wow Jen that was amazing! our family listened intently. what a great guest. such matter of fact insight into what are issues are. I hope we can come to our senses and fix these issues. im 69, amazing career, well off no issues but I see unlike my friends that we are sabatoging our young. all they see like Trudeau unfortunately is pretty boy in his case and my peer in Carneys case. I am deeply concerned. love to help somehow.
Money, career and future matter more than politics.
Now imagine the brain drain if Alberta didn't exist in Canada. Canada would be in crisis mode. Instead we just have Alberta separatism to deal with.
Take Alberta and Saskatchewan out of the equation and according to your favourite AI bot, Canada has lower GDP per capita than even some formerly communist countries in Central Europe. That's just pathetic.
Canadian voters chose this. Their obsession with equality and avoidance of dealing with hard issues led us here.
You can't have both a dynamic economy and culture and equality. Some people are just more ambitious, smarter, harder working or luckier. Pushing them down to prop others up leads to mediocrity.
I'm pretty sure you do not mean 'equality' (which is about sharing the same rights and freedoms and being treated the same way as anyone else under the law) but 'equity', meaning equal RESULTS. Throughout Canada, merit takes a back seat to DEI policies... and the E stands for 'equity'. The metric now is not equality but all about group identity, group results, laws granting different treatment and privilege for some members of a group based on immutable characteristics (a practice that was once called 'discrimination'), and so on. By confusing the language, you confuse the issue. And that confusion (you're not alone by a long shot) serves those who wish to reshape Canada into ever and greater social divisions and political/legal dysfunction.
I understand the confusion: equality rights are negative rights whereas equity is a positive right. To quote AI: "Equality rights can be considered negative rights because they require the government to refrain from discriminatory actions against individuals based on characteristics like race, sex, or disability. This means that the government must not act in ways that violate these rights, allowing individuals to be treated equally under the law without interference."
This is the opposite meaning of your criticism about government 'treatment'. A dynamic economy, for example, is reliant on equality rights that allows individuals to follow their own creative interests without interference. That's why I thought you misconstrued equity policies that act on organizations and people versus equality that removes these.
At the risk of being publicly pilloried, I will state that I am a baby boomer, retired and one of those people of whom you speak with disdain. I do get the issues with young people, and am extremely frustrated with our Federal government's policy choices. I agree that OAS should be completely reworked to only support people who actually need it. I don't and would strongly support such a change, and I am sure many of my colleagues of equivalent age would as well. But the govenment has never talked to us about this and the need to reduce that expenditure, nor have they said what they would do with the revenue freed up, and, given the current and previous governments' interest in throwing money out the door for no public good (ie the firearm confiscation program) there is currently little inccentive for me to argue for reduced expenses on things like OAS. I certainly agree that governments SHOULD develop policies for the good of the country rather than the good of the party, but show me a government in our recent history that has done so. History is a predictor of future actions, and the history of the current and recent govenments offers me no confidence that they would use extra revenue in a responsible manner. Please, Mr Carney, do someting to prove me wrong!
I believe it was Chretien and Martin in the 90s who tried to trim EI and OAS. They experienced their worst showings electorally in the Maritimes and Quebec and after that understood who was their boss.
Yon basically have whole regions of Canada that depend on these welfare transfers and do not have a cultural reflex of shame in collecting them.
They all expect the government to supply and fix everything. Very few start their own company,become contractors. Some count the weeks of work till they can collect EI. When they do come to Alberta to work,some constantly insist on telling everyone within earshot how Beautiful Ontario is,smarter,enlightened ect.
This is wishful thinking. Chretien tried to reform OAS. Harper tried to reform OAS. Heck, there was even committees on the need for pension reform when Trudeau senior was prime minister. The fact is everyone knew this was a problem but didn't accept the costs of the solution.
You share my demographic and feelings on all this Alastair. And at the risk of further pillorying, I found the interview entertaining, but mostly in the “Reporting Good” category — I did not hear / learn anything that hasn’t been stated to death previously. So what are you doing to get on with it and break the logjams?
No wonder people & money head south. Canada is a ‘Permit Raj’. There’s too many parasitic losses and impediments. Taxes are certainly a big issue, but getting a permit to do anything can be a nightmare.
Consider- the federal govt has added another bureaucracy to fast track important projects, on top of the existing bureaucracy that slow walks other projects!
It’s pretty bad. Even running a company here in AB,I was hounded constantly by the Federal Government with notices,paperwork for GST,taxes. They couldn’t wait for once a year disclosure. Small outfit doing RENOs,they decided I was a crook,defrauding them. Finally hired an accountant to shut it down. And try and get people to just pay you for your work! Phaaaaack!! The worst are teachers,Firemen,Lawyers or anyone associated with those fields. Smarter than everyone else. I was trying to put food on the table. At least pay for the material,if you don’t like my work
Great interview, both of you. It is sad that it comes down to the forlorn hope that a politician will do what is good for their country, even if it isn't good for their party.
Very good interview and podcast. I left feeling disappointed in Canada. Particularly the Liberals. The promised to build baby build. Nothing for far. It is time for generational leadership and we are not getting it. Tax reform, health care reform, crime, real bail reform, repeal UNDRIP, repeal the carbon tax, etc. All need hard calls. Is Carney up to it?
No... or he would have started already. In the common language of the Laurentian elites, res ipsa loquitur. Carney is in this for Carney. The Liberals are in this for Liberals. Canadians are in it for... target practice and legal theft, I guess. Can't wait to vote for more of the same or watch a minority magically turn into a majority government with the approval of many to guarantee it.
Interesting conversation, but nothing new in it that The Line has not been identifying for what seems like an eternity already. I always do shake my head in dismay when conversations turn to items such as poor government policy, uncompetitive tax policy, slow, inefficient and bloated bureaucracy, the failing health care system, and on and on and on. The real problem is the economic illiteracy, ignorance, myopia, tribalism, and lack of long term vision of the true architect of this mess - the Canadian electorate. We get incompetence and stupidity because we vote it into office and delude ourselves that things will work out. We vote for personality and "touchy feely" comfort over policy, primarily because we are too intellectually lazy to even think hard about the latter. We accept government waste, bloat, and inefficiency to the point that these never even qualify as significant election issues. How many Canadians have ever read one of the Auditor General reports? How many respond in horror to any discussion of capital gains tax reform, falling for the trope that this is another giveaway to billionaires? How many recoil at the suggestion that Canada's health care system requires serious reform, including ripping up the Canada Health Act and allowing Canadians the option of spending their own money in their own country to get timely care? How many are stupid enough to believe that Trump is the cause of our current woes?
Please do not blame Trudeau and his Liberals (and certainly do not blame Trump) for our current predicament. Blame the bulk of the electorate.
The question was posed "It’s a grounded conversation about productivity, politics, and whether Canada is capable of getting its economic house back in order." My answer is a resounding no. I am a boomer, and am pleased that one of my two children has escaped this failing state, and am hopeful that the other will one day follow. I see no future for them here.
I am captured by two of Jen’s points. We are an old folks home with a view. And how Canada worked so great for the >40 yr old set and so poorly for the under 40 set. Nothing captures what’s happening so well as these two points. It is a blaring red flag that is being completely ignored. What is happening to our youth is shameful.
Government has no experience past ribbon cutting,photo ops,speeches. Why did we think it was going to be different with this guy? Hell,even their money gobbling commercials suck “Build Back Bigger Better like Before!” Bullshit. 12 year old slogans. Arrrgggg!
All good points raised in the interview but I have a few 'yeah, buts'.
Yes we have oligopolies and a less competitive market than 'Murica'. However, we have a massive country with a smallish population - roughly that of California. Does that state have five competitive national airlines, six competitive national banks, and on it goes? It does not and the reason is that it exists in a country with 340,000,000 people vs our 40,000,000. If we are going to do comparisons we ought to do it with near peers like Australia (similarly sized, albeit with a somewhat smaller population). I don't think we compare well, happy to be proved wrong, but that's with whom we need to learn from.
No one has a market like America and it is world beating.
Not mentioned but I think a major difficulty is universality in Canada - we want the same for everyone no matter where they live. I think we need to accept that inequality is a 'thing' and will always exist for all kinds of reasons. We need to think more aggressively to provide services and resources in different ways. For example, healthcare probably should be delivered regionally - prairies, Atlantic Canada - with individual provinces assisting in transportation to a central service provider. One regional cancer centre in Saskatoon for the prairies might make far more sense than one per major city (e.g. five in the prairies). Some universality has to go in favour of need. OAS to those who need the leg up, zero for those who don't. The population of those who don't is quite large.
There is urgency here in that we can't keep spending money we don't have. And, to the point made regarding the capital gains tax system, if we align our take with the American model, then what spending are we going to cut to fund the revenue loss? This is important because Canada is great at cutting taxes (as is the US) but hopeless at cutting spending. So tough days ahead politically if anything along this line is attempted - but that's what they're elected to do, not provide endless supplies of pablum so we avoid such questions.
I know the answer - cutting the capital gains tax will release the animal spirits of capitalism and revenues will magically grow. The scale of the American deficit, which is unsustainable, is all you need to observe. That things have not collapsed there is due to the reserve currency benefit the US enjoys but their debt level is undermining that benefit and there will be a reckoning and then the tears will indeed flow.
Canada chose to not enter the US market in an EU sort of fashion. Canada isolated itself (see protections in food, transport, financial, media, telecom, etc) and these are the consequences.
This country is a country for old established people from established parts of the country and young people aren't idiots.
Entering US market in an EU fashion was never on the table. So “we chose not to do it” in the same sense that you and I chose not to accept $15 million per year consulting jobs from Bombardier.
The US has no interest in sharing any control over its internal market the way European countries share control. That was not an option and will never be an option because the USA does not want it. (And cannot be induced to want it.)
It was an option throughout history and it was on the table. But it isn't like Canada ever proposed anything of the sort. Heck, Canada barely supported the US-Canada Free Trade agreement, choosing mediocrity over growth.
I'm sorry, but that's just rubbish. The EU over-rides national law in member states.. that's just never been something the US would accept... seriously... if you have a historical example of the US Senate and Congress proposing surrendering their sovereignty over US regulation and law to a foreign body they can't overrule... well... I'd love to hear about it. But as they say on the internet .... "Citation needed".
Edit: to be fair what HAS been available at various times was “become subject to US law” and “become a subject territory of the USA”. That’s not the EU. Germany is not a subject of France.
‘Build Back Bigger Better Best..’ Bullshit! ‘50 years ago we built something…’ Another money sucking commercial that sounds like it was written by a 12 year old. ‘Tools in our toolbox.’ I want to drop my pipe wrench on someone’s head,if I hear that one again. Sayings by people who don’t build,never have,and like to point and complain about the wrong thing,then hold back payment because their ‘feelings got hurt. All talk and no action
Jen Gerson is an excellent interviewer. She really lets the guest speak thoroughly. That is a rare, but virtuous, skill.
Ms. Hargreaves has very interesting points of view, but few in this Country seem to be pointing to the even deeper problems that are at work. Many of the things discussed are merely symptoms of a greater dysfunction in this Country.
We are either in an existential crisis (take a drink), or we are not. If we are, we should start acting like it. Well done, Jen. That is the entirety of Canada’s problem in one, right, congruent summary.
wow Jen that was amazing! our family listened intently. what a great guest. such matter of fact insight into what are issues are. I hope we can come to our senses and fix these issues. im 69, amazing career, well off no issues but I see unlike my friends that we are sabatoging our young. all they see like Trudeau unfortunately is pretty boy in his case and my peer in Carneys case. I am deeply concerned. love to help somehow.
Money, career and future matter more than politics.
Now imagine the brain drain if Alberta didn't exist in Canada. Canada would be in crisis mode. Instead we just have Alberta separatism to deal with.
Take Alberta and Saskatchewan out of the equation and according to your favourite AI bot, Canada has lower GDP per capita than even some formerly communist countries in Central Europe. That's just pathetic.
Canadian voters chose this. Their obsession with equality and avoidance of dealing with hard issues led us here.
You can't have both a dynamic economy and culture and equality. Some people are just more ambitious, smarter, harder working or luckier. Pushing them down to prop others up leads to mediocrity.
I'm pretty sure you do not mean 'equality' (which is about sharing the same rights and freedoms and being treated the same way as anyone else under the law) but 'equity', meaning equal RESULTS. Throughout Canada, merit takes a back seat to DEI policies... and the E stands for 'equity'. The metric now is not equality but all about group identity, group results, laws granting different treatment and privilege for some members of a group based on immutable characteristics (a practice that was once called 'discrimination'), and so on. By confusing the language, you confuse the issue. And that confusion (you're not alone by a long shot) serves those who wish to reshape Canada into ever and greater social divisions and political/legal dysfunction.
No, I meant equality. Being treated the same, as if we are all one sized fits all is just a path to mediocrity in the end.
I should have delved deeper, I apologize for the confusion. I'm commenting on tall-poppy syndrome and Jante Law.
I understand the confusion: equality rights are negative rights whereas equity is a positive right. To quote AI: "Equality rights can be considered negative rights because they require the government to refrain from discriminatory actions against individuals based on characteristics like race, sex, or disability. This means that the government must not act in ways that violate these rights, allowing individuals to be treated equally under the law without interference."
This is the opposite meaning of your criticism about government 'treatment'. A dynamic economy, for example, is reliant on equality rights that allows individuals to follow their own creative interests without interference. That's why I thought you misconstrued equity policies that act on organizations and people versus equality that removes these.
At the risk of being publicly pilloried, I will state that I am a baby boomer, retired and one of those people of whom you speak with disdain. I do get the issues with young people, and am extremely frustrated with our Federal government's policy choices. I agree that OAS should be completely reworked to only support people who actually need it. I don't and would strongly support such a change, and I am sure many of my colleagues of equivalent age would as well. But the govenment has never talked to us about this and the need to reduce that expenditure, nor have they said what they would do with the revenue freed up, and, given the current and previous governments' interest in throwing money out the door for no public good (ie the firearm confiscation program) there is currently little inccentive for me to argue for reduced expenses on things like OAS. I certainly agree that governments SHOULD develop policies for the good of the country rather than the good of the party, but show me a government in our recent history that has done so. History is a predictor of future actions, and the history of the current and recent govenments offers me no confidence that they would use extra revenue in a responsible manner. Please, Mr Carney, do someting to prove me wrong!
I believe it was Chretien and Martin in the 90s who tried to trim EI and OAS. They experienced their worst showings electorally in the Maritimes and Quebec and after that understood who was their boss.
Yon basically have whole regions of Canada that depend on these welfare transfers and do not have a cultural reflex of shame in collecting them.
They all expect the government to supply and fix everything. Very few start their own company,become contractors. Some count the weeks of work till they can collect EI. When they do come to Alberta to work,some constantly insist on telling everyone within earshot how Beautiful Ontario is,smarter,enlightened ect.
This is wishful thinking. Chretien tried to reform OAS. Harper tried to reform OAS. Heck, there was even committees on the need for pension reform when Trudeau senior was prime minister. The fact is everyone knew this was a problem but didn't accept the costs of the solution.
You share my demographic and feelings on all this Alastair. And at the risk of further pillorying, I found the interview entertaining, but mostly in the “Reporting Good” category — I did not hear / learn anything that hasn’t been stated to death previously. So what are you doing to get on with it and break the logjams?
No wonder people & money head south. Canada is a ‘Permit Raj’. There’s too many parasitic losses and impediments. Taxes are certainly a big issue, but getting a permit to do anything can be a nightmare.
Consider- the federal govt has added another bureaucracy to fast track important projects, on top of the existing bureaucracy that slow walks other projects!
It’s pretty bad. Even running a company here in AB,I was hounded constantly by the Federal Government with notices,paperwork for GST,taxes. They couldn’t wait for once a year disclosure. Small outfit doing RENOs,they decided I was a crook,defrauding them. Finally hired an accountant to shut it down. And try and get people to just pay you for your work! Phaaaaack!! The worst are teachers,Firemen,Lawyers or anyone associated with those fields. Smarter than everyone else. I was trying to put food on the table. At least pay for the material,if you don’t like my work
Great interview, both of you. It is sad that it comes down to the forlorn hope that a politician will do what is good for their country, even if it isn't good for their party.
Very good interview and podcast. I left feeling disappointed in Canada. Particularly the Liberals. The promised to build baby build. Nothing for far. It is time for generational leadership and we are not getting it. Tax reform, health care reform, crime, real bail reform, repeal UNDRIP, repeal the carbon tax, etc. All need hard calls. Is Carney up to it?
Great post.
I am baffled as to why more Canadians don’t see the situation in this manner.
No... or he would have started already. In the common language of the Laurentian elites, res ipsa loquitur. Carney is in this for Carney. The Liberals are in this for Liberals. Canadians are in it for... target practice and legal theft, I guess. Can't wait to vote for more of the same or watch a minority magically turn into a majority government with the approval of many to guarantee it.
Interesting conversation, but nothing new in it that The Line has not been identifying for what seems like an eternity already. I always do shake my head in dismay when conversations turn to items such as poor government policy, uncompetitive tax policy, slow, inefficient and bloated bureaucracy, the failing health care system, and on and on and on. The real problem is the economic illiteracy, ignorance, myopia, tribalism, and lack of long term vision of the true architect of this mess - the Canadian electorate. We get incompetence and stupidity because we vote it into office and delude ourselves that things will work out. We vote for personality and "touchy feely" comfort over policy, primarily because we are too intellectually lazy to even think hard about the latter. We accept government waste, bloat, and inefficiency to the point that these never even qualify as significant election issues. How many Canadians have ever read one of the Auditor General reports? How many respond in horror to any discussion of capital gains tax reform, falling for the trope that this is another giveaway to billionaires? How many recoil at the suggestion that Canada's health care system requires serious reform, including ripping up the Canada Health Act and allowing Canadians the option of spending their own money in their own country to get timely care? How many are stupid enough to believe that Trump is the cause of our current woes?
Please do not blame Trudeau and his Liberals (and certainly do not blame Trump) for our current predicament. Blame the bulk of the electorate.
The question was posed "It’s a grounded conversation about productivity, politics, and whether Canada is capable of getting its economic house back in order." My answer is a resounding no. I am a boomer, and am pleased that one of my two children has escaped this failing state, and am hopeful that the other will one day follow. I see no future for them here.
A better reply has not been written. 10/10.
Sad, yes, but true.
I am captured by two of Jen’s points. We are an old folks home with a view. And how Canada worked so great for the >40 yr old set and so poorly for the under 40 set. Nothing captures what’s happening so well as these two points. It is a blaring red flag that is being completely ignored. What is happening to our youth is shameful.
Government has no experience past ribbon cutting,photo ops,speeches. Why did we think it was going to be different with this guy? Hell,even their money gobbling commercials suck “Build Back Bigger Better like Before!” Bullshit. 12 year old slogans. Arrrgggg!
All good points raised in the interview but I have a few 'yeah, buts'.
Yes we have oligopolies and a less competitive market than 'Murica'. However, we have a massive country with a smallish population - roughly that of California. Does that state have five competitive national airlines, six competitive national banks, and on it goes? It does not and the reason is that it exists in a country with 340,000,000 people vs our 40,000,000. If we are going to do comparisons we ought to do it with near peers like Australia (similarly sized, albeit with a somewhat smaller population). I don't think we compare well, happy to be proved wrong, but that's with whom we need to learn from.
No one has a market like America and it is world beating.
Not mentioned but I think a major difficulty is universality in Canada - we want the same for everyone no matter where they live. I think we need to accept that inequality is a 'thing' and will always exist for all kinds of reasons. We need to think more aggressively to provide services and resources in different ways. For example, healthcare probably should be delivered regionally - prairies, Atlantic Canada - with individual provinces assisting in transportation to a central service provider. One regional cancer centre in Saskatoon for the prairies might make far more sense than one per major city (e.g. five in the prairies). Some universality has to go in favour of need. OAS to those who need the leg up, zero for those who don't. The population of those who don't is quite large.
There is urgency here in that we can't keep spending money we don't have. And, to the point made regarding the capital gains tax system, if we align our take with the American model, then what spending are we going to cut to fund the revenue loss? This is important because Canada is great at cutting taxes (as is the US) but hopeless at cutting spending. So tough days ahead politically if anything along this line is attempted - but that's what they're elected to do, not provide endless supplies of pablum so we avoid such questions.
I know the answer - cutting the capital gains tax will release the animal spirits of capitalism and revenues will magically grow. The scale of the American deficit, which is unsustainable, is all you need to observe. That things have not collapsed there is due to the reserve currency benefit the US enjoys but their debt level is undermining that benefit and there will be a reckoning and then the tears will indeed flow.
Canada chose to not enter the US market in an EU sort of fashion. Canada isolated itself (see protections in food, transport, financial, media, telecom, etc) and these are the consequences.
This country is a country for old established people from established parts of the country and young people aren't idiots.
Entering US market in an EU fashion was never on the table. So “we chose not to do it” in the same sense that you and I chose not to accept $15 million per year consulting jobs from Bombardier.
The US has no interest in sharing any control over its internal market the way European countries share control. That was not an option and will never be an option because the USA does not want it. (And cannot be induced to want it.)
It was an option throughout history and it was on the table. But it isn't like Canada ever proposed anything of the sort. Heck, Canada barely supported the US-Canada Free Trade agreement, choosing mediocrity over growth.
I'm sorry, but that's just rubbish. The EU over-rides national law in member states.. that's just never been something the US would accept... seriously... if you have a historical example of the US Senate and Congress proposing surrendering their sovereignty over US regulation and law to a foreign body they can't overrule... well... I'd love to hear about it. But as they say on the internet .... "Citation needed".
Edit: to be fair what HAS been available at various times was “become subject to US law” and “become a subject territory of the USA”. That’s not the EU. Germany is not a subject of France.
"This is important because Canada is great at cutting taxes" - lol
‘Build Back Bigger Better Best..’ Bullshit! ‘50 years ago we built something…’ Another money sucking commercial that sounds like it was written by a 12 year old. ‘Tools in our toolbox.’ I want to drop my pipe wrench on someone’s head,if I hear that one again. Sayings by people who don’t build,never have,and like to point and complain about the wrong thing,then hold back payment because their ‘feelings got hurt. All talk and no action
Three quick comments:
Jen Gerson is an excellent interviewer. She really lets the guest speak thoroughly. That is a rare, but virtuous, skill.
Ms. Hargreaves has very interesting points of view, but few in this Country seem to be pointing to the even deeper problems that are at work. Many of the things discussed are merely symptoms of a greater dysfunction in this Country.
We are either in an existential crisis (take a drink), or we are not. If we are, we should start acting like it. Well done, Jen. That is the entirety of Canada’s problem in one, right, congruent summary.
Bravo.
Excellent Canadian journalism.
Please elaborate. What are these just a symptom of?
Corruption? Denialism? Complacency?
I would boil root causes down to three categories:
1) cultural apathy
2) a culture lacking in accountability.
3) the need for a drastic constitutional revision.
I like.
3 easy ones eh.
Ha, ha.
I never said it would be easy.
They have been made more difficult to solve as a result of us having kicked them down the road so often.
Great interview. Not sure it increased my optimism but it improved my understanding.
Great stuff.
The people I have seen/heard/read who are associated with this Build Canada outfit are quite impressive.