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?
Again, I really have nothing to add to what was written. But just purely for factual clarity, he’s not my friend. We’ve just worked in the same organizations at the same time. I don’t think I’ve ever met him. But his reputation is excellent. At this point you’re welcome to your opinion but I’m gonna let what we said stand.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Again, I really have nothing to add to what was written. But just purely for factual clarity, he’s not my friend. We’ve just worked in the same organizations at the same time. I don’t think I’ve ever met him. But his reputation is excellent. At this point you’re welcome to your opinion but I’m gonna let what we said stand.
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. ;)
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 Line has gone mainstream, hypocrisies and all. You’re paying to get that kind of opinion writing.
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.
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.