I found your seemingly unquestioning acceptance of the mantra "climate change produces (more) forest fires" to be out of sync with your usual analytical and skeptical stance on most other things. Wildfires have been around as long as forests have.
1) You agreed that certain trees and plants in wildfire areas have EVOLVED to possess fire adaptations: some pines have serotinous cones which open up with fire to release the seeds, some plants have tough seeds which lie dormant until fire produces germination, some trees/plants have extensive root systems which re-sprout after fire, some trees have thick specialized bark which resists heat and fire. Evolution doesn't occur overnight - it takes millennia. From before people were here to be exact.
2) Examples: The "prairie" provinces are classified as semi-arid. Always have been. The BC interior and parts of Yukon and NWT fit this description too. Recently devised "climate change" has not produced this, despite the wailings otherwise. Naturally occurring variations in rainfall and lightning strikes mean some years have very high numbers of fires, other years have lower numbers. These variations would naturally occur in eastern provinces too.
3) Government fire suppression in the 20th century caused a decrease in wildfire size and occurrence and increased accumulation of deadfall (fuel for fires), especially within range of populated areas, enhancing the ease with which wildfires can start and spread.
4) Public perceptions: Population growth means more towns and populated rural areas are endangered by wildfires, which means wildfires are in people's minds when they occur. Many years ago before numbers/size of all fires were accurately recorded, more wildfires were safely ignored and not in the news at all.
5) Any even cursory research will show that "climate change" has ALWAYS BEEN ONGOING in the history of the earth, is enormously complicated and interacts with many other complex scientific realities. We are presently in an interglacial period which would have happened with or without people's involvement. Not as simple as those who are making $$ megabillions in climate change industries would have us believe.
PS: I'm not a mindless climate change denier but neither do I believe all the propaganda the "science is settled" crowd likes to use to suppress reasonable discussion and invade school curriculums. Science is ongoing, is never "settled."
This is correct, and thank you Grizwald. There are lots of factors contributing to wildfires as well, many of which are acknowledged in detail in the post. But as far as I can tell, nobody credible is failing to acknowledge that manmade climate change is most probably playing a role in these fires. Though it would be impossible to say exactly how much of a role.
My real point, here, is to point out how far people will go into uncritically believing extraordinary theories with no evidence (ie; a mass ecoterrorist plot) all to avoid the much more plausible explanation (a series of complicated natural factors, including the impacts of climate change.) JG
Haha, I think you're new here. It got pretty abusive during lockdowns and vaccine mandates. So replies were banned. Maybe the temperature is lower now.
As the polar ice retreats (as it has been doing for about 30k years) the mass of ice decreases and the rate of change increases. (The first one percent takes an eternity to melt but the last one percent disappears instantly). This would explain the increased rate of change in polar temperatures. And as the poles warm so does the average world temperature. That's why looking at global average temperatures is incorrect. It provides a misleading analysis by using accurate information. I highly recommend Steve Koonin's book.The first half in particular demonstrates how statistical manipulation is used to further ideological arguments.
Just a quick comment on your preambles.....a lot of times you start off apologizing for being late or missing a week or not having a video or whatever. If you didn't say these things, I would have no idea anything was amiss. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I read a lot of substacks among many other online sources and yours is definitely one of my favourites. But I'm not pining for its release on whatever day is scheduled (I honestly don't know) and I'm happy to read it whenever it shows up. You don't need to keep telling me there's something wrong with it. All the best.....
Love the section about the fires and climate. Completely accurate in assessing the complexity of climate influence on wildfire season - and gives the appropriate "don't even start" energy for our American friends. As another Swift fan, I'll also have fun quoting her here: "So yeah, it's a fire, it's a goddamn blaze in the dark, and you started it."
Funny how lately it's the so-called conspiracies that turn out to have a lot of truth in them. No wonder there's no trust in our institutions these days.
Then I suppose checking for said evidence (along the lines of what Ms. Smith is doing) is a completely legitimate thing to do. If no evidence is found, then we will know those theories are baseless. But if we do find something, then, well it is no longer a conspiracy theory is it? But the point is we won't know until we at least make the effort to look for such evidence. Yeah I get it, it is a slippery slope and all that. But with consequences as serious as this, it at least warrants a look into.
Smith isn't "checking for evidence," she's deflecting legitimate questions about climate change by winking and nudging to a totally unsupported conspiracy theory about ecoterrorists.
What the actual evidence says is as follows: we know about 175 fires this year are probably "human caused" -- this is a category that includes accidents, which typically make up the vast bulk of human caused wildfires. We also know that a very small number of people have been charged with arson. This would not be atypical: arsons happen every year.
Now I'm always open to new evidence, and if trained investigators come out and lay charges against some kind of group, then it will be entirely reasonable to make this claim in the future. But to extrapolate from the facts at hand and claim that our current forest fire season has been caused by some kind of mass organization of eco-terrorists is not rational at this point. That's distorted reasoning.
*Correction: we do not yet know what caused 175 fires in Alberta. Which means a significant portion of those are probably caused naturally, in addition to human accident and arson.
Couldn't it be argued that the climate change argument is already baked in, that Alberta has some plan for diversification and emissions management, and so the question is far more about a gotcha moment? And instead of falling into that premise, she moves on to what can be done immediately, including arson investigations.
I was about to note! One of the most annoying things about her pivot to arson is that she could have given Jesperson a totally bang up answer by noting that she delivered Alberta’s Emissions Reduction and Energy Development Plan which aims to hit net zero by 2050. There was no need for her to go down the rabbit hole at all on this!
While it is entirely plausible that Johnston’s resignation was an impulsive Friday afternoon act, that flies in the face of most other government late-Friday announcements, a hangover from the old print-only news times when anything of the sort could be expected to be lost in the slow weekend period -- no such luck any more, the comfortably aging bureaucratic elites just haven’t evolved with the “always there-ness” of the digital age. But to my main point -- I think it’s just a little too cute that Trudeau Junior shows up soon after in Ukraine to make a meaningless announcement that Canada will be sending more aid to add to the measly crumbs that haven’t shown up yet. What’s that Showboat doing war-porn tourism in Ukraine when Zelenskyy has a frickin’ counter-offensive to manage? That galling narcissism is better explained that Junior didn’t want to be available and could let Leblanc take the first crack at damage control.
PS -- good take as well on the wildfire underlying causes, although we should note that while the US is a much bigger GHG emitter, than Canada it is not the largest, and this is another case where we should be drawing heat and light to “Blame China”.
Sorry Richard. I take umbrage with with your "main point". It isn't plausible that the trip's timing is related to the resignation. The trip has to be organized well in advance and then kept secret for security reasons. That has been the modus operandi for the visits of support to Kyiv that I have followed. If you have better information please share it with us.
No matter what one thinks of the Right Honourable Prime Minister Justin Trudeau he certainly isn't a shrinking violet who runs from adversity and a good donnybrook. He may sometimes keep a lower profile on the advice of his security team or political handlers; but I venture they have to hold him down.
It's my impression he adores his kids. Why would he trade time with them for a weekend of, not without risk, travel if his schedule didn't require it? No matter what we think of him, his methods, his faults, and his job performance he's still one of us Canadians, whose mothers used to wash ad hominems out of our mouths with soap.
I’ll meet you halfway here Tom -- agreed these things are not done on the fly, so it would not have been decided Friday afternoon. But they’ve done this outing often enough now that there should be a standing protocol in place executable on 48-72 hours notice -- and if not, it’s just another example of something else this government can’t get done (I’ve been retired for a few years now, so can’t speak to this precise situation, but I suggest my military experience is germane). That sort of timeframe sets the go / no-go decision point squarely with Johnston’s predictably disastrous appearance before PROC Wednesday morning. It’s no great leap of faith to see PMO then setting the stage for things to unfold as they have. But in the absence of government transparency we will never know until some future leak.
And it’s still the height of self-absorption for JT to burden a preoccupied Zelenskyy with a staged announcement that could have been phoned in.
Thanks for the clarification Richard. We're good, and clearly on the same team.
Please let me add some humour. Your "on the fly" and your "something else this government can't get done" is a perfect set up for a read of Paul Wells' - "Ostriches on the runway" - June 10th. I think you'll enjoy it, for a lot of reasons, and some connected to the military. For the rest of my post 7th decade I'll visualize an ostrich when a Liberal from this government passes by.
All good my end as well Tim, thanks for the thoughtful discussion! I too subscribe to Paul Wells (and Terry Glavin as well) so will admit I probably am influenced by their analysis of this and other sordid affairs. I really like their non-partisan inclination to call out all sides.
Just read your great piece on the MCC’s misguided conclusions -- spot on, gave it a like but unable to comment there so just want to reinforce here my appreciation for your take.
I learned to be suspicious of inquiries in my academic work where the wrong-headed review of mutinies in the Navy in 1949 (also for cheap political considerations) has shaped a certain lack of trust in the RCN ever since. These things have lasting consequences beyond the immediate so-called resolution.
I searched out all the online information I could find about the 1949 RCN condition protests, that were handled as non-mutinies by the practical officers at sea and investigated with mission creep by the Mainguy Commission. One could be swayed to say the Commission was the mutinous entity? You're the expert on that thread of history. Articles by Lt. Cdr. Richard Gimblett Ph.D. pop up frequently. Respect.
Now I understand the linkages between the MCC and the Mainguy. "History may not repeat itself; but it sure rhymes." Ditto for politics.
I'll pass this on to Tim, who made his start in history.
Thanks again Tom, now you’ve given me a swollen head. I’m not inclined to pitch an article here, as this community is more fixed on the present. Yes, history informs our understanding, but reaching back can quickly get abstract. Besides, I’ve written plenty elsewhere and nothing much new to contribute here -- for now.
Instead, I find my research really does inform my reading of current events (writing the official histories of the Gulf Wars gave me an insight into the workings of government). Interestingly, I stumbled onto the false narrative about the “mutinies” via China -- when our Squadron went into Shanghai in 1983, the public affairs line was that we were the first Canadian warships to visit there. Young Sub-lieutenant Gimblett (having recently read the Mainguy Report as part of our training) was not popular for pointing out “What about 1949?” -- one of the incidents was aboard a destroyer alongside in Nanking. My search to answer the next question -- “What was a Canadian warship doing up the Yangtze River in the middle of the Chinese Civil War?” -- embarked me on what has been a lifelong study of that country. Quick answer to the last question -- it was Lester Pearson’s bright idea.
Richard you've got a story in you to contribute to The Line. I can sense that from your comments and experience and subscriptions. Please pitch Matt and Jen, or just write it and send it to them. As Griz wrote above, this is a community. Your unique contribution will enlarge it. There's no way a retired military guy can be shy. Humble yes. Shy no. Practical certainly. Patriotic definitely. Willing to help keep GPT chatbox tactically at bay for as long as possible - yes sir. 🤗
We'll pleasantly cross paths again Richard as Canada evolves - and it will and must.
You've given me - Tom Thurley with an "o" - a swollen head. I hope my swollen pumpkin doesn't fall and burst. The author of the article is my son Tim Thurley with an "i". If I had known - and accepted, or been maturer - during the naming process to listen to my wife ... . It is fun to go along for the ride though, and it is a cool bond.
Apologies for the mix-up -- your surname (like mine) is not a common one, and reading this small font without my glasses (!)... well this was the scrambled result. Nice to see your apple did not fall far from the tree!
That was a delight to read....mostly because the Trudeau situation has become so pathetic, you have to laugh at it. I feel sorry for David Johnston. He made a mistake, but the price he's paying is out of whack with the error.
The eco-terrorist argument is too stupid to live. Human stupidity is not. Be it people being observed throwing their butts out the car window 5 miles from Nova Scotia's biggest fire in history, to the dullards who still don;t know that campfire is out when you're comfortable running your fingers through the ashes.
David, you assert, "He made a mistake, but the price he's paying is out of whack with the error."
I very respectfully disagree with your sentiment. I too feel sorry for him but he has made a grievous error in allowing his reputation to be used and abused. He was and is uncritical of his friend Pierre's son and that has drastic consequences for the entire country so, out of whack? Not whatsoever.
David, I would put it differently and say that it is sad that an 81 year old man deliberately uses poor judgement and allows his previous eminence to be used to try to excuse the unexcusable. The fact that Johnston's dreadfully poor judgement resulted in his reputation being savaged is on him and on JT but JT never has and never will accept any adverse commentary on his actions or, for that matter, paid any price for his stupidity.
I wonder if ministers, MPs, bureaucrats and especially candidate rapporters will stay clear of this PMO in fear of ending up as additional detritus (like Jane Philpot, Jody Wilson-Raybould, Michael Wernick, Bill Morneau)?
Thanks Doug. You've got company. Earl Nelville implies similar in his comment in the NP: "Prorogation is coming. Trudeau is cornered, and having predictably [altered] Johnston's reputation, it will be hard to find anyone to step into the limelight. The limelight with Trudeau is the bus headlights coming straight at you."
"All the experts agree that Canada is having more fires than usual and that they are in part caused by manmade climate change" is just the current "Covid is dangerous to children, the vaccines are beneficial to everyone, natural immunity doesn't work but lockdowns and masks do".
With enough censorship and government and foundation money, "the Science" will say whatever the government wants.
The actual truth is that I don't know if there are more fires than usual (in the east, the smoke in cities could be caused by an unusual North to South wind pattern) or, if there are, what fraction were caused by arson, and neither do you.
But if I had spent the last 3 years believing things now disproven, simply because of government propaganda, I would be a little more circumspect now.
"All the experts agree that Canada is having more fires than usual and that they are in part caused by manmade climate change" is just the current "Covid is dangerous to children, the vaccines are beneficial to everyone, natural immunity doesn't work but lockdowns and masks do"
These two claims have no rational connection whatsoever.
Just because institutions lost your trust during COVID doesn't mean that everything every expert says about every subject in perpetuity is incorrect.
True. But it means that no institutions or governments can be simply accepted as trustworthy. Inveterate liars obviously can tell the truth, but we should have learned from the past three years to be more careful with what we are being told by government anointed "experts", and not simply repeat "consensus" views.
For example, the IPCC, which is not normally known as a climate change denying body, doesn't believe that man made climate change exacerbates fires in eastern Canada.
We all need to practice saying "I don't know" a lot more.
Note that I am not making any claims about whether we are seeing more fires than usual or what is causing them. I, like, I suspect, The Line, have not done enough research to have an informed opinion.
Dominic Lablanc simply does not care. Liberals have been wagging the dog for so long it must be their innate belief they can do whatever, whenever and no one is ever gonna stop them.
I get a kick out of the CBC coverage of the Johnston resignation. Took less than 30 minutes for the anchor to remind people that Johnston is the kind of guy to accept a task from the PM, reiterated by a talking head and again repeated by the anchor. That’s the line. He was simply doing his duty and the mean opposition got in his way. Straight from the CBC within an hour of the announcement.
The subscriber engagement in the weekly Dispatch posts has steadily decreased since the decision was made to ban commenting on the regular posts (and to temporarily restrict comments on the Dispatch). It is quite obvious to me - as a subscriber - why that is. The inability to provide any kind of feedback or additional information/perspectives when I read a regular post is extremely demotivating. And ultimately it just makes me lose interest in participating in any kind of discussion here - not that there are many opportunities to do so in the first place.
I had noted in a previous dispatch that one major differentiator that The Line has in its favor is the editors (and previously the writers of each post) actually responding to and participating in the discussion. It builds a sense of community on this Substack that is simply not available anywhere else. But right now, this Substack's only differentiation is the type of content. I hope the editors realize that building a Substack around a community discussing and exchanging ideas - where regular folks like me feel heard - is far more powerful than whatever content you may publish here - however good it may be.
The biggest irony (bordering on mockery) I experienced regarding this was when I realized that the only place I could comment on a Jen Gerson post was through my Globe and Mail subscription on her posts there. That is just plain embarrassing.
I sincerely request the editors to open commenting on the regular posts in addition to the Dispatch. Feel free to add restrictions initially (single thread, no replies, open only for 2 days, etc). But at least let a trial run take place and see how it goes.
I'm more open to allowing commenting; but to expect Matt and I are going to regularly patrol these comments, provide thoughtful feedback, and moderate, is unrealistic. Bluntly, we both have kids, multiple jobs and contracts, and lives. JG
That is certainly reasonable. Which is why I had previously put forth an idea where this sort of interaction be channeled to a single weekly or bi-weekly post involving some kind of Q&A. It would certainly add a lot of value to us subscribers. Again, you can give it a try and see how it pans out.
With regard to moderating the comments and discussion, perhaps you can also look into some kind of a volunteer based moderators - either from within the subscribers here or whoever else. Not sure how exactly this would work, but I suspect it wouldn't hurt to check.
I do believe this Substack offers something that is not offered elsewhere and can be built upon.
On a more basic level, what Akshay needs to understand (and I suspect does not) is that "building a community" isn't something I'm interested in doing. I get that you're looking for a community and I respect that. But I have no interest in doing that, EXCEPT as it aids growing the business here. THAT is my interest. If the only way to grow the business is build a community, I'll build a community. If the better way to grow the business is to have zero community engagement at all, that's what I'll do. I am not sold either way on this, but in general, I am skeptical that commenting adds any value except for a tiny minority of readers: the commenters. There's like 30 regulars here, tops, and we have many thousands of subscribers. Commenting is, at least, neutral for 99% of the readers. For some, it's an active turn-off. So the question is which group is larger. They'll get the final say on this.
Your comment, “In our view, that’s one resignation too few” is absolutely spot on. You can say that the remaining required resignation is that of JT as leader of his party but I feel that it should actually be a resignation submitted to the GG together with a request for an election.
An election. Ug! And our resulting choices: double UG!!
But an election resulting from a resignation would be an honorable (can I use that word to describe JT?) way to proceed.
You further comment, “Canada, sadly, needs better than any of them have at late been willing to offer” and I absolutely concur. None of the parties have been sufficiently responsible and, I fear, none of them will change in this respect. Of course, the party in power has the particular, I say PARTICULAR, responsibility to act as the adults in the room rather than acting as five year olds. If the opposition wishes to act in a juvenile fashion that is on them, but the government of the day MUST act as adults. Except, of course, that this government refuses to govern in an adult fashion.
You assert that, “… the Liberals are so bunker-bound and convinced of their own persecution …” To be ever so (overly and stupidly) polite about that Liberal perception: balderdash. It is we, the citizens of Canada, who have been persecuted by the Liberals.
“… not a serious country …” Matthew, you have made this assertion many, many times over the recent past. I wish that I could disagree with you but it is clear that you are blindingly accurate. Truthfully, I believe that the Laurentian mind set will attempt to run things ad infinitum and that the only thing that can change that is the dissolution of the country. Actually, dissolution would leave the Laurentians in control of the O & Q axis but if dissolution does come, we in the West would need to watch that we do not become similarly controlled by a successor Family Compact, to use an archaic but traditional and accurate phrase. [Oh, yes, to be clear, any potential dissolution of the country would, in my opinion, be the West leaving the rest; I am convinced that Q will never leave.]
What if the reason the Liberals are resisting a more serious inquiry isn’t simply partisanship, but rather that there was knowledge of Chinese interference and they didn’t act for political advantage? This is a government so convinced of its own righteousness and importance that they’ve done all sorts of things to try to tighten their grasp on power (like trying to get unlimited fiscal authority at the start of the pandemic, for example.). Why would we assume that they wouldn’t permit something they perceived as a political advantage given their tendency to conflate partisan interest with the national interest? Although there isn’t hard evidence that Chinese influence actually affected the result of the election, it’s the sort of thing that partisans tend to believe to be plausible, whether they’re the victims or beneficiaries.
I wish that someone (anyone) in any opposition party would just suggest that we get a non-Canadian to oversee a public inquiry. Better to get a disinterested retired judge from New Zealand or another Five Eyes partner to oversee the whole thing.
It didn't take long did it? We can expect at least another four years of Danielle Smith's crackpot pontifications. Maybe the new Alberta Provincial Police can track down the elusive eco-terrorists.
The Johnston situation is an interesting glimpse into the mindset of the Laurentian elite. These guys have been drinking their own bathwater for so long, they think the resultant tummy aches are just normal.
I found your seemingly unquestioning acceptance of the mantra "climate change produces (more) forest fires" to be out of sync with your usual analytical and skeptical stance on most other things. Wildfires have been around as long as forests have.
1) You agreed that certain trees and plants in wildfire areas have EVOLVED to possess fire adaptations: some pines have serotinous cones which open up with fire to release the seeds, some plants have tough seeds which lie dormant until fire produces germination, some trees/plants have extensive root systems which re-sprout after fire, some trees have thick specialized bark which resists heat and fire. Evolution doesn't occur overnight - it takes millennia. From before people were here to be exact.
2) Examples: The "prairie" provinces are classified as semi-arid. Always have been. The BC interior and parts of Yukon and NWT fit this description too. Recently devised "climate change" has not produced this, despite the wailings otherwise. Naturally occurring variations in rainfall and lightning strikes mean some years have very high numbers of fires, other years have lower numbers. These variations would naturally occur in eastern provinces too.
3) Government fire suppression in the 20th century caused a decrease in wildfire size and occurrence and increased accumulation of deadfall (fuel for fires), especially within range of populated areas, enhancing the ease with which wildfires can start and spread.
4) Public perceptions: Population growth means more towns and populated rural areas are endangered by wildfires, which means wildfires are in people's minds when they occur. Many years ago before numbers/size of all fires were accurately recorded, more wildfires were safely ignored and not in the news at all.
5) Any even cursory research will show that "climate change" has ALWAYS BEEN ONGOING in the history of the earth, is enormously complicated and interacts with many other complex scientific realities. We are presently in an interglacial period which would have happened with or without people's involvement. Not as simple as those who are making $$ megabillions in climate change industries would have us believe.
PS: I'm not a mindless climate change denier but neither do I believe all the propaganda the "science is settled" crowd likes to use to suppress reasonable discussion and invade school curriculums. Science is ongoing, is never "settled."
This is correct, and thank you Grizwald. There are lots of factors contributing to wildfires as well, many of which are acknowledged in detail in the post. But as far as I can tell, nobody credible is failing to acknowledge that manmade climate change is most probably playing a role in these fires. Though it would be impossible to say exactly how much of a role.
My real point, here, is to point out how far people will go into uncritically believing extraordinary theories with no evidence (ie; a mass ecoterrorist plot) all to avoid the much more plausible explanation (a series of complicated natural factors, including the impacts of climate change.) JG
Are we allowed to reply to comments again now? As long as we keep it civil and relevant? Woo hoo!
Haha, I think you're new here. It got pretty abusive during lockdowns and vaccine mandates. So replies were banned. Maybe the temperature is lower now.
As the polar ice retreats (as it has been doing for about 30k years) the mass of ice decreases and the rate of change increases. (The first one percent takes an eternity to melt but the last one percent disappears instantly). This would explain the increased rate of change in polar temperatures. And as the poles warm so does the average world temperature. That's why looking at global average temperatures is incorrect. It provides a misleading analysis by using accurate information. I highly recommend Steve Koonin's book.The first half in particular demonstrates how statistical manipulation is used to further ideological arguments.
Just a quick comment on your preambles.....a lot of times you start off apologizing for being late or missing a week or not having a video or whatever. If you didn't say these things, I would have no idea anything was amiss. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I read a lot of substacks among many other online sources and yours is definitely one of my favourites. But I'm not pining for its release on whatever day is scheduled (I honestly don't know) and I'm happy to read it whenever it shows up. You don't need to keep telling me there's something wrong with it. All the best.....
Love the section about the fires and climate. Completely accurate in assessing the complexity of climate influence on wildfire season - and gives the appropriate "don't even start" energy for our American friends. As another Swift fan, I'll also have fun quoting her here: "So yeah, it's a fire, it's a goddamn blaze in the dark, and you started it."
Funny how lately it's the so-called conspiracies that turn out to have a lot of truth in them. No wonder there's no trust in our institutions these days.
A conspiracy theory supported by convincing evidence isn't a conspiracy theory. Then it's just a fact. JG
Then I suppose checking for said evidence (along the lines of what Ms. Smith is doing) is a completely legitimate thing to do. If no evidence is found, then we will know those theories are baseless. But if we do find something, then, well it is no longer a conspiracy theory is it? But the point is we won't know until we at least make the effort to look for such evidence. Yeah I get it, it is a slippery slope and all that. But with consequences as serious as this, it at least warrants a look into.
Smith isn't "checking for evidence," she's deflecting legitimate questions about climate change by winking and nudging to a totally unsupported conspiracy theory about ecoterrorists.
What the actual evidence says is as follows: we know about 175 fires this year are probably "human caused" -- this is a category that includes accidents, which typically make up the vast bulk of human caused wildfires. We also know that a very small number of people have been charged with arson. This would not be atypical: arsons happen every year.
Now I'm always open to new evidence, and if trained investigators come out and lay charges against some kind of group, then it will be entirely reasonable to make this claim in the future. But to extrapolate from the facts at hand and claim that our current forest fire season has been caused by some kind of mass organization of eco-terrorists is not rational at this point. That's distorted reasoning.
*Correction: we do not yet know what caused 175 fires in Alberta. Which means a significant portion of those are probably caused naturally, in addition to human accident and arson.
Couldn't it be argued that the climate change argument is already baked in, that Alberta has some plan for diversification and emissions management, and so the question is far more about a gotcha moment? And instead of falling into that premise, she moves on to what can be done immediately, including arson investigations.
I was about to note! One of the most annoying things about her pivot to arson is that she could have given Jesperson a totally bang up answer by noting that she delivered Alberta’s Emissions Reduction and Energy Development Plan which aims to hit net zero by 2050. There was no need for her to go down the rabbit hole at all on this!
I think the point is that calling it a conspiracy is a tactic to de-legitimate the process of finding the evidence.
I think the point is to find evidence before claiming the theory.
While it is entirely plausible that Johnston’s resignation was an impulsive Friday afternoon act, that flies in the face of most other government late-Friday announcements, a hangover from the old print-only news times when anything of the sort could be expected to be lost in the slow weekend period -- no such luck any more, the comfortably aging bureaucratic elites just haven’t evolved with the “always there-ness” of the digital age. But to my main point -- I think it’s just a little too cute that Trudeau Junior shows up soon after in Ukraine to make a meaningless announcement that Canada will be sending more aid to add to the measly crumbs that haven’t shown up yet. What’s that Showboat doing war-porn tourism in Ukraine when Zelenskyy has a frickin’ counter-offensive to manage? That galling narcissism is better explained that Junior didn’t want to be available and could let Leblanc take the first crack at damage control.
PS -- good take as well on the wildfire underlying causes, although we should note that while the US is a much bigger GHG emitter, than Canada it is not the largest, and this is another case where we should be drawing heat and light to “Blame China”.
Sorry Richard. I take umbrage with with your "main point". It isn't plausible that the trip's timing is related to the resignation. The trip has to be organized well in advance and then kept secret for security reasons. That has been the modus operandi for the visits of support to Kyiv that I have followed. If you have better information please share it with us.
No matter what one thinks of the Right Honourable Prime Minister Justin Trudeau he certainly isn't a shrinking violet who runs from adversity and a good donnybrook. He may sometimes keep a lower profile on the advice of his security team or political handlers; but I venture they have to hold him down.
It's my impression he adores his kids. Why would he trade time with them for a weekend of, not without risk, travel if his schedule didn't require it? No matter what we think of him, his methods, his faults, and his job performance he's still one of us Canadians, whose mothers used to wash ad hominems out of our mouths with soap.
I’ll meet you halfway here Tom -- agreed these things are not done on the fly, so it would not have been decided Friday afternoon. But they’ve done this outing often enough now that there should be a standing protocol in place executable on 48-72 hours notice -- and if not, it’s just another example of something else this government can’t get done (I’ve been retired for a few years now, so can’t speak to this precise situation, but I suggest my military experience is germane). That sort of timeframe sets the go / no-go decision point squarely with Johnston’s predictably disastrous appearance before PROC Wednesday morning. It’s no great leap of faith to see PMO then setting the stage for things to unfold as they have. But in the absence of government transparency we will never know until some future leak.
And it’s still the height of self-absorption for JT to burden a preoccupied Zelenskyy with a staged announcement that could have been phoned in.
Thanks for the clarification Richard. We're good, and clearly on the same team.
Please let me add some humour. Your "on the fly" and your "something else this government can't get done" is a perfect set up for a read of Paul Wells' - "Ostriches on the runway" - June 10th. I think you'll enjoy it, for a lot of reasons, and some connected to the military. For the rest of my post 7th decade I'll visualize an ostrich when a Liberal from this government passes by.
https://open.substack.com/pub/paulwells/p/ostriches-on-the-runway?r=1s5tb0&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
All good my end as well Tim, thanks for the thoughtful discussion! I too subscribe to Paul Wells (and Terry Glavin as well) so will admit I probably am influenced by their analysis of this and other sordid affairs. I really like their non-partisan inclination to call out all sides.
Just read your great piece on the MCC’s misguided conclusions -- spot on, gave it a like but unable to comment there so just want to reinforce here my appreciation for your take.
I learned to be suspicious of inquiries in my academic work where the wrong-headed review of mutinies in the Navy in 1949 (also for cheap political considerations) has shaped a certain lack of trust in the RCN ever since. These things have lasting consequences beyond the immediate so-called resolution.
Keep it up!
I searched out all the online information I could find about the 1949 RCN condition protests, that were handled as non-mutinies by the practical officers at sea and investigated with mission creep by the Mainguy Commission. One could be swayed to say the Commission was the mutinous entity? You're the expert on that thread of history. Articles by Lt. Cdr. Richard Gimblett Ph.D. pop up frequently. Respect.
Now I understand the linkages between the MCC and the Mainguy. "History may not repeat itself; but it sure rhymes." Ditto for politics.
I'll pass this on to Tim, who made his start in history.
Thanks again Tom, now you’ve given me a swollen head. I’m not inclined to pitch an article here, as this community is more fixed on the present. Yes, history informs our understanding, but reaching back can quickly get abstract. Besides, I’ve written plenty elsewhere and nothing much new to contribute here -- for now.
Instead, I find my research really does inform my reading of current events (writing the official histories of the Gulf Wars gave me an insight into the workings of government). Interestingly, I stumbled onto the false narrative about the “mutinies” via China -- when our Squadron went into Shanghai in 1983, the public affairs line was that we were the first Canadian warships to visit there. Young Sub-lieutenant Gimblett (having recently read the Mainguy Report as part of our training) was not popular for pointing out “What about 1949?” -- one of the incidents was aboard a destroyer alongside in Nanking. My search to answer the next question -- “What was a Canadian warship doing up the Yangtze River in the middle of the Chinese Civil War?” -- embarked me on what has been a lifelong study of that country. Quick answer to the last question -- it was Lester Pearson’s bright idea.
Best to Tim, please!
Richard you've got a story in you to contribute to The Line. I can sense that from your comments and experience and subscriptions. Please pitch Matt and Jen, or just write it and send it to them. As Griz wrote above, this is a community. Your unique contribution will enlarge it. There's no way a retired military guy can be shy. Humble yes. Shy no. Practical certainly. Patriotic definitely. Willing to help keep GPT chatbox tactically at bay for as long as possible - yes sir. 🤗
We'll pleasantly cross paths again Richard as Canada evolves - and it will and must.
You've given me - Tom Thurley with an "o" - a swollen head. I hope my swollen pumpkin doesn't fall and burst. The author of the article is my son Tim Thurley with an "i". If I had known - and accepted, or been maturer - during the naming process to listen to my wife ... . It is fun to go along for the ride though, and it is a cool bond.
All the best.
Apologies for the mix-up -- your surname (like mine) is not a common one, and reading this small font without my glasses (!)... well this was the scrambled result. Nice to see your apple did not fall far from the tree!
That was a delight to read....mostly because the Trudeau situation has become so pathetic, you have to laugh at it. I feel sorry for David Johnston. He made a mistake, but the price he's paying is out of whack with the error.
The eco-terrorist argument is too stupid to live. Human stupidity is not. Be it people being observed throwing their butts out the car window 5 miles from Nova Scotia's biggest fire in history, to the dullards who still don;t know that campfire is out when you're comfortable running your fingers through the ashes.
David, you assert, "He made a mistake, but the price he's paying is out of whack with the error."
I very respectfully disagree with your sentiment. I too feel sorry for him but he has made a grievous error in allowing his reputation to be used and abused. He was and is uncritical of his friend Pierre's son and that has drastic consequences for the entire country so, out of whack? Not whatsoever.
I can't argue your point. I just think it's really sad to so completely trash an 81 year old man.
David, I would put it differently and say that it is sad that an 81 year old man deliberately uses poor judgement and allows his previous eminence to be used to try to excuse the unexcusable. The fact that Johnston's dreadfully poor judgement resulted in his reputation being savaged is on him and on JT but JT never has and never will accept any adverse commentary on his actions or, for that matter, paid any price for his stupidity.
I wonder if ministers, MPs, bureaucrats and especially candidate rapporters will stay clear of this PMO in fear of ending up as additional detritus (like Jane Philpot, Jody Wilson-Raybould, Michael Wernick, Bill Morneau)?
Thanks Doug. You've got company. Earl Nelville implies similar in his comment in the NP: "Prorogation is coming. Trudeau is cornered, and having predictably [altered] Johnston's reputation, it will be hard to find anyone to step into the limelight. The limelight with Trudeau is the bus headlights coming straight at you."
"All the experts agree that Canada is having more fires than usual and that they are in part caused by manmade climate change" is just the current "Covid is dangerous to children, the vaccines are beneficial to everyone, natural immunity doesn't work but lockdowns and masks do".
With enough censorship and government and foundation money, "the Science" will say whatever the government wants.
The actual truth is that I don't know if there are more fires than usual (in the east, the smoke in cities could be caused by an unusual North to South wind pattern) or, if there are, what fraction were caused by arson, and neither do you.
But if I had spent the last 3 years believing things now disproven, simply because of government propaganda, I would be a little more circumspect now.
"All the experts agree that Canada is having more fires than usual and that they are in part caused by manmade climate change" is just the current "Covid is dangerous to children, the vaccines are beneficial to everyone, natural immunity doesn't work but lockdowns and masks do"
These two claims have no rational connection whatsoever.
Just because institutions lost your trust during COVID doesn't mean that everything every expert says about every subject in perpetuity is incorrect.
True. But it means that no institutions or governments can be simply accepted as trustworthy. Inveterate liars obviously can tell the truth, but we should have learned from the past three years to be more careful with what we are being told by government anointed "experts", and not simply repeat "consensus" views.
For example, the IPCC, which is not normally known as a climate change denying body, doesn't believe that man made climate change exacerbates fires in eastern Canada.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-783
We all need to practice saying "I don't know" a lot more.
Note that I am not making any claims about whether we are seeing more fires than usual or what is causing them. I, like, I suspect, The Line, have not done enough research to have an informed opinion.
Dominic Lablanc simply does not care. Liberals have been wagging the dog for so long it must be their innate belief they can do whatever, whenever and no one is ever gonna stop them.
I get a kick out of the CBC coverage of the Johnston resignation. Took less than 30 minutes for the anchor to remind people that Johnston is the kind of guy to accept a task from the PM, reiterated by a talking head and again repeated by the anchor. That’s the line. He was simply doing his duty and the mean opposition got in his way. Straight from the CBC within an hour of the announcement.
The subscriber engagement in the weekly Dispatch posts has steadily decreased since the decision was made to ban commenting on the regular posts (and to temporarily restrict comments on the Dispatch). It is quite obvious to me - as a subscriber - why that is. The inability to provide any kind of feedback or additional information/perspectives when I read a regular post is extremely demotivating. And ultimately it just makes me lose interest in participating in any kind of discussion here - not that there are many opportunities to do so in the first place.
I had noted in a previous dispatch that one major differentiator that The Line has in its favor is the editors (and previously the writers of each post) actually responding to and participating in the discussion. It builds a sense of community on this Substack that is simply not available anywhere else. But right now, this Substack's only differentiation is the type of content. I hope the editors realize that building a Substack around a community discussing and exchanging ideas - where regular folks like me feel heard - is far more powerful than whatever content you may publish here - however good it may be.
The biggest irony (bordering on mockery) I experienced regarding this was when I realized that the only place I could comment on a Jen Gerson post was through my Globe and Mail subscription on her posts there. That is just plain embarrassing.
I sincerely request the editors to open commenting on the regular posts in addition to the Dispatch. Feel free to add restrictions initially (single thread, no replies, open only for 2 days, etc). But at least let a trial run take place and see how it goes.
I'm more open to allowing commenting; but to expect Matt and I are going to regularly patrol these comments, provide thoughtful feedback, and moderate, is unrealistic. Bluntly, we both have kids, multiple jobs and contracts, and lives. JG
That is certainly reasonable. Which is why I had previously put forth an idea where this sort of interaction be channeled to a single weekly or bi-weekly post involving some kind of Q&A. It would certainly add a lot of value to us subscribers. Again, you can give it a try and see how it pans out.
With regard to moderating the comments and discussion, perhaps you can also look into some kind of a volunteer based moderators - either from within the subscribers here or whoever else. Not sure how exactly this would work, but I suspect it wouldn't hurt to check.
I do believe this Substack offers something that is not offered elsewhere and can be built upon.
On a more basic level, what Akshay needs to understand (and I suspect does not) is that "building a community" isn't something I'm interested in doing. I get that you're looking for a community and I respect that. But I have no interest in doing that, EXCEPT as it aids growing the business here. THAT is my interest. If the only way to grow the business is build a community, I'll build a community. If the better way to grow the business is to have zero community engagement at all, that's what I'll do. I am not sold either way on this, but in general, I am skeptical that commenting adds any value except for a tiny minority of readers: the commenters. There's like 30 regulars here, tops, and we have many thousands of subscribers. Commenting is, at least, neutral for 99% of the readers. For some, it's an active turn-off. So the question is which group is larger. They'll get the final say on this.
I'm less hard line about this, fwiw. Communities are nice! JG
Communities must be destroyed.
Jen and Matt are both on Twitter, so one can certainly comment there. But I do agree with your general position.
An excellent dispatch, folks.
Your comment, “In our view, that’s one resignation too few” is absolutely spot on. You can say that the remaining required resignation is that of JT as leader of his party but I feel that it should actually be a resignation submitted to the GG together with a request for an election.
An election. Ug! And our resulting choices: double UG!!
But an election resulting from a resignation would be an honorable (can I use that word to describe JT?) way to proceed.
You further comment, “Canada, sadly, needs better than any of them have at late been willing to offer” and I absolutely concur. None of the parties have been sufficiently responsible and, I fear, none of them will change in this respect. Of course, the party in power has the particular, I say PARTICULAR, responsibility to act as the adults in the room rather than acting as five year olds. If the opposition wishes to act in a juvenile fashion that is on them, but the government of the day MUST act as adults. Except, of course, that this government refuses to govern in an adult fashion.
You assert that, “… the Liberals are so bunker-bound and convinced of their own persecution …” To be ever so (overly and stupidly) polite about that Liberal perception: balderdash. It is we, the citizens of Canada, who have been persecuted by the Liberals.
“… not a serious country …” Matthew, you have made this assertion many, many times over the recent past. I wish that I could disagree with you but it is clear that you are blindingly accurate. Truthfully, I believe that the Laurentian mind set will attempt to run things ad infinitum and that the only thing that can change that is the dissolution of the country. Actually, dissolution would leave the Laurentians in control of the O & Q axis but if dissolution does come, we in the West would need to watch that we do not become similarly controlled by a successor Family Compact, to use an archaic but traditional and accurate phrase. [Oh, yes, to be clear, any potential dissolution of the country would, in my opinion, be the West leaving the rest; I am convinced that Q will never leave.]
What if the reason the Liberals are resisting a more serious inquiry isn’t simply partisanship, but rather that there was knowledge of Chinese interference and they didn’t act for political advantage? This is a government so convinced of its own righteousness and importance that they’ve done all sorts of things to try to tighten their grasp on power (like trying to get unlimited fiscal authority at the start of the pandemic, for example.). Why would we assume that they wouldn’t permit something they perceived as a political advantage given their tendency to conflate partisan interest with the national interest? Although there isn’t hard evidence that Chinese influence actually affected the result of the election, it’s the sort of thing that partisans tend to believe to be plausible, whether they’re the victims or beneficiaries.
I wish that someone (anyone) in any opposition party would just suggest that we get a non-Canadian to oversee a public inquiry. Better to get a disinterested retired judge from New Zealand or another Five Eyes partner to oversee the whole thing.
Thats all we need a forgiener to to look into forgien interference(lol)
What’s your better solution?
it also says a lot about this country that it might be the best option out of this mess
Your headline should have been the closing line from the podcast: "We could have talked about Aliens". All the best.
It didn't take long did it? We can expect at least another four years of Danielle Smith's crackpot pontifications. Maybe the new Alberta Provincial Police can track down the elusive eco-terrorists.
The Johnston situation is an interesting glimpse into the mindset of the Laurentian elite. These guys have been drinking their own bathwater for so long, they think the resultant tummy aches are just normal.