Just to be certain, B-, I interpret your comment to mean that anti-Semites won't vote for Pollievre.
I am REALLY okay with that; I don't want anti-Semites anywhere near the CPC. The fact that they have infected significant aspects of the LPC and almost entirely control the NDP is just awful - leave the CPC alone, youse guys and gals!
Yes, that’s exactly what I meant. There is no need for him to become popular with NDP and Liberal women because they apparently tolerate and support antisemitism. Canada needs a party that’s absolutely against that.
Does anti-semite still mean someone who hates jewish people for being jewish, or someone who criticizes Bibi/Likud for their policy choices? (ethnic cleansing as example, lol)
I'm talking about the people who immediately sided against Israel on October 7, 2023. They aren't supporting the Conservative Party. And that's a good thing.
I'm still trying to get the answer from Israeli true believers but they demure, lol.
Personally, I think the greatest damage done to the Jewish people in the long run ahead is the use of the word "anti-semite" by the murderous racists cleansing Gaza. If they had any courage or care for their people they'd be specific about the difference between criticizing policy and anti-semitism. Like most fascists they prefer expediency to good results, because it serves themselves.
Matt and Jen: A suggestion to announce your next On The Line guests before the conversation (when possible) and allow for subscribers to submit questions that you can ask your guests. This is, IMO, a great value add with minimal added effort.
I've thought about this before. It's harder than you'd think logistically, since guest availability and topic relevancy can be very seat-of-pants. But. I am actually considering some version of this. Too soon to say more. Stay tuned. And if nothing happens in six months, yell at me via email.
Both conversations have an overarching theme, what will be of the Liberal Party once the boomers have moved along?
The polling and the mechanics of the Liberal Party highlight that it is mostly a creation by and for boomers. It is a vehicle to protect their interests and to build their dreams and aspirations.
We will devote up to 100% of our carefully rationed health care resources to keeping today's over-65's stuffed full of tubes, pills, and fluids to keep them alive long enough to shove an online voting app into their bed-ridden hands every 4 years well into the 2050's! Just have to decide what issue to scare them with each campaign cycle, and keep them comfortable, entertained and politically enraged enough that they don't all opt for MAID. The generation that will live for 100 years!
If a Boomer ever even starts to get the slightest inkling that there is a problem here, all you have to do is say "well, at least we don't live in the States! Hahahahahaha!"
I was born in 1961; you are definitely making an error by generalizing that all boomers (even late boomers like me) think there are no problems here. You would be correct in judging boomers on whether their children and grandchildren are educated enough in public life to be fully engaged in current events, and in exercising their right to vote.
I had hoped for some pushback on the guests discussion on the “success” of the TMX pipeline. For one, he seemed pretty dismissive of the substantial cost overruns. Second, he painted the pipeline a success because it generated substantial revenue for the government of Canada and it narrowed the spread between the price of Canadian oil (WCS) and US oil (WTI) and “that was the point of it”.
Leaves me with two questions:
1. Since when is it the responsibility of Canadian taxpayers to narrow the spread between WCS and WTI?
2. How much revenue has the pipeline generated for the Canadian government and how does it compare with the cost to build it? My suspicion is that it will prove to be a very poor return on the investment of tax dollars. I would be delighted to be proven wrong but the cynic in me thinks the project would have been completed by the private sector if the return profile was attractive.
It may seem irrelevant about the already built pipeline, but my larger fear is how Dr. Carney seems to think that government “investing” in similar projects (mainly directed by him personally) is going to be a panacea for an ailing economy. Colour me worried.
1. This is a strange question. Of course it is in all of our interests to get a fair, and the highest price we can, for WCS, which also seems to mean breaking the unjustified preferential treatment for US customers as fast as possible. As a Canadian taxpayer, this seems obvious and a great strategy.
It is definitely in the interests of the owner of the Western oil to get the highest price he/she can. Not sure how that benefits the taxpayer? I guess the producer may pay a little more in tax but that is iffy. The primary beneficary is the owner of the resource.
I can't really justify the investment of billions of taxpayer funds without a full and complete accounting of whether those funds are "invested" wisely. In my view it is way too casual to state that the WCS / WTI gap narrowed so the investment was justified.
Governments should get in the business of removing obstacles to private capital for building infrastructure that will service the energy industry. Not so much replacing private capital with public capital. That usually only happens when the investment is a dud.
for Matt: what a great episode; great questions; great guests. I was out of cell/internet service for 10 days (of uninformed happiness) and this was informative and pertinent.
Regarding leadership and results:
I was a partner at an employee owned company with nearly 50,000 employees, whose financial statements are the envy of all the industry, and we focused on leadership development the most.
When we chose a person for substantial responsibility, their first test was to lead a sub-community of 100-150 people. They were assessed annually, of course, but the assumed runway was always 3 years, after which a decision was made.
In 3 years, successful candidates navigated challenges including building an aligned leadership team, creating their own decision-making and communications systems, managing substantial conflict, executing 3-5 local conferences for the benefit of the 150 people, and getting the results (through people, as opposed to individual contributions) expected of, and very clear to, them. Success is very difficult and most leaders experience a lot of personal change in those 3 years.
They were given unlimited access to veterans of their role as mentors and coaches, classes on leadership, tools and systems they could pick up and use, or not, with little/nothing forced on them.
I'm no member of anyone's tribe; I vote extemporaneously for the party and leader I think we need at the moment. I've voted for each of the three parties in my 7 decades.
Notwithstanding the publics' impatience, I think Mark Carney will change the public service for the better. Central Banks are insulated (as much as possible) from the political mess, and he's probably never had a team (350,000) as bad at execution as he's learning he has today. But he's a smart dude and I'll bet his brain is working out strategies to get results in those circumstances. It's not impossible, and there's a recent example in Vancouver of someone solving a similar issue:
Ken Sim, elected in 2022, after banging his head against the wall of intransigence that was his administration and a horrible 10%+ tax increase, hired 9 volunteers including financial, audit, accounting, business and public sector experience. Note, these were outside folks he brought in for a second look and the result was released in 2024.
We, the great unwashed, suspect in public "servants" a community acting almost independently of the communities' wishes in almost all jurisdictions. This is certainly true in Victoria, BC, where our administration finally admits what we all suspect, after 9 years: they are deliberately making car, bus, truck travel more difficult every year to discourage the use thereof, without regard to any alternatives other than a bicycle.
I suspect Carney is thinking about, maybe already using, strategies to create substantial change within the community upon which he must depend for results. I suspect Sabia is only one of those. (Never underestimate the value of a public execution to clarify a message.) If he succeeds, he will succeed because of this; if he fails it will be the same.
A quick perusal of Wikipedia or Jane's Fighting Ships would have corrected your guest regarding the capability of the Berlin Class AOR to Replenish At Sea (RAS) on both the port and starboard sides of the ship.
Berlin-class Replenishment Ship – Wikipedia
“The vessels have two replenishment at sea stations, one to each per side of the ship and two electro-hydraulic container and cargo cranes.”
Canada may have conducted a quick study to determine whether there was a requirement for four RAS stations, as was the arrangement for the Protecteur I class. That study certainly did not cost $2 billion, so I think your guest was talking out of his ass.
Having an Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment (AOR) ship with the capacity to RAS on only one side is the absolute height of stupidity and would come from the mind of a bureaucrat with zero understanding of maritime logistics. Any naval architect who proposed such a ship would have been tarred and feathered by their comrades.
You don’t need redundancy—until you do. Damn it, Matt, you’re the military guy on this team, and I would have thought that you, of all people, would have corrected your guest on his error.
Jamie Carroll exhibited some of the usual “boys and their toys” condescension towards military equipment requirements that’s often characterized Liberal attitudes since Pearson.
I admit I don’t know how often the RCN refuels on both sides of their supply ships simultaneously, but I can also imagine it could be a valid requirement (take advantage of brief suitable conditions for underway replenishment in the North Atlantic, especially in the winter; tactical advantage of more quickly refueling your task force and getting back on station.). I don’t think that’s going to have driven $2 billion in development. I can imagine a pile of engineering substituting North American materials and equipment for European stuff. Having worked on global projects, something as simple as cable of a specific rating and gauge can flummox you because it’s just not available on your continent. Still, I suspect another factor could be the inadequate project management that Matt’s military source talked about. Weak project management fails to contain schedules and costs, and can easily balloon your budget and schedules.
There were a couple of other points where Mr. Carroll talked about how a new procurement office would crack heads and provide the military with what they need. That doesn’t augur well, because Canadian military procurement is littered with examples of stupid procurement decisions made by bureaucrats who thought they knew best, starting with the infamous Ross Rifle of WW1. Its also led to substandard kit like the plastic magazines for C7 rifles that used to constantly jam because they weren’t meant for constant re-use, and chronic parts shortages for aircraft because of unrealistic planning. The list goes on and on. It also could mean that Carney is going to repeat another classic Liberal trick of canceling the new fighter aircraft for political reasons and pick a cheaper, non-American, and inferior plane from Sweden.
The PQ will demonstrate, beyond a doubt, the contradiction that is Confederation. Paul St-Pierre-Plamondon has already hooked up with the Alberta separatists and, along with the BQ, who effectively rule the country, will all work against Dr. Carney.
Pierre Pollievre has an antisemite problem. For some reason, they won't vote for him. I'm okay with that.
Just to be certain, B-, I interpret your comment to mean that anti-Semites won't vote for Pollievre.
I am REALLY okay with that; I don't want anti-Semites anywhere near the CPC. The fact that they have infected significant aspects of the LPC and almost entirely control the NDP is just awful - leave the CPC alone, youse guys and gals!
Yes, that’s exactly what I meant. There is no need for him to become popular with NDP and Liberal women because they apparently tolerate and support antisemitism. Canada needs a party that’s absolutely against that.
regarding terms...
Does anti-semite still mean someone who hates jewish people for being jewish, or someone who criticizes Bibi/Likud for their policy choices? (ethnic cleansing as example, lol)
Ask Fred Hahn.
why? I asked you. You don't have an answer?
I'm talking about the people who immediately sided against Israel on October 7, 2023. They aren't supporting the Conservative Party. And that's a good thing.
Anyway, according to the threading here, you weren't actually asking me. You were asking Ken ;-)
well you stepped in; and no answer I guess.
I'm still trying to get the answer from Israeli true believers but they demure, lol.
Personally, I think the greatest damage done to the Jewish people in the long run ahead is the use of the word "anti-semite" by the murderous racists cleansing Gaza. If they had any courage or care for their people they'd be specific about the difference between criticizing policy and anti-semitism. Like most fascists they prefer expediency to good results, because it serves themselves.
Consider the position of the sponsor for the first part of the podcast.
Regardless of protestation to the contrary, CUPE is a great place for closet, or not, antisemites.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-twisted-anti-israel-ideology-has-cupe-ontario-members-concerned
I skip through the ads 😂
Smart. I will do likewise going forward.
Matt and Jen: A suggestion to announce your next On The Line guests before the conversation (when possible) and allow for subscribers to submit questions that you can ask your guests. This is, IMO, a great value add with minimal added effort.
I've thought about this before. It's harder than you'd think logistically, since guest availability and topic relevancy can be very seat-of-pants. But. I am actually considering some version of this. Too soon to say more. Stay tuned. And if nothing happens in six months, yell at me via email.
Both conversations have an overarching theme, what will be of the Liberal Party once the boomers have moved along?
The polling and the mechanics of the Liberal Party highlight that it is mostly a creation by and for boomers. It is a vehicle to protect their interests and to build their dreams and aspirations.
Will it just wither away like the NDP?
We will devote up to 100% of our carefully rationed health care resources to keeping today's over-65's stuffed full of tubes, pills, and fluids to keep them alive long enough to shove an online voting app into their bed-ridden hands every 4 years well into the 2050's! Just have to decide what issue to scare them with each campaign cycle, and keep them comfortable, entertained and politically enraged enough that they don't all opt for MAID. The generation that will live for 100 years!
They love a good anti-American scare. Tell them that Canada is the superpower that Canada needs and they are all over that.
If a Boomer ever even starts to get the slightest inkling that there is a problem here, all you have to do is say "well, at least we don't live in the States! Hahahahahaha!"
Lol, no kidding. They obsess about the Americans like no one else in the world.
I was born in 1961; you are definitely making an error by generalizing that all boomers (even late boomers like me) think there are no problems here. You would be correct in judging boomers on whether their children and grandchildren are educated enough in public life to be fully engaged in current events, and in exercising their right to vote.
A generalization? Yes. An error? Debatable.
I had hoped for some pushback on the guests discussion on the “success” of the TMX pipeline. For one, he seemed pretty dismissive of the substantial cost overruns. Second, he painted the pipeline a success because it generated substantial revenue for the government of Canada and it narrowed the spread between the price of Canadian oil (WCS) and US oil (WTI) and “that was the point of it”.
Leaves me with two questions:
1. Since when is it the responsibility of Canadian taxpayers to narrow the spread between WCS and WTI?
2. How much revenue has the pipeline generated for the Canadian government and how does it compare with the cost to build it? My suspicion is that it will prove to be a very poor return on the investment of tax dollars. I would be delighted to be proven wrong but the cynic in me thinks the project would have been completed by the private sector if the return profile was attractive.
It may seem irrelevant about the already built pipeline, but my larger fear is how Dr. Carney seems to think that government “investing” in similar projects (mainly directed by him personally) is going to be a panacea for an ailing economy. Colour me worried.
1. This is a strange question. Of course it is in all of our interests to get a fair, and the highest price we can, for WCS, which also seems to mean breaking the unjustified preferential treatment for US customers as fast as possible. As a Canadian taxpayer, this seems obvious and a great strategy.
I'd love to hear an explanation of why not.
It is definitely in the interests of the owner of the Western oil to get the highest price he/she can. Not sure how that benefits the taxpayer? I guess the producer may pay a little more in tax but that is iffy. The primary beneficary is the owner of the resource.
I can't really justify the investment of billions of taxpayer funds without a full and complete accounting of whether those funds are "invested" wisely. In my view it is way too casual to state that the WCS / WTI gap narrowed so the investment was justified.
Governments should get in the business of removing obstacles to private capital for building infrastructure that will service the energy industry. Not so much replacing private capital with public capital. That usually only happens when the investment is a dud.
I feel like I need to take a shower after listening to Jamie Carroll. He was by far the worst of the Anti-Panel and is even worse one on one.
for Matt: what a great episode; great questions; great guests. I was out of cell/internet service for 10 days (of uninformed happiness) and this was informative and pertinent.
Regarding leadership and results:
I was a partner at an employee owned company with nearly 50,000 employees, whose financial statements are the envy of all the industry, and we focused on leadership development the most.
When we chose a person for substantial responsibility, their first test was to lead a sub-community of 100-150 people. They were assessed annually, of course, but the assumed runway was always 3 years, after which a decision was made.
In 3 years, successful candidates navigated challenges including building an aligned leadership team, creating their own decision-making and communications systems, managing substantial conflict, executing 3-5 local conferences for the benefit of the 150 people, and getting the results (through people, as opposed to individual contributions) expected of, and very clear to, them. Success is very difficult and most leaders experience a lot of personal change in those 3 years.
They were given unlimited access to veterans of their role as mentors and coaches, classes on leadership, tools and systems they could pick up and use, or not, with little/nothing forced on them.
I'm no member of anyone's tribe; I vote extemporaneously for the party and leader I think we need at the moment. I've voted for each of the three parties in my 7 decades.
Notwithstanding the publics' impatience, I think Mark Carney will change the public service for the better. Central Banks are insulated (as much as possible) from the political mess, and he's probably never had a team (350,000) as bad at execution as he's learning he has today. But he's a smart dude and I'll bet his brain is working out strategies to get results in those circumstances. It's not impossible, and there's a recent example in Vancouver of someone solving a similar issue:
Ken Sim, elected in 2022, after banging his head against the wall of intransigence that was his administration and a horrible 10%+ tax increase, hired 9 volunteers including financial, audit, accounting, business and public sector experience. Note, these were outside folks he brought in for a second look and the result was released in 2024.
We, the great unwashed, suspect in public "servants" a community acting almost independently of the communities' wishes in almost all jurisdictions. This is certainly true in Victoria, BC, where our administration finally admits what we all suspect, after 9 years: they are deliberately making car, bus, truck travel more difficult every year to discourage the use thereof, without regard to any alternatives other than a bicycle.
I suspect Carney is thinking about, maybe already using, strategies to create substantial change within the community upon which he must depend for results. I suspect Sabia is only one of those. (Never underestimate the value of a public execution to clarify a message.) If he succeeds, he will succeed because of this; if he fails it will be the same.
A quick perusal of Wikipedia or Jane's Fighting Ships would have corrected your guest regarding the capability of the Berlin Class AOR to Replenish At Sea (RAS) on both the port and starboard sides of the ship.
Berlin-class Replenishment Ship – Wikipedia
“The vessels have two replenishment at sea stations, one to each per side of the ship and two electro-hydraulic container and cargo cranes.”
Canada may have conducted a quick study to determine whether there was a requirement for four RAS stations, as was the arrangement for the Protecteur I class. That study certainly did not cost $2 billion, so I think your guest was talking out of his ass.
Having an Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment (AOR) ship with the capacity to RAS on only one side is the absolute height of stupidity and would come from the mind of a bureaucrat with zero understanding of maritime logistics. Any naval architect who proposed such a ship would have been tarred and feathered by their comrades.
You don’t need redundancy—until you do. Damn it, Matt, you’re the military guy on this team, and I would have thought that you, of all people, would have corrected your guest on his error.
Jamie Carroll exhibited some of the usual “boys and their toys” condescension towards military equipment requirements that’s often characterized Liberal attitudes since Pearson.
I admit I don’t know how often the RCN refuels on both sides of their supply ships simultaneously, but I can also imagine it could be a valid requirement (take advantage of brief suitable conditions for underway replenishment in the North Atlantic, especially in the winter; tactical advantage of more quickly refueling your task force and getting back on station.). I don’t think that’s going to have driven $2 billion in development. I can imagine a pile of engineering substituting North American materials and equipment for European stuff. Having worked on global projects, something as simple as cable of a specific rating and gauge can flummox you because it’s just not available on your continent. Still, I suspect another factor could be the inadequate project management that Matt’s military source talked about. Weak project management fails to contain schedules and costs, and can easily balloon your budget and schedules.
There were a couple of other points where Mr. Carroll talked about how a new procurement office would crack heads and provide the military with what they need. That doesn’t augur well, because Canadian military procurement is littered with examples of stupid procurement decisions made by bureaucrats who thought they knew best, starting with the infamous Ross Rifle of WW1. Its also led to substandard kit like the plastic magazines for C7 rifles that used to constantly jam because they weren’t meant for constant re-use, and chronic parts shortages for aircraft because of unrealistic planning. The list goes on and on. It also could mean that Carney is going to repeat another classic Liberal trick of canceling the new fighter aircraft for political reasons and pick a cheaper, non-American, and inferior plane from Sweden.
Can we please refer to Mark Carney as Dr. Carney?
He earned the title and we should respect it.
The PQ will demonstrate, beyond a doubt, the contradiction that is Confederation. Paul St-Pierre-Plamondon has already hooked up with the Alberta separatists and, along with the BQ, who effectively rule the country, will all work against Dr. Carney.
Mark Carney is smart not to insist that anyone call him this.
Agree. Just one of the proletariat, another 6-packer watching hockey. Another fake.