This was by far the most thoughtful and mature discussion I've seen about the 51st state talk.
Despite our problems I do love Canada: our freedoms and way of life shouldn't be taken for granted. The problem is, the things I love about Canada are largely true of the US as well. On the "would we fight" thought experiment: It's one thing to fight and die to avoid living under the Nazis or CCP, but to avoid ... becoming Americans? Maybe that assessment changes if the US does become an authoratarian state and/or wants to occupy Canada and make Canadians second-class citizens, but were Canada to legitimately join the union as one or more states, does that much really change? And from a transactional point-of-view, are those changes even net-negative, let alone worth dying over?
It's a fascinating discussion, and what scares me is I don't have a clear answer for what it means to be Canadian that doesn't apply to the US as well. The other thing that scares me is that despite Trump's bluster, he isn't exactly wrong: from both an economic and security perspective, removing the border would be a boon for both sides: we'd be stronger together. There may be ways to achieve those benefits that don't involve Canada ceasing to exist as a country, but the rationale isn't exactly baseless.
The losers if this were to happen are the Canadian chattering class types. Those who are online claiming that Canadians will man the barricades.
Most immigrants would welcome more unity with the US. After all the US was their first choice, even if the Canadian nationalist types couldn't make that compute. Also, those under 30 would embrace unity with a country with better wages, more dynamism, lower cost of living and more fun.
"Peace, order and good government" lead to mediocrity for Canada's youth so why should they defend that?
There's probably some truth to that, I do think on average we're at least marginally more compassionate than the US. But even if we're marginally better at it than our neighbour, I don't know I can consider compassion a core part of Canadian identity.
For example, in the middle of a housing crisis, people left & right will protest new development (and even a daycare in one case!) while property taxes are kept low by layering tax after tax on new developments. Or the fact that we have an immigration system being referred to as breeding ground for "modern day slavery" and charging tens of thousands to attend classes in a strip mall, and no one seemed particularly bothered until it started impacting *our* housing and healthcare. Even our supposedly compassionate policies like with criminal justice result in us putting the families of Paul Bernardo's victims through the hell of parole hearings every 3 years - not a compassionate policy on balance IMO.
The counterpoint to the “more compassionate” claim is that Americans are radically more generous than Canadians when it comes to personal charity from their own funds.
Great again, guys. But one minor nit-pick of my own. Jen claiming that her issue with Junior defining Canadian identity as “not American” on CNN was only a nit-pick most definitely understated her true feelings. She excoriated him for it - and as someone who came here specifically for EXACTLY that this week it was great to hear.
But Junior’s, what-would-you-say – pathetic? disgraceful? embarrassing? all three? – definition of Canadian identity is, unfortunately, very much of a piece with an all-too prevalent form of Canadian nationalism that is equal parts embarrassing and infantile. It manifests itself in a smug (and COMPLETELY undeserved) superiority complex vis-à-vis Americans that runs the gamut from Rick Mercer’s lame “Talking to Americans” shtick to the stereotypical Canadian touring Europe with his flag on a backpack to make sure everybody knows that, oh no, HE’s not AMERICAN. This unfunny, smug and adolescent behaviour rises to a whole other level when viewed in the light of our country’s abdicating its responsibility for its own national defence (while simultaneously relying on and taking advantage of those very same Americans to cover our asses militarily).
But defining one’s self as “not American” is also very much of a piece with the republican wanna-bes who seemingly can’t handle the “indignity” of sharing a monarch with “another country”. This shallow viewpoint completely disregards our country’s proud roots in the UK which include the awesome traditions of the Magna Carta, democracy, British Enlightenment values/figures, peace, order and good government and the Westminster system – not to mention proudly and heroically fighting side-by-side with the UK (and USA) in two world wars. (For now, let’s ignore the fact that England itself currently seems to be abandoning many of those traditions.) I suspect the Venn diagram of Canadians who would cast these admirable UK associations aside, and those who loudly and proudly define themselves as “not American” is damn near a perfect circle. And that circle is dangerously large given what Trump may have in store for us.
So, screw right off, Junior. We are a helluva’ lot more than just “not American” (not that there’s anything wrong with THAT). He and his grossly insulting “first post-national state” aspirations has never understood that and never will. His legacy should be the ordering of the flags at half-mast for six months. If there is any justice, 50 years from now that act and he himself will both be looked back upon by Canadians with shock, horror and disgust. Let’s be clear - he has no true pride in this Country. The CNN appearance was the final proof of that. Matt’s reference to him cloaking the Roots Canadian outfit at the Invictus Games was not an example of actual Canadian patriotism. It was him playing a role – no different than his donning blackface or making like Joe Bollywood on his cringing tour of India. He is as much Canadian as he is Indian (or any other nationality he wants to cosplay for attention at a given moment). For shame.
The modified-for-Canada Westminster system has been serving Canada very poorly for the last 30 or so years; it is not working for this country. Especially these last two years.
Believe it or not, the educated folks in places like Toronto eat this shit up. It's sad and pathetic, but then they in their heart of hearts know they can't compete with their peers in the US.
The folks who say stuff like this are "discount dollar store Americans." The problem is they run this place.
When it comes to where the world is going, where the top companies are, top universities, the leading tech and where dynamism and ambition reign, it's the US.
Canada relatively is a backwater populated by a leadership who think mediocrity is preferable to working with the US.
I would love to see full mobility between the US and Canada, if for nothing else to show that when people vote with their feet millions would move to the US, especially the young.
Canada needs an economic common market EU style with the US, if for nothing else to force Canadians to step up our game. God knows our leaders will sacrifice the prosperity of our young for some weird left wing"nationalism."
My hope is that Elon Musk convinces the MAGA group that is dominating the Republican Party right now to expand the skilled immigrants visa program rather than reduce it. Then watch Canada’s young and recent immigrants flock south to drastically improve their lives. Forget the higher salaries just affordable housing alone would be an incentive.
I agree that Canada’s elites are quite happy with the implied “Keep Canada Mediocre Again” approach of the Liberal party. They love a compliant low mobility labor force (witness Quebec with its French only language laws that are equivalent to prohibiting teaching slaves to read and write like the US Southern states in the past). Dollar store medical coverage and gun control that only works with law abiding citizens are a relative bargain to keep the citizens appeased.
Paul interviewed Marci Surkes, who now Strategic Advisor for a firm called Compass Rose. She joined the Liberals as a low level functionary in 2007 and rose to be Trudeau's executive director of policy and cabinet affairs between 2019 and 2022. She's utterly brilliant.
I commented more fully on this at Paul's feed for his podcast with Ms. Surkes, so have a look at that if you wish.
I'm not sure about 'utterly brilliant', but I agree Ms. Surkes has considerable talent, and even suggest she'd be a good hire over at CPC HQ if they wanted someone with experience and a different view from their current staff (Own The Libs 24-7-365). The drop off in comms ability evident in the Liberal PMO strangely coincides with her departure from it, which is interesting.
However.
She did fall under Trudeau's spell for the better part of a decade, and she still seems to confuse his superficial personal charisma with a genuine ability to connect with people, a mistake made by JWR and CCC among others. Also she checks all the boxes for a Trudeau-era Liberal - born and grew up in Montreal, educated at McGill, background in media and law, just like the rest of them. Not that any of those things should be a disqualification, but it reflects the common thread that has dominated this government.
Like I said, she's be a great addition to the CPC War Room in that she could call them on their more extreme con-bro world view BS when necessary.
Two points though. Smart and well reasoned does not mean correct. Very smart people believed the Soviet economic system was simply superior and would outpace capitalism.
There second is that I sensed a bubble. “Everyone” grew up knowing who Justin Trudeau was and wanted him to succeed? I didn’t. I grew I watching the national before I got puberty and I knew all about Pierre Trudeau. I learned about his son Michel when he died in an avalanche because I also backcountry ski and had been skiing in that exact place only the year before.
That’s likely my BC bubble at work, but I don’t assume everyone in Canada lives in it.
Very dark and depressing. But it's good to think these possibilities through before we are confronted with any of them. Thank you.
I very much doubt that there will be any military action, or threat thereof. Economic levers should be quite sufficient. Imagine a deep recession, lasting for a year or more. GDP will fall and so will government revenues. What will get cut? The DEI programs will go, especially if the CPC is in power. Other outlays. But soon we will be looking at cutbacks in the health care system. Given its present state, it won't take much to inflict serious pain where Canadians will feel it the most.
If there is to be an economic war, I would expect various provinces to try to cut a deal for themselves. Alberta may be first, but British Columbia has long felt an affinity to Washington State and Oregon (Cascadia). I do not share your view that such an economic war would tamp down separatism in Quebec. On the contrary, Quebec has twice almost voted for a separation that would have made no economic sense, out of feelings of pride. And they might think that they could leverage electricity exports and access to critical minerals.
Economic war would certainly hurt the United States. But they could afford one much more easily than we could. We would lose hands down.
Finally, you are right that we have lost our sense of patriotism. That is part of being a post-national state, I guess. As Robert Putnam and other writers have shown, diversity generally leads to a decline in social trust, and that dissolves a sense of shared community -- especially if the components are encouraged not to integrate into the receiving society.
It's too late to fly under Mr. Trump's radar. That might never have been possible. But in any case, Mr. Trudeau put an end to any possibility. We can hope that Mr. Trump's attention moves elsewhere. If not we will just have to ride it out. Tighten our belts. And don't get sick.
We will come out of it stronger. Maybe Canada won't be stronger but our families and youth will be better off in the end.
This version of Canada isn't working, especially when compared economically to the US. If Canada can't ensure the same standard of living as the US, what's the point of Canada?
I think the feds and the provinces would have to work together to reform healthcare to include more of a European-style public-plus-private model (no one wants to go the American way), so that's more complicated. OAS is totally in the Fed's wheelhouse.
I don't get the idea of Carney. Did Liberals actually look at the last 10 years and conclude that what they really need is cask strength 120 proof elite conventional wisdom? That the big problem with Trudeau is that he's too relatable and insufficiently condescending?
And why do they think he'd be good? Okay, he knows about economic policy, although it's not at all clear that his views actually differ from Trudeau's. Why would he be good at keeping the Liberal caucus together over Israel? At making deals with Singh? At recruiting local candidates? At preventing a PQ gov't from having a sovereignty referendum? The job is Prime Minister and party leader, not Deputy Minister of Finance.
It is becoming increasingly evident that Jen Gerson is correct in her assessment that the Trudeau calamity is the dead cat bounce of a dead political party of "Liberals". The Carney calamity will be at best an audible thump, no bounce. "Liberals" are braindead, and thus have learned nothing over the last 10 years.
Money. Not sure why I have to keep saying it. Money.
Canada's worth to folks like Carney and those behind him is our insane mineral wealth.
In Carney's financial world, not to mention his family life, they are committed to net-zero, which means wind and solar and eventually nuclear power, all which require various minerals which Canada has in the ground in abundance. If Carney wins and eventually gets into government (if the CPC crap the bed) bet on a lot more mines being developed under the guise of net zero. Hilarious when exposed to critical analysis, but that's been the play for some time, and Carney is not shy about it at all.
I'm not sure the CPC is especially inclined to slow the development of mineral resources compared to whatever Carney would do (and a lot of the relevant decision making authority on approval of mines and supporting infrastructure like roads in remote areas is in provincial jurisdiction anyway).
But even if that's an accurate depiction of what motivates Carney himself, it doesn't explain why regular Liberals would think he's a good choice (unless they too are somehow motivated by mineral development).
A sharp, enlightening and informative take, thank you. That places Carbon Tax Carney into a more interesting perspective, one that has the requisite dimensions for a thorough and perhaps more fair assessment of the man. This should be much more widely known.
I still do not want him anywhere near political power in this country.
I think the simplest explanation is the Liberals are stuck in the 2010s. There was a time when Carney's profile would have been an asset, but the electorate has moved on and the Liberals haven't. I'm not sure it's in their DNA to do so: none of the leadership contenders seem stylistically fit for 2025 and I think there's a strong possibility the party fails to evolve and is eventually squeezed out of existence by populist leaders on the left and right (basically what happened to the BC Liberals)
That - the extinction of current "Liberal" party - would be a welcome and long overdue evolution. A reminder to all the nice and polished people out there: populism is democracy at its basic level, ignore it and diss it at your own peril.
As a protest; their last chance to kick Trudeau, maybe they shouldn't elect a leader for the next election. It's just a sacrifice anyway. Force him to go down with the ship. No, it won't happen, but maybe it should. They might actually gain some credibility.
Oh and Jen assuming the Liberal party has a plan to ensure election integrity to select our next PM may be the most optimistic statement ever said on the Line :)!
Online voting is a terrible idea in general (there could be bug / hack and no paper ballot "ground truth" to compare to) and that's before remembering this is the Liberal Party we're dealing with. We'll see, but I have a feeling this is going to be a shitshow.
Foreign interference is only one part of the concern though. At a more basic level, how do they avoid the process that got us Boaty McBoatface, NHL All-Star John Scott, the Spice Girls Baghdad concert, and the Stephen Colbert Space Station? The CRA-like bank verification is a good idea: can/will they use it? And is the tech bug-free and secure?
I get parties are technically private clubs, but Elections Canada should be running these things.
The pm’s appearance on CNN was less a network’s interview with a foreign leader as it was Trudeau’s next step job audition once he has vacated office. What better integration of personal bluster and political myopia than that pre-arranged marriage.
Another comment. you asked the question of how could the Liberals have let this happen? They let it happen because they truly believe that they are chosen and their policies are faultless. They are ideologues not grounded leaders. Why do you think that they think they can get away with a three month campaign for leadership while Trump is coming into office? They think this because they are so certain that they are great and that the country cannot exist without them.
It’s on the same spectrum, although not as extreme, as what happened in the Soviet Union. All of the socialist policies were failing, but the reason given why they were failing was not because they were bad ideas, it was because the ideas weren’t implemented aggressively enough. So they kept doubling down until the USSR collapsed. Look at the immigration fiasco here in Canada. Doesn’t it look awfully similar to this? Problems were clearly arising early on when enacted, the government refuses to acknowledge them and then doubles down while their critics are howling by ramping up the numbers even higher until the immigration consensus collapses.
These guys truly believe in their magnificence. That’s why they can’t accept any feedback telling them otherwise.
Arguably your own example highlights how comparatively non-ideological the Liberals are: the Liberals initially resisted caving to criticisms regarding their immigration policy, but then eventually did so. Real ideologues do not cave to criticism at all. (Maybe I did not watch closely enough, but I never really noticed any Liberals being all too loud in the "Conservative critics are racist" charge.) But even when a government is insufferable in response to criticism, it can be less about ideology and more about plain partisanship.
Abusing prorogation for self-serving political purposes is increasingly a cross-partisan affair, given how we saw Harper do the same and same abuses happen at the provincial level. Prorogation abuses will not change until the political class becomes serious enough to support constitutional reform.
Party constitutions do not have legal force, so I doubt that there will be lawsuits of any kind against the Liberal Party. That being said, I did warn some Liberal colleagues that defying the timeline within the Liberal constitution would be a disaster: a political party falls apart whenever there is a consensus that the constitutional assignment of authority no longer has force, and that anything goes. The long-term repercussions here could be bad just for the Liberal Party alone, never-mind the potential harm of prorogation to the national interest.
The time when political parties can exist as private clubs must end. It is a National Security vulnerability we cannot afford.
One of the regulations that must be applied is that to vote for the leader of a party you must also be able to vote in an election. Consider our current system. Non citizens have a direct vote on who will be the next PM.
We should also return to the standard for Westminister Parliamentary systems and empower MP to select a leader from amongst thier numbers. This way we will never be left leaderless in a crisis again. The party, can chose to confirm or replace the leader after.
Christy Clark is at best a Red Tory, but really does have a history of identifying with the federal Liberal brand. One of the oddities of the BC Liberals was that they were the right wing party in BC, but they were always an amalgam of right wingers who’d previously supported the Socreds and genuine Liberals.
Clark is doomed anyway, of course: in BC, the right wing of her party never really trusted her as leader. The left hates her with a passion because of her role in the government that ended the BC NDP’s government of the ‘90s and gored so many of their sacred cows. The support she had was from party members who were pleasantly surprised when she managed to win another majority government for the Liberals after she succeeded Gordon Campbell. When the NDP won in 2017, that support was gone. As Matt notes, she doesn’t really have name recognition outside of BC. She doesn’t bring an existing base of support *in* BC, either.
It has become something of a running joke, the podcast being released minutes after real life takes your theses out back for a thumpin’. I guess that is the risk.
I raise this only, because every time real life catches up to you, I can’t help but think of the National Post sports writer Cam Cole: I apologise in advance because I’m thin on details, but, he wrote a scathing article about a golfer, apparently a bit of a drunk, apparently a real a**hole. Cam went completely Jen Gerson on him. Flamed him. Epic🔥
His piece was published the same day that said golfer died. A plane crash after a golf tournament if I recall.
So, Matt, Jen; you’re timings could be worse. Much worse 🤗
This was by far the most thoughtful and mature discussion I've seen about the 51st state talk.
Despite our problems I do love Canada: our freedoms and way of life shouldn't be taken for granted. The problem is, the things I love about Canada are largely true of the US as well. On the "would we fight" thought experiment: It's one thing to fight and die to avoid living under the Nazis or CCP, but to avoid ... becoming Americans? Maybe that assessment changes if the US does become an authoratarian state and/or wants to occupy Canada and make Canadians second-class citizens, but were Canada to legitimately join the union as one or more states, does that much really change? And from a transactional point-of-view, are those changes even net-negative, let alone worth dying over?
It's a fascinating discussion, and what scares me is I don't have a clear answer for what it means to be Canadian that doesn't apply to the US as well. The other thing that scares me is that despite Trump's bluster, he isn't exactly wrong: from both an economic and security perspective, removing the border would be a boon for both sides: we'd be stronger together. There may be ways to achieve those benefits that don't involve Canada ceasing to exist as a country, but the rationale isn't exactly baseless.
The losers if this were to happen are the Canadian chattering class types. Those who are online claiming that Canadians will man the barricades.
Most immigrants would welcome more unity with the US. After all the US was their first choice, even if the Canadian nationalist types couldn't make that compute. Also, those under 30 would embrace unity with a country with better wages, more dynamism, lower cost of living and more fun.
"Peace, order and good government" lead to mediocrity for Canada's youth so why should they defend that?
There's probably some truth to that, I do think on average we're at least marginally more compassionate than the US. But even if we're marginally better at it than our neighbour, I don't know I can consider compassion a core part of Canadian identity.
For example, in the middle of a housing crisis, people left & right will protest new development (and even a daycare in one case!) while property taxes are kept low by layering tax after tax on new developments. Or the fact that we have an immigration system being referred to as breeding ground for "modern day slavery" and charging tens of thousands to attend classes in a strip mall, and no one seemed particularly bothered until it started impacting *our* housing and healthcare. Even our supposedly compassionate policies like with criminal justice result in us putting the families of Paul Bernardo's victims through the hell of parole hearings every 3 years - not a compassionate policy on balance IMO.
The counterpoint to the “more compassionate” claim is that Americans are radically more generous than Canadians when it comes to personal charity from their own funds.
Great again, guys. But one minor nit-pick of my own. Jen claiming that her issue with Junior defining Canadian identity as “not American” on CNN was only a nit-pick most definitely understated her true feelings. She excoriated him for it - and as someone who came here specifically for EXACTLY that this week it was great to hear.
But Junior’s, what-would-you-say – pathetic? disgraceful? embarrassing? all three? – definition of Canadian identity is, unfortunately, very much of a piece with an all-too prevalent form of Canadian nationalism that is equal parts embarrassing and infantile. It manifests itself in a smug (and COMPLETELY undeserved) superiority complex vis-à-vis Americans that runs the gamut from Rick Mercer’s lame “Talking to Americans” shtick to the stereotypical Canadian touring Europe with his flag on a backpack to make sure everybody knows that, oh no, HE’s not AMERICAN. This unfunny, smug and adolescent behaviour rises to a whole other level when viewed in the light of our country’s abdicating its responsibility for its own national defence (while simultaneously relying on and taking advantage of those very same Americans to cover our asses militarily).
But defining one’s self as “not American” is also very much of a piece with the republican wanna-bes who seemingly can’t handle the “indignity” of sharing a monarch with “another country”. This shallow viewpoint completely disregards our country’s proud roots in the UK which include the awesome traditions of the Magna Carta, democracy, British Enlightenment values/figures, peace, order and good government and the Westminster system – not to mention proudly and heroically fighting side-by-side with the UK (and USA) in two world wars. (For now, let’s ignore the fact that England itself currently seems to be abandoning many of those traditions.) I suspect the Venn diagram of Canadians who would cast these admirable UK associations aside, and those who loudly and proudly define themselves as “not American” is damn near a perfect circle. And that circle is dangerously large given what Trump may have in store for us.
So, screw right off, Junior. We are a helluva’ lot more than just “not American” (not that there’s anything wrong with THAT). He and his grossly insulting “first post-national state” aspirations has never understood that and never will. His legacy should be the ordering of the flags at half-mast for six months. If there is any justice, 50 years from now that act and he himself will both be looked back upon by Canadians with shock, horror and disgust. Let’s be clear - he has no true pride in this Country. The CNN appearance was the final proof of that. Matt’s reference to him cloaking the Roots Canadian outfit at the Invictus Games was not an example of actual Canadian patriotism. It was him playing a role – no different than his donning blackface or making like Joe Bollywood on his cringing tour of India. He is as much Canadian as he is Indian (or any other nationality he wants to cosplay for attention at a given moment). For shame.
The modified-for-Canada Westminster system has been serving Canada very poorly for the last 30 or so years; it is not working for this country. Especially these last two years.
Believe it or not, the educated folks in places like Toronto eat this shit up. It's sad and pathetic, but then they in their heart of hearts know they can't compete with their peers in the US.
The folks who say stuff like this are "discount dollar store Americans." The problem is they run this place.
When it comes to where the world is going, where the top companies are, top universities, the leading tech and where dynamism and ambition reign, it's the US.
Canada relatively is a backwater populated by a leadership who think mediocrity is preferable to working with the US.
I would love to see full mobility between the US and Canada, if for nothing else to show that when people vote with their feet millions would move to the US, especially the young.
Canada needs an economic common market EU style with the US, if for nothing else to force Canadians to step up our game. God knows our leaders will sacrifice the prosperity of our young for some weird left wing"nationalism."
My hope is that Elon Musk convinces the MAGA group that is dominating the Republican Party right now to expand the skilled immigrants visa program rather than reduce it. Then watch Canada’s young and recent immigrants flock south to drastically improve their lives. Forget the higher salaries just affordable housing alone would be an incentive.
I agree that Canada’s elites are quite happy with the implied “Keep Canada Mediocre Again” approach of the Liberal party. They love a compliant low mobility labor force (witness Quebec with its French only language laws that are equivalent to prohibiting teaching slaves to read and write like the US Southern states in the past). Dollar store medical coverage and gun control that only works with law abiding citizens are a relative bargain to keep the citizens appeased.
It's an ideology that thrives in a low ambition environment. It's an ideology of the aggrieved and entitled.
Yep! The environment of “Not bad, eh!” If you want to hear “Terrific”, “Great” or “ Good deal”, look elsewhere.
Paul interviewed Marci Surkes, who now Strategic Advisor for a firm called Compass Rose. She joined the Liberals as a low level functionary in 2007 and rose to be Trudeau's executive director of policy and cabinet affairs between 2019 and 2022. She's utterly brilliant.
I commented more fully on this at Paul's feed for his podcast with Ms. Surkes, so have a look at that if you wish.
I'm not sure about 'utterly brilliant', but I agree Ms. Surkes has considerable talent, and even suggest she'd be a good hire over at CPC HQ if they wanted someone with experience and a different view from their current staff (Own The Libs 24-7-365). The drop off in comms ability evident in the Liberal PMO strangely coincides with her departure from it, which is interesting.
However.
She did fall under Trudeau's spell for the better part of a decade, and she still seems to confuse his superficial personal charisma with a genuine ability to connect with people, a mistake made by JWR and CCC among others. Also she checks all the boxes for a Trudeau-era Liberal - born and grew up in Montreal, educated at McGill, background in media and law, just like the rest of them. Not that any of those things should be a disqualification, but it reflects the common thread that has dominated this government.
Like I said, she's be a great addition to the CPC War Room in that she could call them on their more extreme con-bro world view BS when necessary.
We see and experience the results of that brilliance. Brilliant, like the rest of the followers of The Idiot King.
She does.
Two points though. Smart and well reasoned does not mean correct. Very smart people believed the Soviet economic system was simply superior and would outpace capitalism.
There second is that I sensed a bubble. “Everyone” grew up knowing who Justin Trudeau was and wanted him to succeed? I didn’t. I grew I watching the national before I got puberty and I knew all about Pierre Trudeau. I learned about his son Michel when he died in an avalanche because I also backcountry ski and had been skiing in that exact place only the year before.
That’s likely my BC bubble at work, but I don’t assume everyone in Canada lives in it.
Very dark and depressing. But it's good to think these possibilities through before we are confronted with any of them. Thank you.
I very much doubt that there will be any military action, or threat thereof. Economic levers should be quite sufficient. Imagine a deep recession, lasting for a year or more. GDP will fall and so will government revenues. What will get cut? The DEI programs will go, especially if the CPC is in power. Other outlays. But soon we will be looking at cutbacks in the health care system. Given its present state, it won't take much to inflict serious pain where Canadians will feel it the most.
If there is to be an economic war, I would expect various provinces to try to cut a deal for themselves. Alberta may be first, but British Columbia has long felt an affinity to Washington State and Oregon (Cascadia). I do not share your view that such an economic war would tamp down separatism in Quebec. On the contrary, Quebec has twice almost voted for a separation that would have made no economic sense, out of feelings of pride. And they might think that they could leverage electricity exports and access to critical minerals.
Economic war would certainly hurt the United States. But they could afford one much more easily than we could. We would lose hands down.
Finally, you are right that we have lost our sense of patriotism. That is part of being a post-national state, I guess. As Robert Putnam and other writers have shown, diversity generally leads to a decline in social trust, and that dissolves a sense of shared community -- especially if the components are encouraged not to integrate into the receiving society.
It's too late to fly under Mr. Trump's radar. That might never have been possible. But in any case, Mr. Trudeau put an end to any possibility. We can hope that Mr. Trump's attention moves elsewhere. If not we will just have to ride it out. Tighten our belts. And don't get sick.
We will come out of it stronger. Maybe Canada won't be stronger but our families and youth will be better off in the end.
This version of Canada isn't working, especially when compared economically to the US. If Canada can't ensure the same standard of living as the US, what's the point of Canada?
Except that the US just voted out the best economy on the planet.
You don't think OAS would go before healthcare?
I think the feds and the provinces would have to work together to reform healthcare to include more of a European-style public-plus-private model (no one wants to go the American way), so that's more complicated. OAS is totally in the Fed's wheelhouse.
I don't get the idea of Carney. Did Liberals actually look at the last 10 years and conclude that what they really need is cask strength 120 proof elite conventional wisdom? That the big problem with Trudeau is that he's too relatable and insufficiently condescending?
And why do they think he'd be good? Okay, he knows about economic policy, although it's not at all clear that his views actually differ from Trudeau's. Why would he be good at keeping the Liberal caucus together over Israel? At making deals with Singh? At recruiting local candidates? At preventing a PQ gov't from having a sovereignty referendum? The job is Prime Minister and party leader, not Deputy Minister of Finance.
It is becoming increasingly evident that Jen Gerson is correct in her assessment that the Trudeau calamity is the dead cat bounce of a dead political party of "Liberals". The Carney calamity will be at best an audible thump, no bounce. "Liberals" are braindead, and thus have learned nothing over the last 10 years.
Money. Not sure why I have to keep saying it. Money.
Canada's worth to folks like Carney and those behind him is our insane mineral wealth.
In Carney's financial world, not to mention his family life, they are committed to net-zero, which means wind and solar and eventually nuclear power, all which require various minerals which Canada has in the ground in abundance. If Carney wins and eventually gets into government (if the CPC crap the bed) bet on a lot more mines being developed under the guise of net zero. Hilarious when exposed to critical analysis, but that's been the play for some time, and Carney is not shy about it at all.
I'm not sure the CPC is especially inclined to slow the development of mineral resources compared to whatever Carney would do (and a lot of the relevant decision making authority on approval of mines and supporting infrastructure like roads in remote areas is in provincial jurisdiction anyway).
But even if that's an accurate depiction of what motivates Carney himself, it doesn't explain why regular Liberals would think he's a good choice (unless they too are somehow motivated by mineral development).
Oh, I think the CPC will dig, baby, dig - but they'll also drill, baby, drill and pipe, baby, pipe and saw, baby, saw etc.
Regular Liberals like him b/c they want to remain in power, and he's likely the best of the bunch.
His resume is quite something.
A sharp, enlightening and informative take, thank you. That places Carbon Tax Carney into a more interesting perspective, one that has the requisite dimensions for a thorough and perhaps more fair assessment of the man. This should be much more widely known.
I still do not want him anywhere near political power in this country.
I think the simplest explanation is the Liberals are stuck in the 2010s. There was a time when Carney's profile would have been an asset, but the electorate has moved on and the Liberals haven't. I'm not sure it's in their DNA to do so: none of the leadership contenders seem stylistically fit for 2025 and I think there's a strong possibility the party fails to evolve and is eventually squeezed out of existence by populist leaders on the left and right (basically what happened to the BC Liberals)
That - the extinction of current "Liberal" party - would be a welcome and long overdue evolution. A reminder to all the nice and polished people out there: populism is democracy at its basic level, ignore it and diss it at your own peril.
As a protest; their last chance to kick Trudeau, maybe they shouldn't elect a leader for the next election. It's just a sacrifice anyway. Force him to go down with the ship. No, it won't happen, but maybe it should. They might actually gain some credibility.
Oh and Jen assuming the Liberal party has a plan to ensure election integrity to select our next PM may be the most optimistic statement ever said on the Line :)!
Online voting is a terrible idea in general (there could be bug / hack and no paper ballot "ground truth" to compare to) and that's before remembering this is the Liberal Party we're dealing with. We'll see, but I have a feeling this is going to be a shitshow.
Foreign interference is only one part of the concern though. At a more basic level, how do they avoid the process that got us Boaty McBoatface, NHL All-Star John Scott, the Spice Girls Baghdad concert, and the Stephen Colbert Space Station? The CRA-like bank verification is a good idea: can/will they use it? And is the tech bug-free and secure?
I get parties are technically private clubs, but Elections Canada should be running these things.
This was a great episode, full of interesting (if not mildly terrifying) thought experiments.
I do have one bone to pick with Gurney: at about 58:50 you referred to Trump's "fine people on both sides" hoax.
The fine people hoax has been debunked time and time again and as a political columnist, I feel it is your job to not spread such blatant lies.
It is disappointing to see that because it affects your credibility.
No effect on credibility in my eyes. The vantage point is 360 degrees.
True to form, Clark self-detonated shortly after you had this podcast in the can.
Question for our Line editors: is she done, or can she recover from this?
I think she's done.
I also agree with Matt and Jen that Freeland may not even run herself.
Looking more and more like a Carney Coronation.
The pm’s appearance on CNN was less a network’s interview with a foreign leader as it was Trudeau’s next step job audition once he has vacated office. What better integration of personal bluster and political myopia than that pre-arranged marriage.
Another comment. you asked the question of how could the Liberals have let this happen? They let it happen because they truly believe that they are chosen and their policies are faultless. They are ideologues not grounded leaders. Why do you think that they think they can get away with a three month campaign for leadership while Trump is coming into office? They think this because they are so certain that they are great and that the country cannot exist without them.
It’s on the same spectrum, although not as extreme, as what happened in the Soviet Union. All of the socialist policies were failing, but the reason given why they were failing was not because they were bad ideas, it was because the ideas weren’t implemented aggressively enough. So they kept doubling down until the USSR collapsed. Look at the immigration fiasco here in Canada. Doesn’t it look awfully similar to this? Problems were clearly arising early on when enacted, the government refuses to acknowledge them and then doubles down while their critics are howling by ramping up the numbers even higher until the immigration consensus collapses.
These guys truly believe in their magnificence. That’s why they can’t accept any feedback telling them otherwise.
Arguably your own example highlights how comparatively non-ideological the Liberals are: the Liberals initially resisted caving to criticisms regarding their immigration policy, but then eventually did so. Real ideologues do not cave to criticism at all. (Maybe I did not watch closely enough, but I never really noticed any Liberals being all too loud in the "Conservative critics are racist" charge.) But even when a government is insufferable in response to criticism, it can be less about ideology and more about plain partisanship.
Abusing prorogation for self-serving political purposes is increasingly a cross-partisan affair, given how we saw Harper do the same and same abuses happen at the provincial level. Prorogation abuses will not change until the political class becomes serious enough to support constitutional reform.
Party constitutions do not have legal force, so I doubt that there will be lawsuits of any kind against the Liberal Party. That being said, I did warn some Liberal colleagues that defying the timeline within the Liberal constitution would be a disaster: a political party falls apart whenever there is a consensus that the constitutional assignment of authority no longer has force, and that anything goes. The long-term repercussions here could be bad just for the Liberal Party alone, never-mind the potential harm of prorogation to the national interest.
Just wait until Elon tells his friends on X that they can they can select the next Prime Minister of Canada using just an email address.
The time when political parties can exist as private clubs must end. It is a National Security vulnerability we cannot afford.
One of the regulations that must be applied is that to vote for the leader of a party you must also be able to vote in an election. Consider our current system. Non citizens have a direct vote on who will be the next PM.
We should also return to the standard for Westminister Parliamentary systems and empower MP to select a leader from amongst thier numbers. This way we will never be left leaderless in a crisis again. The party, can chose to confirm or replace the leader after.
Christy Clark is at best a Red Tory, but really does have a history of identifying with the federal Liberal brand. One of the oddities of the BC Liberals was that they were the right wing party in BC, but they were always an amalgam of right wingers who’d previously supported the Socreds and genuine Liberals.
Clark is doomed anyway, of course: in BC, the right wing of her party never really trusted her as leader. The left hates her with a passion because of her role in the government that ended the BC NDP’s government of the ‘90s and gored so many of their sacred cows. The support she had was from party members who were pleasantly surprised when she managed to win another majority government for the Liberals after she succeeded Gordon Campbell. When the NDP won in 2017, that support was gone. As Matt notes, she doesn’t really have name recognition outside of BC. She doesn’t bring an existing base of support *in* BC, either.
It has become something of a running joke, the podcast being released minutes after real life takes your theses out back for a thumpin’. I guess that is the risk.
I raise this only, because every time real life catches up to you, I can’t help but think of the National Post sports writer Cam Cole: I apologise in advance because I’m thin on details, but, he wrote a scathing article about a golfer, apparently a bit of a drunk, apparently a real a**hole. Cam went completely Jen Gerson on him. Flamed him. Epic🔥
His piece was published the same day that said golfer died. A plane crash after a golf tournament if I recall.
So, Matt, Jen; you’re timings could be worse. Much worse 🤗
PS: Christy sunk herself, Anita bailed 🤭