will make the process both faster and more accessible.
Voters still mark their candidate on a paper ballot that will then be fed into the electronic counter, while networked laptops will be used to look up peoples’ names and cross them off the voters list.
One voting location in each riding will also offer various accessible voting methods for the first time, where residents will be able to listen to an audio recording of the candidates and make their selection using either large paddles or by blowing into or sucking on a straw.
The province’s three main party leaders are campaigning across B.C. today with NDP Leader David Eby in Chilliwack promising to double apprenticeships for skilled trades, Conservative Leader John Rustad in Prince George talking power generation, and Greens Leader Sonia Furstenau holding an announcement Thursday about mental health.
It comes as a health-care advocacy group wants to know where British Columbia politicians stand on six key issues ahead of an election it says will decide the future of public health in the province.
The BC Health Coalition wants improved care for seniors, universal access to essential medicine, better access to primary care, reduced surgery wait times, and sustainable working conditions for health-care workers.
It also wants pledges to protect funding for public health care, asking candidates to phase out contracts to profit-driven corporate providers that it says are draining funds from public services.
Ayendri Riddell, the coalition’s director of policy and campaigns, said in a statement that British Columbians need to know if parties will commit to solutions “beyond the political slogans” in campaigning for the Oct. 19 election.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 26, 2024.
In Canadian parliamentary democracy, a vote of no confidence (also known as a confidence motion) is a crucial mechanism that can force a sitting government to resign or call an election. It is typically initiated when the opposition, or even members of the ruling party, believe that the government has lost the support of the majority in the House of Commons.
What Is a Vote of No Confidence?
A vote of no confidence is essentially a test of whether the government, led by the prime minister, still commands the support of the majority of Members of Parliament (MPs) in the House of Commons. If the government loses such a vote, it is either required to resign or request the dissolution of Parliament, leading to a general election.
This process upholds one of the fundamental principles of Canadian democracy: the government must maintain the confidence of the elected House of Commons to govern. This rule ensures accountability and provides a check on the government’s power.
How Many Votes Are Needed for a No Confidence Motion?
In the Canadian House of Commons, there are 338 seats. To pass a vote of no confidence, a simple majority of MPs must vote in favor of the motion. This means that at least 170 MPs must vote in support of the motion to cause the government to lose confidence.
If the government holds a minority of seats, it is more vulnerable to such a vote. In this case, the opposition parties could band together to reach the 170 votes required for the no-confidence motion to succeed. In a majority government, the ruling party has more than half the seats, making it more difficult for a vote of no confidence to pass, unless there is significant dissent within the ruling party itself.
Types of Confidence Votes
Explicit Confidence Motions: These are motions specifically introduced to test whether the government still holds the confidence of the House. For example, the opposition might move a motion stating, “That this House has no confidence in the government.”
Implicit Confidence Motions: Some votes are automatically considered confidence motions, even if they are not explicitly labeled as such. The most common example is the approval of the federal budget. If a government loses a vote on its budget, it is seen as losing the confidence of the House.
Key Legislation: Occasionally, the government may declare certain pieces of legislation as confidence matters. This could be done to ensure the support of the ruling party and its allies, as a loss on such a bill would mean the collapse of the government.
What Happens If the Government Loses a Confidence Vote?
If a government loses a confidence vote in the House of Commons, two outcomes are possible:
Resignation and New Government Formation: The prime minister may resign, and the governor general can invite another leader, typically the leader of the opposition, to try to form a new government that can command the confidence of the House.
Dissolution of Parliament and General Election: The prime minister can request that the governor general dissolve Parliament, triggering a general election. This gives voters the opportunity to elect a new Parliament and government.
Historical Context of Confidence Votes in Canada
Canada has seen several instances of votes of no confidence, particularly during minority government situations. For example, in 2011, the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper lost a vote of confidence over contempt of Parliament, which led to the dissolution of Parliament and the federal election.
Historically, most no-confidence votes are associated with budgetary issues or key pieces of legislation. They can be rare, especially in majority governments, as the ruling party usually has enough support to avoid defeat in the House of Commons.
To pass a vote of no confidence in Canada, at least 170 MPs out of 338 must vote in favor of the motion. This vote can lead to the government’s resignation or a general election, making it a powerful tool in ensuring that the government remains accountable to the elected representatives of the people. In the context of Canadian democracy, the vote of no confidence is a key safeguard of parliamentary oversight and political responsibility.
OTTAWA – A senior federal official says the government is mulling new ways to inform the public about possible foreign interference developments during an election campaign.
Under the current system, a panel of five top bureaucrats would issue a public warning if they believed an incident — or an accumulation of incidents — threatened Canada’s ability to have a free and fair election.
There was no such announcement concerning the 2019 or 2021 general elections.
Allen Sutherland, an assistant secretary to the federal cabinet, told a commission of inquiry today that officials are looking at how citizens might be told about developments that don’t quite reach the current threshold.
He said that would help inform people of things they ought to know more about, even if the incidents don’t rise to the level of threatening the overall integrity of an election.
Allegations of foreign interference in the last two general elections prompted calls for the public inquiry that is now underway.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 26, 2024.
