Hockey-loving Canadians and classic car buffs brace for Trump 'circus' and reveal how they want G7 world leaders to respond to his threats
The two teams battling on the ice at the East Calgary Twin Arenas are checking each other with ferocity – with slots in a successful Canadian youth league on the line in a country where hockey is king.
But in a region that will soon host President Donald Trump and other G7 leaders, youth sports parents and other locals are fretting about another face-off – this one involving a volatile U.S. president who vows to make Canada the 51st State.
'I think if it was reversed, we would probably have a war on our hands, because the Americans would not put up with it,' said Curtis Reynard, 47, electrical contractor whose 17-year-old son played goalie for the first of two games Saturday.
Reynard, a conservative, takes Trump's threat seriously, as the president prepares to set foot on Canadian soil for the first time since saying it was 'meant to be' the 51st U.S. State.
'I don't think he's playing around. I think he has intent around it. I think I think he's smart enough to know that we need them more than they need us, and he's willing to do whatever it takes,' he told the Daily Mail.
He has two hopes for the summit. For the 'circus to end' – and for other leaders including PM Mark Carney to find a way to work around the U.S. president.
'The only way to defuse Trump is not give him any energy. Allow him to do his rhetoric and his steam and just ignore him. Move on. Have your conversations with all of them about trade deals,' he advised.
Calgary and the oil-rich province of Alberta are known as the 'Texas of Canada,' and if there is a MAGA-stronghold north of the border, this is it.
But even people who identify with the conservative party here have grave concerns about Trump's trade threats – and are fear the real estate baron is intent on an acquiring their homeland. Some worry Trump's tariffs are a means to an unwanted end.
'I think those are crazy,' said Renee Sonen, whose 16-year old son absorbed a body blow on the ice as young men in green and orange jerseys battled before scouts, prompting a gasp from his mother.
She said 'definitely didn't care' for Trump's repeated talk about absorbing Canada.
But she wondered whether the threats helped her country by forcing it to reexamine some outdated policies and focus on internal trade.
'The U.S. has always been such a strong market, so when it got taken away, we had to get creative,' she said.
No one here has been able to completely avoid Trump's idea, raised after he secured the White House in the November elections. Many have calculated how it might affect their own bottom line, if it is indeed serious.
'The only reason I'm hesitant doing a 51st state type thing is because I don't want to have to go to privatized health care,' said Jill, 40, who came to the arena to host a birthday for her 10-year-old hockey loving son, not ruling out the idea.
She has family in the States, and worries about what would happen to her safety if Canada joined a country known for its gun violence. 'Canada, because it is friendly and it is welcoming, we feel safe here. Whereas that's not quite the case in a lot of states,' she said.
Trump's indignant blast that 'we don't need anything from Canada' including its cars struck a chord in a country that has been closely linked to the U.S. economically for generations.
Over at the Wings & Wheels classic car event at the Hangar Flight Museum in Calgary, Canadians came to a Father's Day weekend event marvel at some relics of American – and Canadian – engineering.
Inside a hangar is a model of an admired Canadian jet that got scrapped in favor of U.S.-made fighters in the 1960s. Outside on display near an aging Royal Canadian Air Force plane made in the U.S. are some of the Detroit's greatest muscle cars.
'Canada has been the U.S. biggest trading partner for God knows how many years, and we're the best of friends of the Americans,' said Bill Lambe, 85, a retired communications worker who stops to admire a 1956 white and powder blue Pontiac.
He said Trump thinks he doesn't need anything from Canada. 'But it's really interwoven to trade between Canada and the U.S. I don't think it's going to do the Americans any good.'
Trump's tariffs and threats have led to security concerns. 'We need allies. But America is an unreliable one right now,' fretted Rob Malach, a retired professor who owns a 1979 Corvette but is sizing up a classic 1974 Plymouth Duster.
'They can't ignore his tariffs, but they can personally ignore him,' he said of other G7 leaders.
Malach was infuriated by the parade honoring the 250th birthday of the U.S. Army that was underway in Washington on Trump's 79th birthday.
'Who's your model? Putin? Kim Jong-un?… I mean, yeah, throw me a parade with a bunch of tanks? I can't believe somebody with the attitude of a 13-year-old is running what used to be the leader of the free world. It's sad.'
Not far away, Dave Alle of Calgary is displaying his immaculate 1941 pickup – and it doesn't come from Detroit. Alle has one of the few remaining Fargo vehicles made during World War II in Windsor, Ontario, just across the river from Motown.
Alle works in the steel construction industry, and retooled some of the car parts himself. He finds the tariffs Trump imposed on Canadian steel maddening, and says it is hurting his bottom line.
'It's unreal what it's doing to our industry. To keep businesses – you just can't plan.' He called it all 'quite upsetting.'
'I think as Canadians, we should take it seriously,' he said, adding that they 'just need to stand up to it.'
John Gray and his wife Sue are camped out by what some car buffs would call a pinnacle of American industrial engineering: a candy red 1964 Corvette.
Gray says he hopes Trump's threats prompt Canadians to 'wake up' and diversify their industry. 'Business is business, but love is bull****,' he said, describing the bilateral relationship in terms of spoiled romance. Now, he brings up how Hitler came to power democratically.
'It's happening in the States and he's not good for the world,' he said.
A retired oil industry worker, Gray has a brother down in Texas, and used to take road trips with his son to car shows south of the border.
Now, he's 'not going across. Not for the foreseeable future.'
'When we were down there, my son and I, I can't say I met anybody that I wouldn't want to meet again. The people down there – they were friendly as hell. We had a great time. And it probably still would be. But it's just the taste, I guess you could say that. It's a shame.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
'Trump let Iran make nukes he's mad about - he's at war for a Nobel Peace Prize'
If there is one disease which lies behind the constant spasms of horror with which our days our currently blighted, it is the human race's inability to remember what happened five minutes ago. Once upon a time, journalists would go to the pub, and then bed. Sometimes they'd go to bed with each other, because they'd been to the pub. But they'd wake up in the morning and go "blimey, an earthquake in Japan. I had better find a good story of my own about this". And they would have to go deeper into a story and its origins. Today they don't drink, barely know their colleagues, and wake up to emails from a 24-rolling news ecosystem that demands constant feeding. Journalists think "blimey, everyone else is ahead of me" and scramble to catch up. No-one has time to think, which is why no-one has told you that Donald Trump just bombed Iran for making nuclear weapons that Donald Trump let them make. I wish I was making this stuff up, but no-one's got time for that. It's imperative people start remembering how we got to the cliff edge, because we did it by skipping about blindfold and if we don't stop soon we're going to go right over. America gave Iran nuclear technology in 1957. The aim was 'atoms for peace', to create wealth, and allies in the Middle East. After years of the world's greatest democracy propping up a cruel monarchy, the shah fell, the mullahs arose, and Iran was in less-friendly hands. The 1980s was taken up with a war against Iraq, but in the 1990s two Gulf Wars and continued US tinkering led the mullahs to the not-entirely-mad opinion that a nuclear weapon was the best way of keeping the Great Satan at bay. Israel, quite reasonably, was less than chuffed. And as technology sped up it became imperative to find ways of stopping Iran getting a weapon that apocalyptic fundamentalists would see very little reason not to detonate, slap-bang in the middle of a resource-rich, conflict-heavy trade route. And so in 2015, six countries signed a deal with Iran. In return for checks that it wasn't building The Bomb, everyone was open for business. And for three years the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action worked. Germany, China, Russia, France, the UK, China and the US lifted economic sanctions, and every 90 days would ratify everything was non-nuclear and tickety-boo. But such a vague agreement could not withstand the arrival of Donald Trump, whose tiny hands happily dismantled everything that made Barack Obama look good. In 2018 when Benjamin Netanyahu - yes it really is all the same people - gave a speech claiming his spy agency Mossad had stolen 100,000 documents showing Iran had lied and was enriching uranium, Trump saw a 30-second clip and decided it must be true. It might have been. The other nations in the deal didn't think so. But rather than renegotiate, send in inspectors, react as any sane human might, Trump just went "nah", and pulled out of the deal. The other countries tried to keep it going. The International Atomic Energy Authority said there was no enrichment. But the US whacked the regime with sanctions, and Iran said it too would pull out unless they were lifted. They were not. In 2020 the IAEA said Iran had tripled its uranium stockpile, a year later it blocked access to inspectors, and by 2023 it had weapons-grade material. Over the same period, Iran's population suffered. A third were ground into poverty. The economic woes weakened the regime just enough to make it lash out. Iran was behind terror attacks worldwide, former Republican Guards were linked to planned assassinations of ex-Trump officials, and it faced internal protests too. Then Iran funded the October 7 massacre by Hamas. Cue Netanyahu, who was leading a rickety coalition and facing jail the moment it fell, cue the war in Gaza, cue pro-Palestine protests, and cue a lot of blaming Iran. This isn't hard to figure out or remember. It's just that the constant churn of new things to hold our attention never scrolls back to the start of the liveblog, or delves into the third page of search results. Iran is definitely run by a bunch of rotten eggs who could well have been pulling the radioactive wool over the world's eyes in return for a financial boost to stabilise their rule. But the best way of fixing that wasn't walking away from the only half-arsed deal anyone had. It was making a better deal, and if Trump had actually written his own biography rather than paying someone else to make him look good, he might have known how to do it. Trump's withdrawal was supported by Israel and Saudi Arabia, with 63% of US voters, most of the planet and his own advisers screaming at him not to. It was "a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made", he insisted. "It didn't bring peace and it never will." And so he destabilised and raised the oil price with sanctions, screwed regional trade which meant the price of wheat rose and people starved across several countries, and gave fresh targets to jihadis. Back in office for a second time, Trump wants a legacy and more than anything he wants the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got, largely for diplomatic efforts with the Muslim world. Trump pledged to end the war in Ukraine "on day one" and it only got worse; he suggested building a golden beachside golf club in Gaza, and got laughed at. So his eye turned to Ayatollah Khameini, and the country which the US has done so much to make worse, for so long. Anyone with an ounce of realism in their body might wonder at the convenience with which the B-2 bombers and their bunker-busting payload were able to fly in unmolested, after the Israelis had suddenly switched attention from Gaza to take out the Iranian air defences a week earlier. It does seem odd that the imminent threat Netanyahu had predicted in 2018 bloomed 7 years later, 6 months after Trump returned to office and only after his other draft entries for the peace prize had evaporated. We might also ponder why the US president with the worst personal polls in history at this point in his leadership might be in want of some surgical strikes to appease his Muslim-hating base, and whether it would do him any harm if there were a couple of small terror attacks on US bases that would give an excuse to bomb the mullahs to the table. And having thought this far, we could ask ourselves how close to the edge of nuclear catastrophe Trump will allow the world to careen before he picks up the phone to "make a deal" which will be the bigliest, most beautiful peace deal of all time. And whether it will be worse than the one we used to have, before he ripped it to shreds out of petulance and exploited the disastrous consequences for the sake of vanity. With Iran alone, Trump has cost the world trillions. Now he is about to march an entire planet to the gates of hell, just so he can look good for marching everyone back again. And this plan works if he is a diplomatic genius able to unpick decades of crapola, and capable of remembering why and how it happened in the first place. But when all he watches is 24-hour rolling news, with constant updates about new stuff that isn't new at all, the best we can hope for is that the Nobel Committee gives him the prize now, just to make him stop.
Reuters
21 minutes ago
- Reuters
WTO grants Chinese request for panel on Canadian tariffs, trade official says
BERLIN, June 23 (Reuters) - The dispute settlement body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has agreed to a request from China for a panel regarding additional import duties imposed by Canada on certain Chinese products, a Geneva-based trade official said on Monday.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
When US presidents talk of regime change, we must be careful what they wish for
US president Donald Trump once boasted that he was a 'stable genius'. Well, it never had much of a ring of truth to it. He is in fact, and probably always has been, extremely erratic, a trait lauded by his cult followers as a mystical style of instinctive leadership that all Maga disciples must simply trust, as if he were a latter-day Jesus Christ or, more likely, a tangerine Charles Manson. Either way, Trump is more dangerous than ever. Only a few days ago, we may recall, he was publicly taunting the Ayatollah Khamenei, head of the Iranian theocracy, an 86-year old mullah of unyielding, medievally cruel convictions. Trump took to social media to declare: 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – we are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' It's almost as if the guy had spent all his life in the gangsterish world of New York real estate, isn't it? Then, at the weekend, having bombed the hell out of some mountains (the experts say those crafty Iranians cheated by getting their precious enriched uranium out before the bunker busters dropped), Trump allowed his closest lieutenants to go and tell the world it's all about the nukes, and not the old monster who rules the country – Khamenei, not Trump. JD Vance, for example, rumoured to be sceptical about intervention, said that 'has been very clear that we don't want a regime change '. Marco Rubio, secretly still more of a George W Bush style neocon, and thus probably more sympathetic to the idea of getting rid of the 'regime', nonetheless sought to please his boss with what was supposed to be the collective line on Operation Midnight Hammer: 'It was not an attack on Iran, it was not an attack on the Iranian people. This wasn't a regime change move.' Now? Not so much. Trump has revived the idea, in his trademark menacing-playful way, in a post of Truth Social: 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!'. Trump apologists say he was only kidding; but how do we know when to take the guy seriously – apart from 'always and never'? Perhaps Trump dreams of the Iranian people rising up and creating a new pluralistic democracy – a country where elections are free and fair, where the losers always gracefully accept the result and participate in the ceremonial peaceful transfer of power, and would never incite a mob to storm the parliament building where the will of the people is being ratified, and deny the parliamentary authorities the use of troops to defend themselves and the overwhelmed police officers…? The Iranians, especially, are unlikely to be impressed by such talk from the Americans, and, indeed, the Israelis. If they're paranoid about the CIA and MI5, they have reason to be. On numerous occasions in the past, the 'Great Satan' of America – and before that, Little Satan (Britain) – have interfered in Iranian affairs, including deposing two shahs and a prime minister, Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had the temerity to want take control of Iran's oil riches away from 'British' Petroleum. The various coups engineered by the imperialists – a fair description – worked, but not indefinitely; and the seeds of their own eventual destruction were sown in Iran as elsewhere. A period of misrule by the last shah ended up with the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and all that has followed since. We should all be worried when an American president talks about regime change. To be fair, Trump is hardly the first, and it rarely ends well, whether it succeeds or not. Historically, the leader the Americans would most have loved to be rid of was their troublesome Communist neighbour Fidel Castro, parked from 1959 to his death in 2016 (natural causes) on what amounted to a giant Russian aircraft carrier 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The CIA considered all manner of ways to assassinate him, including, famously, an exploding cigar. Whether this was inspired by a trip to a joke shop is still classified. A more serious, but still bungled, attempt at an invasion and a coup d'etat in Cuba failed when the US-trained rebels were cornered in what came to be known as the Bay of Pigs fiasco. That was in 1961, and was hardly the first or the last time they tried to oust Fidel, but this failed plot merely made him even more popular and humiliated the Kennedy administration, who inherited the plan from President Eisenhower's team: regime change has always been a bit of a bipartisan affair. JFK went on, a couple of a years later, to at least acquiesce in the murder of the Diem brothers who ran South Vietnam, replacing them with a chap named Nguyen Van Thieu, who was more to American tastes but no more democratic, nor effective in resisting the Communist conquest of his country. It was an even greater American humbling when they lost that war. The regime change sideshow in that Indo-China conflict was Cambodia, where the Americans helped depose the jolly Prince Sihanouk with a more pro-American general, who was, inevitably, himself deposed when the Khmer Rouge took over and the killing fields were filled with the corpses of more than a million Cambodians. Such disastrous CIA escapades during the cold war were why Congress in the 1970s passed laws banning such covert activities – including the War Powers Act, to try to prevent presidents circumventing the Congressional power to declare war. That oversight didn't persist, and minor, US-inspired coups followed in Grenada (1984) and Nicaragua (1989). The greatest blunder in regime change was, of course, Iraq. To be fair to the second President Bush and Tony Blair, as people tend not to be, it's only right that we recall that their definition of regime change was more nuanced. Regime change could mean a change of policy under an existing dictator. So if Saddam Hussein had genuinely renounced weapons of mass destruction (instead of pretending he had them to scare people away), and allowed comprehensive inspections by the UN, he might still be in business now, albeit unlikely. The alternative, increasingly obvious, was that he'd be forcibly removed. That would also end the mortal threat to the stability of the region. Which it didn't; it just created new ones. As we all know, things didn't turn out any better for the West when Islamic State turned up in post-Saddam Iraq, and turned the Middle East upside down. Much the same may be said about post-Gadaffi Libya, and post-invasion Afghanistan. It all sounds wearily familiar, doesn't it? The Americans upturn one unsatisfactory regime and somehow contrive to make matters worse. Rather like when they re-elected Trump last year.
