The question from
@nytimes to PM
@MarkJCarney : Does he take Trump's 51st state threats seriously, including the risk of military action?
His answer: "I think you have a responsibility in these roles to look at EXTREME TAIL risk. That's just risk management. That's NOT a BASE case, but it would be irresponsible not to."
The follow-up: What did that preparation involve?
His answer: He declined to get into details.
So the "war planning disclosed to the New York Times" amounts to one sentence confirming the government does risk management.
Now, to anyone saying he shouldn't have brought it up: the Times brought it up. He answered a direct question.
I mean, he could say... "I can't comment for national security reasons" reads as a YES to everyone listening. A flat "no" would have been a lie, since the Globe and Mail reported back in January that the Canadian Armed Forces had modelled this exact scenario (see my previous X post).
So he gave the one true answer available: yes, we assess extreme tail risks, and the details stay out of the newspaper.
Of course, a politician answering a direct question honestly and with substance. Scandalous, I know.
Bonus: the article YOU linked has the Defence Minister explaining that analyzing risk scenarios is normal. It's right there in the headline.
Next time, try comparing apples with apples. 🍎
Sources: NYT (Sept 23), CBC / Canadian Press, Globe and Mail, CTV