Peace repeatedly proves itself a more productive foreign policy than violence, Lorincz says—even considering Trump’s repeated threats to Canada’s national security.

“If we were funding things like peace-building and trying to resolve conflict peacefully, then we would have a greater likelihood of resolving conflict with the United States,” she told The Breach.

This only works when everybody else acts in good faith and shares your world-view. Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for Russian and American guarantees for protection. Russia annexed Crimea, now wants to take the entire country, and the U.S. is walking away from Ukraine.

Arguing Trump would leave us alone if we just spent a little more on foreign aid and social programs or international working groups is naive idealism. Not that those things aren't important and worth doing, but they don't obviate the need for the ability to defend ourselves. Just having impeccable social support programs wouldn't mean there's no need for law enforcement, even though poverty is the major driver of crime.

The U.S., China, and Russia are all looking to secure their interest in the arctic militarily. If we refuse to spend on our own defence capabilities, then we leave ourselves entirely at their mercy -- ceding the arctic without a fight to anyone willing to sail a few warships into our territory.

I've no love for the Irvings, but I don't know of many companies capable of building warships in Canada. In a perfect world we'd have the time and money to build up a less controversial option, but we may not be in great supply of either.

I'd be interested in knowing what in the article sounds like an "American media perspective" (especially given the The Economist is British).

It seems fairly measured for an article written before the Liberals had confirmed Carney as the new leader. It agrees with you that the Liberals were starting to recover after Trudeau's resignation, before the trade war started, and that's it not just Trump helping them come back but Carney's bona fides as a proven economic handler.

I'm not seeing anything too off-base.

From the article, he took a leave for "secondary employment" to write a book about being black in the RCMP, which he considers to be work done as a private citizen that he wholly owns. When he was tasked with creating the workshop a couple years later, he used material/research from that book as part basis for some of the course.

Reading a bit between the lines, the argument seems to be that he was happy for the RCMP to freely use material from his work when it was only going to be used for their own officers, but expansion to a larger national program offered to other police forces was beyond the original license to use his work.

The RCMP did remove his work (and him) from the course though. Whether that's just avoiding the mess entirely, punitive, or because they think his claim is credible is beyond me to judge.

On the other hand, his connections with the billionaire class might be quite useful in getting them to invest in our country at a time when the economy is in a rough spot and could use the help. Ideally we wouldn't be in a position where that was important, but we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good.