A reminder that this past week we marked 81 years since the end of the Normandy Campaign, and the liberation of Paris in what experts have described as a war.
I don't agree with your soft-pedalling of the CBC and Boshra in your segment on "terrorist". If it was a one-off it would be one thing. But it is not. This is classic CBC. Boshra believes the huey he said in his memo about 9/11 not being a terrorist attack. Which is crazy. And just because he is your buddy, that doesn't mean you back him up on this issue. Marc Miller - Minister responsible for the CBC said it best - the CBC position was "pedantic and foolish".
The fact that it's not a one-off is the point — it's a policy that's been around for a long time. We think it was a stupid policy in this instance, but it's a real policy for a real problem, and Boshra was just the messenger.
Please clarify - the "real policy for a real problem" is discerning between "terrorists" and freedom fighters? But 9/11 is this "instance" where there is some clarity such that they can be called terrorists? You spend 5 paragraphs of the Dispatch defending CBC - do you agree with the policy, just not as Boshra applied it to 9/11? Also, why do you say Boshra was "just the messenger"? His title is Senior Director of Journalistic Standards and Public Trust (it is worth emphasizing the Public Trust portion of his title in this instance). And your position is that he was just some lackey sending out a message delivered to him from above, but that he didn't really agree with it (or more likely, formulated the memo)?
Ok, I have re-read it. I am clearly obtuse as it doesn't give me the clarity I was seeking from you, particularly as it relates to Boshra as just being the messenger. You believe your friend was just doing what he was told to send out the email as the 25th anniversary of 9/11 approached?
I think the position was that the policy had a place at certain times, like when something has happened and in the heat of the moment nobody knows whether it was or wasn’t a terrorist attack and there is real risk to misidentifying something in real time as a terror attack if it was actually a vehicle malfunction or a driver having a medical emergency that led to a horrible incident.
But when history has already set the record straight, is an asinine time to be pulling out a policy like this. Things common knowledge known to be terrorism can and should be called terrorism without any strange wording or avoidance.
We're in a trade war. We had no choice. We have to be able to diversify our exports. As an alternative, I suppose we could join a common market with the U.S. and Mexico, modelled on the E.U., with no tariffs between us and the same tariffs against the rest of the world. But that would require mutual trust, and that has gone.
So we're in a trade war. The tariffs announced so far, on both sides, aren't too bad. They will hurt some companies, and some Canadians will lose their jobs. But over all, it should be tolerable. However, we should try to not escalate further. Let's try to get through the next two and a half years with a minimum of damage. In particular, we should think very carefully about counter measures. They are indicated if the are likely to change the U.S. position, but not otherwise. Further rounds of tariffs will hurt both sides, and they will be increasingly harmful.
I note The Line's optimism about the sovereignty movement in Quebec. There may not be another referendum, or if there is, it will not likely succeed. But Quebec nationalism can do a lot of damage, short of separation. As an example, take supply management. As long as federal politicians care about Quebec seats, there will be little or no "give" on the subject. This not only concerns the U.S. Reliable reports say that Canada's negotiations with the U.K. on a trade treaty broke down because Canada would not even talk about supply management. Supply management will likely be a stumbling block to other trade arrangements. But as long as Quebec holds firm, it is unlikely that those deals will go ahead.
If a Democrat government proposed the exact same deal 'experts' would be calling it "tough negotiations, suspended while parties consider their positions". And the Conservatives would be somehow getting shit for criticizing our dear friend and ally the US.
I am so tired of this. You write as if the US, under the current administration, is a rational actor. It is anything but and Trump’s attempt to rename Lake Ontario provides all the evidence anyone should need of that fact. If that isn’t enough, how about his constant harping that Canada has taken advantage of the US under a trade deal that Trump himself signed and claimed that best trade deal ever?
My point is that if you cut through the ridiculous rhetoric the whole situation changes.
The thing about Trump is it's impossible to tell what he does that is calculated, what is crazy, when he's pretending to be crazy and is actually being calculating, and when he thinks he is being calculating and is actually being crazy. I have zero love for the guy and he's vying for most corrupt individual in existence but you have to admire his ability to cause chaos and get under people's skin.
Renaming the lake is probably the result of putting into ChatGPT "what can I do to make the Canadians maximally crazy without actually changing anything that matters?" And it sure has worked. I've never seen such a reaction to something that affects nobody's life in a substantial way.
Is the correct response to say "no deal, ever, do your worst" somehow to spite the Americans? The idea is to minimize the damage to our economy while we wait for Trump to end his term or ideally be neutered early next year and better yet be removed from office.
But worry not, now that the by-elections are won and the population is worked into an appropriately pro government elbows-up froth, a deal will probably magically materialize shortly from our own deeply mendacious and self interested leadership.
If Canadian politicians understood - or cared to understand - how "supply management" works, they would know that most Quebecers are consumers and thus be able to communicate and explain how most Quebecers are harmed by the policy. And thus Quebec seats would not be particularly at stake.
I agree that the Americans are relatively unbothered and are waiting for Canada to come back to the table. The name of a lake is a push and gives the Carney Liberals a common enemy that the Liberals can be seen to be dealing with. The GOP seems happy with Carney as PM and we all need to ask why that is. Possibly more Americans than those on TV realize that Carney may benefit from keeping negotiations active to help the Liberals win the upcoming by elections.
And please, media, when touting how much less business Canada is giving the US, please insist the Liberals tell us what percentage of the total US or US regional market the Canadian contribution represents. Canadians deserve to know how meaningful those tariff or reduced business numbers are to the US. Voters need to ask themselves why the Liberals release numbers without relevant context.
I think there would be nasty economic consequences should the Liberals maintain endless negotiation until the next federal election, but do the Liberals care about the economy and prosperity more than winning.
If they do this long and hard enough we can get back to weekly stimulus cheques going to everyone earning less than about $90K a year. No accountability, no concern about spending or debt, no negative media coverage, no need to actually govern, no metrics for success or failure on any front, no opposition. Liberal heaven.
I equate Canada's reaction to Trump, to America's reaction to 9/11. The event was bad but recoverable on its own. The maximally stupid and uncontrolled reaction was what really did the damage. Just like the US has been limping into decline ever since the towers fell, Canada has now wasted its last off-ramp to recover after the Trudeau disaster.
Suggesting that a sitting government would harm the economy for the sake of winning elections comes across to me as a strange take. As for the Trump regime, Trump has consistently preached the merits of tariffs since the 1980s. Their regime simply is not rational about trade relations.
I'd like to agree with you. But why then did we get so little information on what points in the US offer the Liberals refused? General comments about sovereignty are not enough. Particularly since there may be a pattern evolving. Under CUSMA there were clauses concerning trade agreements with non market economies and Canada did a trade agreement with China. Important points in the Canada-China agreement were not released for some time. Then there was the lack of information about the bridge situation. The Liberals are no communicating with the public when there is no reason not to do so. Th eUS does not care what the Canadian public thinks since they are looking after their own country.
I agree that governments in Canada are far too reluctant to share important information with Canadians. It’s stretch to claim that such is the case because they care more about their party than the well-being of Canada. Such a claim says more about the person making the claim than the Liberal Party.
I suspect another reason for warning Moscow from attacking NATO is that globally, US forces are stretched extremely thin with their dumb wars in Iran and Venezuela. A carrier was moved from the Pacific to the Middle East to relieve the other carrier in theater that is a floating morale disaster. They somehow used up all their munitions in less time than the entire Iraqi and Afghan campaigns combined.
And the NY Times is now reporting that the top brass are telling Hegseth that current operational tempo is unsustainable.
I can see why Moscow would try attacking NATO, even if it’s to bite and hold a chunk Baltic territory. Push into the Baltics until they meet meaningful NATO resistance, then dare NATO to push them back to the border. Will Trump send help? I wouldn’t bet on it.
And Beijing might take the opportunity to cause mayhem in the Pacific theater.
I more frequently worry that we are in the days leading up to a new world war. It’s sad and I’m not sure western civilization will be the winner this time.
For me, we are stumbling into a global clash waiting to happen. I have been saying 'we are not safe' because we are not safe. No one should think for one minute that Canada won't ever fight a battle on its own soil.
I keep saying there are 5.8 billion smart phones being used by 5.8 billion people. In a very quick two decades, smartphones and social media rewired our brains. For me, it's one reason why people don't behave the same as they did before say 2008.
That means 5.8 billion phone addicts. (Look around a restaurant some time. Or watch someone walk into a pole (as I enjoy doing sometimes) because they were looking at their smart phone. We all know this, I think.)
I have no idea how this will wind up but things are, I'm afraid, the worst I've seen in my 58 years.
Concerning your line, "One of the primary drivers of Confederation in the first place was the desire by Canadians to avoid having their security and economic fate determined by American political turbulence and unpredictable presidents," I really recommend every reader here go see the National War Museum in Ottawa's current exhibit looking at the impact of American policies on Confederation and beyond. I am a museum geek, and this is one of the best exhibits I've ever to examine our relationship with the US.
This piece is explaining a policy that has existed for many years, and for many reasons, and, that like every policy, resulted in unintended consequences unrelated to the purpose.
There's a hypocritical elephant in this room that needs some editorial explanation PDQ.
My subscription money and additional funds seem to be going to a Canadian independent substack where half the editorial staff are on the one hand advocating for a suspension of Canadian civil liberties in the name of promoting 'power' patriotism to address the 'risks' the US presents to Canadian sovereignty while on the other hand simultaneously and seriously considering a family move to the US... for economic reasons! Well, duh.
In addition, the editorial position seems determined to excuse the execrable CBC Standards policy directive over historical reality as if trivial. The Standards by the person who is supposed to promote public trust in this deeply broken publicly funded narrative driven institution is excused as if 'Just Following Orders' for a standard at the front end of news (used by many media) but implemented on the backend of history 25 years after the fact where all parties involved verified its terrorist intentions and actions... all the while opining about just how 'untrustworthy' the American Administration is holding Canada responsible for its side of the most recent trade debacle and the homegrown practices that have brought into the American spotlight.
I never intended for my money to support such a hypocritical narrative platform as if this in any way 'defended' the country and promoted sovereignty when I believe it does exactly the opposite more and more in practice.
So, in short, no. You're not going to address Gerson's call (was it supposed to be funny? It doesn't read that way to me) to suspend civil liberties of Canadians as if this is a reasonable position in the name of building (well first expropriating and reversing before adding) an all Canadian pipeline. There is no middle ground she offers in any of her opinions about the very real trade disputes and ongoing irritants in her insistence Canada must call all the shots with its major trading partner or we become a vassal state because she sees the larger conspiracy at work. She makes claims about the universal and deep anger Canadians hold towards the US (some of us have certain resentments, sure, but also understand that unfair trade practices that discriminate against the US alone is not good policy and should be changed) and warns allies to 'run' from the Americans before they, too, are similarly threatened with becoming similarly vassalized states. That's a false choice full of virtuous hyperbole, demonstrating the legitimate criticism Navarro levelled against her deeply over-the-top Guardian piece.
In the real world, vilifying the US this way and advising others to go along with it is going to have long term negative consequences to the entire west even if it brings a temporary smile to the American and Democrat face of Carney's Chief of Staff. If Gerson's patriotism and righteous anger justifies in her editorial mind to suspend Canadian civil rights while considering a move to the US, the blatant hypocrisy is a red flag that does not deserve the Maple Leaf on it. Canada and its citizens would be far better served with a lot less of this authoritarian acceptance she presumes is defensible because of the treatment this factually suzerain nation has received from the Bad Orange Man who refuses to believe the narrative that Canada is a strong and independent country when we're not.
The dispatch reflects the views of The Line. This isn't as hard to understand as people sometimes pretend. If you can't stand Gerson, that's fine. It's your money.
Shaking my head at the notion that because one subscribes to a an independent journalist, said journalist must take an editorial position that the subscriber agrees with. I'm with you on this one, Matt.
We subscribe to hear your thoughts on the world, not so we can tell you what those thoughts ought to be.
I continue thinks of Oct 7th, CBC has not labeled it as terrorist attack.
I think those of us from the industry understand editorial messages, without The Line’s help. For The Line to soft pedal it is just plain awful. And calling it a tizzy is even worse.
Hmm. I guess I need to finish listening to this podcast. Seems like it hit a nerve for some people. Maybe it’s the conservatives not liking the criticism towards them and the American position?
I hear hyperbole from time to time. But let’s be honest - everyone engages in hyperbole from time to time and journalists are no different. Having alternate viewpoints in the room is good and it would be a horrible thing if there weren’t anyone with differing opinions in the room.
I offer this as a fan of the Line and the Dispatch. I offer this as a fan of Matt and Jen’s work.
Jen is involved in the Alberta “Don’t Leave” movement. The Lone has taken a form editorial position.
She has expressed some less-than-polite adjectives I won’t repeat with respect to members of the Conservative Party. In fact, they were quite insulting.
Perhaps, and with respect, she is having trouble combining advocacy and journalism, and balancing out the two.
What I would like on Alberta (as someone who is not Albertan and doesn't find this stage of "referendum to have a referendum" interesting) is to actually engage seriously with the Separatist position. Not the obvious grifters (we got one of those come over here in Apollo Chung) but the hard arguments.
But they don't. It's boring to hear one side and have the other side straw manned.
Which incident with respect to Conservative Party members are you referring to? I think that there was one instance I can recall where she was using a harsh descriptor, not to describe her own feelings towards the Conservatives but rather to express a position held by someone else towards them.
This has nothing to do with critiquing the American position. Trump has been around for a decade. We all know he's a liar. We all know he's a showman. We all know he's unreliable. Yes, the Americans are obviously lying and spinning. Trump is a bully (but I think much worse - he's corrupt and incompetent).
1+1=2
The problem is that the Line has gone from offering some interesting insights to simply being the same as every other mainstream journalistic outlet. There is some variation based on personality, and still some unique content (such as on the Canadian military).
But the thrust of what the Line is advocating for is little different than what you find at every govt supported outlet. These articles on Carney, immigration, economic development, Trump & the USA, Pierre sucks, Alberta separation, etc. etc. etc. are all anodyne.
The writing is spicier but the content is functionally the same. These positions are not wrong (or right), they're just boring.
“We are where this was always going to go, folks. There is no timeline in which some kind of alternative trade negotiation approach was going to wind up in a better place for us — not unless we were willing to accept a quick, open, and explicit capitulation to a president who is openly stating his desire to de-industrialize,…”
Did the Mexicans do any of these things? Did they capitulate?
Why are they still negotiating and we are not?
Why is our side being given the benefit-of-the-doubt when our side clearly has a tenuous relationship with the truth?
I haven't made it all the way through Friday's pod yet, but thank you for explaining CBC's policy on terrorism and their JSPs better than CBC did in their own statement. Holy smokes I read the statement and was more confused and probably a bit dumber than I had been prior to reading it.
I hadn't even thought about the PQ from that angle, but it is eye-opning.
I hope, besides chirping, Doug is making contingency plans to ship oil to Ontario should Trump shut off Line 5. There is no question the needless idiocy is going to get ugly, at least until November and possibly long past it. The relationship is over.
I fully agree that we are not in trade negotiations but rather an economic war. These are not "negotiations". We cannot "negotiate" when the deck is stacked against us and our opponent has shown to be a liar and a cheat. As far as giving Carney leeway in managing the situation, Can
we need to remember he was elected to lead and a majority support his leadership. The American objective is not to negotiate an equitable arrangement but rather take control of our rare minerals, oil sands, potash, water and electrical power.
I was born & raised in Quebec. I moved to Toronto after graduating from university in 1993. I was very worried about Quebec separating from Canada in 1995. The referendum results were too close to call.
This is the first provincial election in Quebec's history in which 5 parties will likely have seats in the National Assembly on October 5th.
As of today, the likely result is a minority PQ government, with 3 non-sovereignist parties holding the balance of power.
It is fascinating to see the current premier, Christine Frechette, using her deals with Mark Carney to help win the election. She previously worked for Jean-François Lisee, who led the PQ in the 2018 election.
Frechette is using hostility toward President Trump to win votes, just as Mark Carney did in 2025.
Her hope is that voters will ignore her party's results as a government from 2018 to 2026.
It's fascinating to see the surge in support for the CAQ among the 55-plus group. For the past 6 years, this group has complained about limited access to health care & hundreds of thousands of people not having a family doctor.
"Forcing CBC journalists to refer to the apex example of terrorism with the same rule designed to avoid mislabelling an incident that just happened in a country we’ve never heard of and where there’s very little clarity around the facts doesn’t make the CBC and its journalists sound neutral and credible. It makes them sound like morons. It is corrosive to their credibility and that of their employer."
This is really all that needs to be said. Boshra's ridiculous memo to CBC staff speaks for itself and probably didn't need to be sent anyway. The journalists at CBC already think that way and don't need to be reminded.
A reminder that this past week we marked 81 years since the end of the Normandy Campaign, and the liberation of Paris in what experts have described as a war.
I don't agree with your soft-pedalling of the CBC and Boshra in your segment on "terrorist". If it was a one-off it would be one thing. But it is not. This is classic CBC. Boshra believes the huey he said in his memo about 9/11 not being a terrorist attack. Which is crazy. And just because he is your buddy, that doesn't mean you back him up on this issue. Marc Miller - Minister responsible for the CBC said it best - the CBC position was "pedantic and foolish".
The fact that it's not a one-off is the point — it's a policy that's been around for a long time. We think it was a stupid policy in this instance, but it's a real policy for a real problem, and Boshra was just the messenger.
Please clarify - the "real policy for a real problem" is discerning between "terrorists" and freedom fighters? But 9/11 is this "instance" where there is some clarity such that they can be called terrorists? You spend 5 paragraphs of the Dispatch defending CBC - do you agree with the policy, just not as Boshra applied it to 9/11? Also, why do you say Boshra was "just the messenger"? His title is Senior Director of Journalistic Standards and Public Trust (it is worth emphasizing the Public Trust portion of his title in this instance). And your position is that he was just some lackey sending out a message delivered to him from above, but that he didn't really agree with it (or more likely, formulated the memo)?
I think the only clarification I could really offer would be to direct you back to the dispatch blurb that addresses this matter above..
Ok, I have re-read it. I am clearly obtuse as it doesn't give me the clarity I was seeking from you, particularly as it relates to Boshra as just being the messenger. You believe your friend was just doing what he was told to send out the email as the 25th anniversary of 9/11 approached?
I think the position was that the policy had a place at certain times, like when something has happened and in the heat of the moment nobody knows whether it was or wasn’t a terrorist attack and there is real risk to misidentifying something in real time as a terror attack if it was actually a vehicle malfunction or a driver having a medical emergency that led to a horrible incident.
But when history has already set the record straight, is an asinine time to be pulling out a policy like this. Things common knowledge known to be terrorism can and should be called terrorism without any strange wording or avoidance.
How does Mr. Boshra still have a job?
Neither the CBC nor Boshra stated that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack. They simply applied a rule rather too assiduously.
We're in a trade war. We had no choice. We have to be able to diversify our exports. As an alternative, I suppose we could join a common market with the U.S. and Mexico, modelled on the E.U., with no tariffs between us and the same tariffs against the rest of the world. But that would require mutual trust, and that has gone.
So we're in a trade war. The tariffs announced so far, on both sides, aren't too bad. They will hurt some companies, and some Canadians will lose their jobs. But over all, it should be tolerable. However, we should try to not escalate further. Let's try to get through the next two and a half years with a minimum of damage. In particular, we should think very carefully about counter measures. They are indicated if the are likely to change the U.S. position, but not otherwise. Further rounds of tariffs will hurt both sides, and they will be increasingly harmful.
I note The Line's optimism about the sovereignty movement in Quebec. There may not be another referendum, or if there is, it will not likely succeed. But Quebec nationalism can do a lot of damage, short of separation. As an example, take supply management. As long as federal politicians care about Quebec seats, there will be little or no "give" on the subject. This not only concerns the U.S. Reliable reports say that Canada's negotiations with the U.K. on a trade treaty broke down because Canada would not even talk about supply management. Supply management will likely be a stumbling block to other trade arrangements. But as long as Quebec holds firm, it is unlikely that those deals will go ahead.
We are in what experts call a trade war. ;)
If a Democrat government proposed the exact same deal 'experts' would be calling it "tough negotiations, suspended while parties consider their positions". And the Conservatives would be somehow getting shit for criticizing our dear friend and ally the US.
I am so tired of this. You write as if the US, under the current administration, is a rational actor. It is anything but and Trump’s attempt to rename Lake Ontario provides all the evidence anyone should need of that fact. If that isn’t enough, how about his constant harping that Canada has taken advantage of the US under a trade deal that Trump himself signed and claimed that best trade deal ever?
My point is that if you cut through the ridiculous rhetoric the whole situation changes.
The thing about Trump is it's impossible to tell what he does that is calculated, what is crazy, when he's pretending to be crazy and is actually being calculating, and when he thinks he is being calculating and is actually being crazy. I have zero love for the guy and he's vying for most corrupt individual in existence but you have to admire his ability to cause chaos and get under people's skin.
Renaming the lake is probably the result of putting into ChatGPT "what can I do to make the Canadians maximally crazy without actually changing anything that matters?" And it sure has worked. I've never seen such a reaction to something that affects nobody's life in a substantial way.
Is the correct response to say "no deal, ever, do your worst" somehow to spite the Americans? The idea is to minimize the damage to our economy while we wait for Trump to end his term or ideally be neutered early next year and better yet be removed from office.
But worry not, now that the by-elections are won and the population is worked into an appropriately pro government elbows-up froth, a deal will probably magically materialize shortly from our own deeply mendacious and self interested leadership.
"some experts"😂
If Canadian politicians understood - or cared to understand - how "supply management" works, they would know that most Quebecers are consumers and thus be able to communicate and explain how most Quebecers are harmed by the policy. And thus Quebec seats would not be particularly at stake.
I agree that the Americans are relatively unbothered and are waiting for Canada to come back to the table. The name of a lake is a push and gives the Carney Liberals a common enemy that the Liberals can be seen to be dealing with. The GOP seems happy with Carney as PM and we all need to ask why that is. Possibly more Americans than those on TV realize that Carney may benefit from keeping negotiations active to help the Liberals win the upcoming by elections.
And please, media, when touting how much less business Canada is giving the US, please insist the Liberals tell us what percentage of the total US or US regional market the Canadian contribution represents. Canadians deserve to know how meaningful those tariff or reduced business numbers are to the US. Voters need to ask themselves why the Liberals release numbers without relevant context.
I think there would be nasty economic consequences should the Liberals maintain endless negotiation until the next federal election, but do the Liberals care about the economy and prosperity more than winning.
If they do this long and hard enough we can get back to weekly stimulus cheques going to everyone earning less than about $90K a year. No accountability, no concern about spending or debt, no negative media coverage, no need to actually govern, no metrics for success or failure on any front, no opposition. Liberal heaven.
I equate Canada's reaction to Trump, to America's reaction to 9/11. The event was bad but recoverable on its own. The maximally stupid and uncontrolled reaction was what really did the damage. Just like the US has been limping into decline ever since the towers fell, Canada has now wasted its last off-ramp to recover after the Trudeau disaster.
Suggesting that a sitting government would harm the economy for the sake of winning elections comes across to me as a strange take. As for the Trump regime, Trump has consistently preached the merits of tariffs since the 1980s. Their regime simply is not rational about trade relations.
I'd like to agree with you. But why then did we get so little information on what points in the US offer the Liberals refused? General comments about sovereignty are not enough. Particularly since there may be a pattern evolving. Under CUSMA there were clauses concerning trade agreements with non market economies and Canada did a trade agreement with China. Important points in the Canada-China agreement were not released for some time. Then there was the lack of information about the bridge situation. The Liberals are no communicating with the public when there is no reason not to do so. Th eUS does not care what the Canadian public thinks since they are looking after their own country.
I agree that governments in Canada are far too reluctant to share important information with Canadians. It’s stretch to claim that such is the case because they care more about their party than the well-being of Canada. Such a claim says more about the person making the claim than the Liberal Party.
Re: Director Radcliffe’s Awesome Trip to Moscow:
I suspect another reason for warning Moscow from attacking NATO is that globally, US forces are stretched extremely thin with their dumb wars in Iran and Venezuela. A carrier was moved from the Pacific to the Middle East to relieve the other carrier in theater that is a floating morale disaster. They somehow used up all their munitions in less time than the entire Iraqi and Afghan campaigns combined.
And the NY Times is now reporting that the top brass are telling Hegseth that current operational tempo is unsustainable.
I can see why Moscow would try attacking NATO, even if it’s to bite and hold a chunk Baltic territory. Push into the Baltics until they meet meaningful NATO resistance, then dare NATO to push them back to the border. Will Trump send help? I wouldn’t bet on it.
And Beijing might take the opportunity to cause mayhem in the Pacific theater.
I more frequently worry that we are in the days leading up to a new world war. It’s sad and I’m not sure western civilization will be the winner this time.
For me, we are stumbling into a global clash waiting to happen. I have been saying 'we are not safe' because we are not safe. No one should think for one minute that Canada won't ever fight a battle on its own soil.
I keep saying there are 5.8 billion smart phones being used by 5.8 billion people. In a very quick two decades, smartphones and social media rewired our brains. For me, it's one reason why people don't behave the same as they did before say 2008.
That means 5.8 billion phone addicts. (Look around a restaurant some time. Or watch someone walk into a pole (as I enjoy doing sometimes) because they were looking at their smart phone. We all know this, I think.)
I have no idea how this will wind up but things are, I'm afraid, the worst I've seen in my 58 years.
Concerning your line, "One of the primary drivers of Confederation in the first place was the desire by Canadians to avoid having their security and economic fate determined by American political turbulence and unpredictable presidents," I really recommend every reader here go see the National War Museum in Ottawa's current exhibit looking at the impact of American policies on Confederation and beyond. I am a museum geek, and this is one of the best exhibits I've ever to examine our relationship with the US.
Rationalizing the CBC for its leftist bias ?
Ridiculous
I can help... you miss the point:
This piece is explaining a policy that has existed for many years, and for many reasons, and, that like every policy, resulted in unintended consequences unrelated to the purpose.
Does no one at the CBC have a executive intelligence?
Or it is all leftist reflex?
Has it taken the CBC 25 years to come to terms that 9/11 was a terrorist attack?
LOL! Apparently, yes, it has. If, in fact it actually has come to terms with it and is not just pretending because of the uproar.
And that is a perfect example of the dysfunction of Canada. full stop.
There's a hypocritical elephant in this room that needs some editorial explanation PDQ.
My subscription money and additional funds seem to be going to a Canadian independent substack where half the editorial staff are on the one hand advocating for a suspension of Canadian civil liberties in the name of promoting 'power' patriotism to address the 'risks' the US presents to Canadian sovereignty while on the other hand simultaneously and seriously considering a family move to the US... for economic reasons! Well, duh.
In addition, the editorial position seems determined to excuse the execrable CBC Standards policy directive over historical reality as if trivial. The Standards by the person who is supposed to promote public trust in this deeply broken publicly funded narrative driven institution is excused as if 'Just Following Orders' for a standard at the front end of news (used by many media) but implemented on the backend of history 25 years after the fact where all parties involved verified its terrorist intentions and actions... all the while opining about just how 'untrustworthy' the American Administration is holding Canada responsible for its side of the most recent trade debacle and the homegrown practices that have brought into the American spotlight.
I never intended for my money to support such a hypocritical narrative platform as if this in any way 'defended' the country and promoted sovereignty when I believe it does exactly the opposite more and more in practice.
The editorial positions are clear. That’s how that works. The explanations are the positions.
Everyone is here voluntarily. We hope you all stay. But the doors aren’t barred.
So, in short, no. You're not going to address Gerson's call (was it supposed to be funny? It doesn't read that way to me) to suspend civil liberties of Canadians as if this is a reasonable position in the name of building (well first expropriating and reversing before adding) an all Canadian pipeline. There is no middle ground she offers in any of her opinions about the very real trade disputes and ongoing irritants in her insistence Canada must call all the shots with its major trading partner or we become a vassal state because she sees the larger conspiracy at work. She makes claims about the universal and deep anger Canadians hold towards the US (some of us have certain resentments, sure, but also understand that unfair trade practices that discriminate against the US alone is not good policy and should be changed) and warns allies to 'run' from the Americans before they, too, are similarly threatened with becoming similarly vassalized states. That's a false choice full of virtuous hyperbole, demonstrating the legitimate criticism Navarro levelled against her deeply over-the-top Guardian piece.
In the real world, vilifying the US this way and advising others to go along with it is going to have long term negative consequences to the entire west even if it brings a temporary smile to the American and Democrat face of Carney's Chief of Staff. If Gerson's patriotism and righteous anger justifies in her editorial mind to suspend Canadian civil rights while considering a move to the US, the blatant hypocrisy is a red flag that does not deserve the Maple Leaf on it. Canada and its citizens would be far better served with a lot less of this authoritarian acceptance she presumes is defensible because of the treatment this factually suzerain nation has received from the Bad Orange Man who refuses to believe the narrative that Canada is a strong and independent country when we're not.
The dispatch reflects the views of The Line. This isn't as hard to understand as people sometimes pretend. If you can't stand Gerson, that's fine. It's your money.
Shaking my head at the notion that because one subscribes to a an independent journalist, said journalist must take an editorial position that the subscriber agrees with. I'm with you on this one, Matt.
We subscribe to hear your thoughts on the world, not so we can tell you what those thoughts ought to be.
The Line has gone mainstream, hypocrisies and all. You’re paying to get that kind of opinion writing.
I continue thinks of Oct 7th, CBC has not labeled it as terrorist attack.
I think those of us from the industry understand editorial messages, without The Line’s help. For The Line to soft pedal it is just plain awful. And calling it a tizzy is even worse.
Hmm. I guess I need to finish listening to this podcast. Seems like it hit a nerve for some people. Maybe it’s the conservatives not liking the criticism towards them and the American position?
I hear hyperbole from time to time. But let’s be honest - everyone engages in hyperbole from time to time and journalists are no different. Having alternate viewpoints in the room is good and it would be a horrible thing if there weren’t anyone with differing opinions in the room.
Here is my take, for what it’s worth.
I offer this as a fan of the Line and the Dispatch. I offer this as a fan of Matt and Jen’s work.
Jen is involved in the Alberta “Don’t Leave” movement. The Lone has taken a form editorial position.
She has expressed some less-than-polite adjectives I won’t repeat with respect to members of the Conservative Party. In fact, they were quite insulting.
Perhaps, and with respect, she is having trouble combining advocacy and journalism, and balancing out the two.
What I would like on Alberta (as someone who is not Albertan and doesn't find this stage of "referendum to have a referendum" interesting) is to actually engage seriously with the Separatist position. Not the obvious grifters (we got one of those come over here in Apollo Chung) but the hard arguments.
But they don't. It's boring to hear one side and have the other side straw manned.
Which incident with respect to Conservative Party members are you referring to? I think that there was one instance I can recall where she was using a harsh descriptor, not to describe her own feelings towards the Conservatives but rather to express a position held by someone else towards them.
No, not a nerve. It hit boredom.
This has nothing to do with critiquing the American position. Trump has been around for a decade. We all know he's a liar. We all know he's a showman. We all know he's unreliable. Yes, the Americans are obviously lying and spinning. Trump is a bully (but I think much worse - he's corrupt and incompetent).
1+1=2
The problem is that the Line has gone from offering some interesting insights to simply being the same as every other mainstream journalistic outlet. There is some variation based on personality, and still some unique content (such as on the Canadian military).
But the thrust of what the Line is advocating for is little different than what you find at every govt supported outlet. These articles on Carney, immigration, economic development, Trump & the USA, Pierre sucks, Alberta separation, etc. etc. etc. are all anodyne.
The writing is spicier but the content is functionally the same. These positions are not wrong (or right), they're just boring.
What is mainstream? Who are mainstream? How is this the same?
mainstream = I don't agree
alt (truth) media = I like hearing that
lazy
Man, you're just super disingenuous. It's a boring question with a very obvious answer.
The mainstream is... the mainstream opinion. Look at that - words have actual definitions!
Being mainstream in this context (obviously) means having the opinions that fit squarely within the orthodox journalistic opinion within Canada.
Sorry, can't discuss further. You went personal. Have a good one, friend.
But it is important to remember that Mr. Boshra was trying to”really hard”.
“We are where this was always going to go, folks. There is no timeline in which some kind of alternative trade negotiation approach was going to wind up in a better place for us — not unless we were willing to accept a quick, open, and explicit capitulation to a president who is openly stating his desire to de-industrialize,…”
Did the Mexicans do any of these things? Did they capitulate?
Why are they still negotiating and we are not?
Why is our side being given the benefit-of-the-doubt when our side clearly has a tenuous relationship with the truth?
There are a lot more US interests in Mexico manufacturing and they have much more pull than we do.
I also think that this is the price for our politicians running against Trump. Anyone can see that Trump keeps score and runs grudges.
I haven't made it all the way through Friday's pod yet, but thank you for explaining CBC's policy on terrorism and their JSPs better than CBC did in their own statement. Holy smokes I read the statement and was more confused and probably a bit dumber than I had been prior to reading it.
I hadn't even thought about the PQ from that angle, but it is eye-opning.
I hope, besides chirping, Doug is making contingency plans to ship oil to Ontario should Trump shut off Line 5. There is no question the needless idiocy is going to get ugly, at least until November and possibly long past it. The relationship is over.
I fully agree that we are not in trade negotiations but rather an economic war. These are not "negotiations". We cannot "negotiate" when the deck is stacked against us and our opponent has shown to be a liar and a cheat. As far as giving Carney leeway in managing the situation, Can
we need to remember he was elected to lead and a majority support his leadership. The American objective is not to negotiate an equitable arrangement but rather take control of our rare minerals, oil sands, potash, water and electrical power.
A refreshing, informative, diverse and well-written piece. Nice to see that return.
I was born & raised in Quebec. I moved to Toronto after graduating from university in 1993. I was very worried about Quebec separating from Canada in 1995. The referendum results were too close to call.
This is the first provincial election in Quebec's history in which 5 parties will likely have seats in the National Assembly on October 5th.
As of today, the likely result is a minority PQ government, with 3 non-sovereignist parties holding the balance of power.
It is fascinating to see the current premier, Christine Frechette, using her deals with Mark Carney to help win the election. She previously worked for Jean-François Lisee, who led the PQ in the 2018 election.
Frechette is using hostility toward President Trump to win votes, just as Mark Carney did in 2025.
Her hope is that voters will ignore her party's results as a government from 2018 to 2026.
It’s going to work too.
It's fascinating to see the surge in support for the CAQ among the 55-plus group. For the past 6 years, this group has complained about limited access to health care & hundreds of thousands of people not having a family doctor.
"Forcing CBC journalists to refer to the apex example of terrorism with the same rule designed to avoid mislabelling an incident that just happened in a country we’ve never heard of and where there’s very little clarity around the facts doesn’t make the CBC and its journalists sound neutral and credible. It makes them sound like morons. It is corrosive to their credibility and that of their employer."
This is really all that needs to be said. Boshra's ridiculous memo to CBC staff speaks for itself and probably didn't need to be sent anyway. The journalists at CBC already think that way and don't need to be reminded.
"Americuck" I'm green, squirming with jealousy.
Will we read it on a charging document some day?