You've got it bass-ackwards. The US isn't forcing us closer to China. Our closeness to China is forcing the US to abandon us. If you read Sam Cooper, then you know how deeply China has infiltrated Canada.
For me, I think the US is walking away from it's closest neighbor because the guy running the place is a geriatric lunatic. I think here in Canada, there is something very hidden about the relationship between the CCP and the liberal party. For me it started when Jean Chretien began doing yearly team Canada trips to the PRC along with provincial premiers, etc. A refusal to create a Royal Commission on Foreign Interference is pretty much occam's razor for me, all of it. A serious country would, I think, immediately want to root out the interference and prosecute its players.
Or I am asleep right now and we're in the Matrix. Sort of feels like it TBH. Big time.
As you point out, Canada has been snuggling up to China since long before Trump. Perhaps it is a chicken-and-egg situation, with the US and Canada mutually pulling away from each other. I would argue that, until Trump, it has mostly been going on during Democratic and Liberal rule. US-Canada relations were great under Reagan-Mulroney, and OK under Bush jr.-Harper.
The US moving away from us is an independent phenomenon caused by Trump policies, if you can call them that, and would be happening the exact same regardless of our relationship with China.
At the same time, there is a really concerning connection between the Liberals and the Chinese government that is proven by their actions which are indistinguishable from those they would be making if there was such a connection.
As to the Matrix / simulation issue - doesn't it feel like certain people and events have real-life 'plot armour' where the rules of political and even physical reality don't apply to them? Donald Trump is one of them. What are the chances that his ear got nicked by a 5.56 bullet in a way that made him look maximally heroic but left no lasting damage whatsoever? 1 in a number equal to the number of atoms in the universe? Clearly a central-plot-required character.
Poilievre was called Trump-Lite without appearing on Rogan.
It is telling that he had to go to the states to get out his message, which was not much different from what he has been saying since becoming party leader: fix Canada.
For me his message goes back to the apple incident. Some might call it character, who knows. All of his tactics have been adversarial gotcha attempts. It was this point when the people whose votes mattered decided he wasn't the guy for them. He tainted his message by behaviors and tactics that cement Carney as the only adult in the room. After a decade of Katy Perry's BF, I believe that's the key. That is, of course, if you haven't wrecked your appeal in the first place.
Adversarialism sucks.
People vote for people they like first and trust later. Sales 101. Sure Mark Carney slouches like Mr. Burns, but he isn't looking for the next opportunity to own his political enemies so he could own them on X that day.
I am not terribly impressed with the guy. He doesn't spend a lot of time in Canada. It would be nice if he did visit a couple of times a month. I believe he doesn't like the press any more than PP does and there have been a couple of moments during scrums where he looked indignant or put off by reporter's questions. I think the same can be said for when he is QP.
For me, I'm exhausted. And while I'm no fan of Mark Carney but he gives the appearance of doing something when he is jetting around signing MOUs. That matters tbh. At the same time, I won't be supporting the CPC any time soon because it is the NDP of the right. It seems to relish displaying lame-ass stunts like promising not to accepting their MP pension which is the CPC version of virtue signaling - something they detested in Katy Perry's bf.
Nobody ever said no to free money from the government.
The apple interview was going fine, Urquhart asked his gotcha questions, Poilievre asked him to explain, Urquhart couldn't, then the interview went fine again.
Carney asked Rosemary Barton to look inside her soul because she asked about his potential conflicts of interest, but nobody talks about that assholery.
Carney does give the appearance of doing things, but does very little. What he does do is not good for Canada. Can you imagine the howling when Poilievre wins an election and starts using his Bill C-5 and C-15 powers to build pipelines, or C-11 to shut down Islamists. The SCoC S.33 decision will take those powers from him shortly, though.
For me, my recollection was of him being a knob to a dumb reporter who was in over his head. Canada has just suffered ten years of the worst PM in the country's history while his conservative opposition did and still do dumb, gimmicky, goofy and frankly childish garbage. The Liberals always get a pass so I don't even consider that a factor any longer because the Liberal Party, as MG once noted, will do anything and say anything to win elections. Why do they get a pass? Toronto voters, Quebec voters and Ottawa voters, that's why, I think.
There is no point in pointing out that the eastern establishment dislike the CPC a lot. Like, a lot, lot. Mentioning it over and over and over and over eventually comes across as a major turnoff for people. I think. CPC should abandon this track because it is why, I believe, the CPC is unable to close the deal with Canadians.
At the end of the day, this is the path the CPC have chosen. They have wisely chosen other paths such as courting the labor movement, but the dumb ass shit the party does .. ugh. Just stop it and tell me why your plan is the best plan.
It's performative crap like Trudeau did and its dumb. Case in point, Jivani holding a bible to his chest in the HOC. Performative garbage. Makes me not want to vote for them because it's that crap that tells me they are far far far away from being ready for prime time.
The Carney government had better move fast to cauterize the disastrous remarks Mr Ma made during the testimony in committee of Margaret McCuaig-Johnston, a well-respected former public servant and presently an academic who studies PRC-related issues, including trade and economic relations.
Taken in the broader context of the government's outreach to the PRC and its ongoing slow-roll, or perhaps even the bowdlerization of the Foreign Agents' Registry, Ma's remarks have greatly increased the Prime Minister's vulnerability to political criticism.
PS: For what it's worth, an open letter about the Ma remarks, written by a prominent dissident, really underscores the scale of this problem.
C.f.: Rushan Abbas, Uyghur Leader Challenges MP Michael Ma on Uyghur Forced Labour: An Open Letter, President, Campaign for Uyghurs, 27 March 2026.
QUOTE
I am deeply alarmed by the remarks of Canadian MP Michael Ma, suggesting that if one has not personally seen forced labor in China, it cannot be true. By that logic, every dictatorship could erase its crimes simply by hiding them well enough.
The CCP’s ongoing Uyghur genocide is recognized by the independent London tribunal ruling and a dozen countries, including Canada. Uyghur forced labor is documented through credible reports, survivor testimonies, supply chain investigations, and even Chinese state media. UN experts stated in 2026 that the conditions may amount to enslavement. Calling these crimes anything else is ignorance at best and a defense of the CCP at worst.
I am a firsthand witness to this genocide. My sister, Dr. Gulshan Abbas, has been imprisoned for almost eight years in retaliation for my advocacy as an American citizen. If there is no genocide and forced labor, why does the CCP still hold her and try to silence me?
And this is not only about Uyghurs. Tibetans and Hong Kongers are all suffering under the same authoritarian regime. These cases should not be treated as a partisan issue but as a global moral and security threat that demands urgent attention.
I will be in Ottawa on 22 and 23rd of April and welcome a direct discussion with MP Ma on this matter and present the undeniable evidence of Uyghur atrocities and forced labor.
-Rushan Abbas,
President, Campaign for Uyghurs
END QUOTE
For more information about Abbas' latest book, see:
Generally agree with ya'll that we have bigger things to worry about as a nation than ye olde we-are-so-tired-of-arguing language chestnut. That said, in this particular instance, I feel it's more a case of etiquette than state-of-the-nation. From a personal, familial perspective of grief: under the circumstances it would be appropriate etiquette for someone at Air Canada (even if not the top guy) to be part of the public statement, speaking French and offering public condolences to the families of the pilots in their mother tongue.
Valid point, but one can equally say that making political hay of it is equally demonstrating a lack of compassion. I don't think Carney et al. did themselves any favours by acting like callous jerks.
I don’t agree with the furor or the double standards, but your simple, civil, kind and thoughtful sentiment should have been given more consideration, in my opinion.
I have just stopped the podcast to post this comment.
G & G have just - again; again, I say - noted that our government is dysfunctional and getting worse; Matt has noted that the health care system, in which his family finds itself, continues to sink. Jen has today posted a column about an adult toy room in Calgary Silly Hall.
So, now to my hobby horse .....
Jen, you have decried we in Alberta who want to separate as being foolish, just awful folk, but, really, can you blame us when you look at the incredibly inept country that Canada has become? Simply put, Canada is too, too, too big and diverse to fix; the problems too great. You both place your hopes in MC; I don't. I won't tell you that he is not capable - I just don't know; what I will tell you is that the problems have become so massive and the ennui of the Canadian public and our body politic means that things simply will not get better.
I offer a brilliant slogan (not of my coinage): Canada is broken. Terminally so.
Like you, Ken, I have little faith in Mark Carney.
Canada is just where he parks his cars.
Unlike you, however, I believe that Canada can be successfully reclaimed, repaired, and reinvigorated with Constitutional Reform, and devolution of powers.
I respect the fact you feel differently. I am not trying to change your mind.
All I wish to achieve is to show folks there is another way forward.
Donald, I admire your optimism. Actually, I think that Canada is simply where MC has one of his chauffeurs and related government paid vehicle.
You state that you ".. believe that Canada can be successfully reclaimed, repaired and reinvigorated with Constitutional Reform and devolution of powers. ..."
Again, I admire your optimism.
My question for you is to ask SPECIFICALLY why do you believe that Canada will reform it's constitution, including devolution of powers? My thought is that significant constitutional reform is simply impossible given the amending formula. Further, it seems to me that devolution of powers implicitly requires those powers to go from the federales to the provinces and, it further seems to me, that many provinces have a vested interest in a strong federal government as that form provides much cash (originating here in Alberta, of course) to those provinces.
So, I would be interested in the reason(s) for your optimism. In your response, I dearly hope that you won't resort to such bromides as "Well, they just HAVE to see that that is the only hope, etc." My point is that if I could understand - and share - your optimism I might think differently about our need to separate. But, but, but. I cannot see any reason for that optimism (which is why I am asking you about the source of your optimism) and that is what leads me to separation.
The catch is… Alberta is just as inept as the federal government and the other provinces.
You’re no different than the rest of us. Think about it. You’ve had oil wealth for decades and you’ve built what with it? A giant deficit and an economy utterly reliant on that same resource.
Now I don’t want to be unfair… it’s not like my province would have done any better. Or any other province.
Canada’s problems are Alberta’s problems. And British Columbia’s and Ontario etc.
Andrew, you can certainly have your opinion of our provincial government and, in certain areas, I will agree; in other areas I disagree.
On the other hand, yes we've had oil wealth for some time but the removal of more than $20 billion per annum by the feds for distribution to other provinces more than accounts for what would otherwise be a noticeable savings account. You may disagree with me on this but you would be wrong.
As for Canada's problems being Alberta's problems I mostly disagree and I point out that when our provincial government takes various tacks we are mercilessly criticized by our worsers (definitely not our betters) in ROC and even here at home from those who have the ROC disease.
A large part of the separatist movement is a real desire to be able to stop the shit that is infecting Canada from becoming permanent here. Whether we can accomplish that or whether the ROC shit has taken too firm a hold here remains to be seen.
I’ll just say that over the last thirty years or so, I haven’t heard many Albertans describe their government as efficient or productive or even “competent”.
Their description of their own government seems about on par with how the federal government is normally described. Take out the names and I’m not convinced anyone could tell the difference.
I'm a Francophone from Montreal, who moved out of Quebec in 1972 to get away from the language issues. I should have travelled further.
It is not possible to understand the gut reaction of French Quebecers by logic alone. It crystallizes two and a half centuries of insecurity and defensiveness.
Originally the dividing line was between Catholics and Protestants. But as time went on, the clergy thought that discouraging knowledge of English among their parishioners would be a bulwark against the possibility of Protestantism. Then, after the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s and the falling away of formal religion in Quebec society, only the linguistic defensiveness remains.
As a result, all the insecurities and angst of Francophone Quebecers are bound up in their language. The merest slight is a deep insult, that must be corrected (avenged?). Canada has to live with it.
Felicidades a Matt por sus continuos esfuerzos por aprender español. Ojalá más de mis compañeros canadienses hicieran lo mismo.
I just noticed you said “I should have travelled further”. I reached the same conclusion about Canada (Thank you Pierre Vallières) pretty quickly. Took a long time but in my 70s along with fellow Americans from 25 countries I took the oath of citizenship. Now I can die a free man. 😎
You’ve got it right on. I escaped to Canada in 1960 when I was 16. Having a French name I was one of the white (fill in the term) of America described by Pierre Vallières. And as a cultural Anglo I was one of the enemy in Quebec. (In Mexico the term is “gabacho”).
I would add to your narrative that IMO starting with the election of Trudeau the Greater and the invasion of the Ottawa civil service by Quebecers the destruction (“reengineering”) of the dominant Canadian Anglo culture ( eg Official bilingualism and multiculturalism) was pretty much completed in about a decade. So French Quebeckers got their revenge.
George, unlike you or Matt, I was unable to read the Spanish concluding paragraph. I THINK it was greetings, that you are also studying Spanish and something, something. Good on both of you; you have an interest and that is a fine reason to pursue a new language.
I was, however, able to read the comments that preceded that concluding paragraph and they certainly ring true to me. I am a native Albertan but at one time in my career I travelled to Quebec quite a bit and, yes, your commentary does ring true for me.
But.
I don't blasted well care. I have heard this bleating for all my 75 years and I just don't wish to listen to any of it any longer. Having said that, I know that it won't change in Canada.
On the other hand, I am an Alberta separatist and I await our referendum this fall and I hope and pray that we will leave this place. Not the least of the reasons is to leave behind the constant victimhood from Quebec. [There are other, very positive reasons to leave.]
If, just to pick on one thing, the cereal companies still ship bilingual cereal boxes to us, I won't object at all. They can be trilingual (or even quadrilingual) if they want but it will be because it is a commercial choice and not a government mandate.
We all have such different experiences. I’m a franco-ontarian who moved to rural Québec (pronounced with a ‘k’ sound, not a ‘qw’ sound) 25 years ago. I don’t think it needs to be so difficult. He only needed to say a sentence or two in French and it didn’t have to be perfect. No one was expecting good French, only good intentions. If you want Québec to be a part of Canada, then making an effort to include this reality shouldn’t be debatable. Either we belong or we don’t. I can’t tell you how many times I hear Gurney make a generalization about how things are for «Canadians » and I think to myself-« he means English-speaking Canadians and he just doesn’t know better. » It doesn’t upset me. I understand the language/cultural blinders. But when you hear it often, you start to feel invisible, alienated. If someone is addressing all Canadians, they need a few sentences in French. We have had several prime ministers now who have had mediocre to terrible French ( and I will include JT in that lot). Again, it’s the effort and attention that matters. In this case, given that one of the deceased pilots was a francophone from Québec, it’s an even bigger slight.
As for the point regarding other languages- it isn’t possible to thrive anywhere outside of Québec without speaking English. And this is also true for every francophone outside of Québec. Within Québec, it is still possible to thrive only speaking French. Most Québecois feel strongly about keeping it that way.
I respect your opinions. My experience is indeed different from yours.
We are talking about a lot of actions, or omissions, that are mostly symbolic. But symbolism and respect run both ways. From where I sit, many of Quebec's measures against English in the province are petty and very unlikely to contribute to the flourishing of the French language. But they strike a chord, both among many French who celebrate them, and among the English, who understand them for the insults that they are.
Early drafts of the Geneva Convention on Genocide included the crime of cultural genocide. That provision was dropped and does not constitute international law. But if it had been retained, you could apply it and find Quebec is committing cultural genocide against its English minority (Adam Jones gives this as an example in his book on Genocide).
Great podcast as usual!. I just spent time in Florida for baseball and had nothing but pleasant and friendly experiiences with Americans wh do not like their politics right now and expressed love for our country. It sure was a better feeling than what our country isright now and thats sad. . Not sure if you heard the business interview Pierre did with Bloomberg. It was well received also. The comment about Carney seeing what state we are in here and knows whatever I gree with but probably with a different view. I dont think he entered Canadian politics to fix us, believe he has his own personal al agenda why he did and whether that is for the good of our country try or the good of something else remains to be seen and I'll wait.......
I don't usually comment and overall I love The Line. But I note you both hate hypocrisy and call it out when you see it. But I seem to be the only one to comment on your casual discussion of your visits to the US in this episode, Jen to DC, Matt to Florida. You have talked about "asshole Canada" and about Canadians staying away from the US in droves and other steps we can take to show our displeasure, like not drinking bourbon. And I realize many folks need to go to the US for work, to visit family or for other good reasons. But I didn't hear any such justification for your visits and no acknowledgement even that you were indulging in US trips for clearly avoidable reasons. Seems to me the least you could have done was provide some acknowledgement and justification for the decision making while many of the rest of us have forgone vacations there for now. Seems a very small sacrifice to make given how you remind us regularly how existential this US threat is....for your consideration.
¡Que bien Señor Matt! ¡Es mucho mejor aprender el español en lugar del Quebecense! Hay màs de 200 millones latinos en America del Norte y solo 4 millones duros verdaderos francoquebecenses.
Sigh. More than 20 percent of the Canadian population speaks French as a first language. Our history is bound up with the history of "the French fact".
Donc, les deux langues officielles du Canada sont l'anglais et le français, pas l'espagnol.
To claim, as you did, that "the numbers" somehow make it more sensible for us to speak Spanish, is to ignore all of that.
I was going by the number of “vielle souche”/“pure laine” Quebeckers as per Wikipedia (admittedly a challengable source). I see them as the hard ass nationalists driving Quebec policy. More power to them.
You’re probably right about your numbers of French speakers. But I would question whether they live and work 100% in that language.
Ce que je veux dire c’est en choisissant une langue à apprendre en Amérique du Nord, c’est mieux d’apprendre une langue parlée par 200 millions de personnes plutôt qu’une langue parlée par 8 millions ( ou 4 selon le point de vue)
Pour moi, qui parle mal le français, il s'agit de mieux connaître mes amis et voisins dans « l'autre solitude ».
Quant à l'utilité, eh bien, le français est parlé par des centaines de millions de personnes à travers le monde. Nombre de ces francophones considèrent le québécois (ou franco-canadien) comme un peu « désuet », mais pour eux, c'est toujours du français.
As part of my pilot training it was ingrained in me that as “pilot in command” you are ultimately responsible for every thing that happens. And in case of an incident a lawyer - including your employer’s -will ensure that this comes out. And part of your responsibility is being aware to the extent possible of the traffic around you by your vision and listening to radio traffic. I expect some pointed questions along those lines.
It's taken a while, but what I'm hearing are two reasonably well informed people, who are not sugar-coating or reframing or subtly tweaking an apologetic narrative but, enunciating what some of the brute problems Canada faces as a country actually are and how these ongoing untreated problems (Jen referenced some as "non-virtuous" approaches... meaning 'death spiraling') are sinking the Canadian ship of state. I very much appreciated the analogy of this sinking ship because it captures how to fix it, explaining the importance of bailing first to equalize the effects of the untreated problems, of having to try to reduce the effects first in order to eventually expose the real problems causing them. That's exactly right because it grants us the metric to see if our public authorities and institutions are on task or not.
From out here in audience land, too often trying to describe and defend one's sense of approaching doom for cause, of pointing out endlessly that the rising water will sink this Canadian ship of state, means being targeted and dismissed as if we are the problem, as if we are extremists and traitors, as if elbows are simply not high enough, as if critics are not patriotic enough, for pointing out the consequences of not doing enough. The rising water we understand has many causes and being told that fixing all of them all at once by one politician is just too difficult because the political capital necessary to implement such a 'fix' is nearly impossible a task, an undertaking that will always cause the loss of support from those who benefit in any way from the sinking status quo. All true.
So it was refreshing and empowering to hear about the need to see some bailing from authority, to see the first steps (of bailing) towards getting to the problems that are fracturing the country today... and seeming to be only getting worse. Matt was exactly right to say Trump is the only force of influence - love, hate or tolerate him - that today holds Canadian leadership and those who support them accountable for why the ship of state is sinking. This is a necessary recognition because that is the first and fundamental step to fixing what is broken. Understanding and identifying the actual problems are necessary and fundamental to coming up with solutions that actually work.
We need more accountability and it was lovely to hear why that matters so much and why more Canadians need to push their representative more firmly in this direction. The increasing loss of responsible journalism makes this task ever more difficult, it's true. But it doesn't reduce its importance. More of us need to take this onboard. That's our civic duty.
Finally, it was refreshing that The Line understands the country needs to first hear and then see such undertakings from government and its public institutions if we are going to survive as a country, that these are the necessary goals we can start to achieve today, that we need to see evidence of achievement to start the process of getting to the multiple holes that need patching by at least bailing today, that we need to get back to re-establishing in public policies those stone-etched principles Jen saw on the public institutions of Washington. That's the course correction we need to undertake immediately, that needs plotting now in political platforms, if we are ever going to find safe harbour later. That's our task, our generation's challenge, before it's too late and we have to choose whether to sink or swim.
Great comments. Unfortunately, I think we are sunk. you have a morally bankrupt Liberal party that will say and do anything to retain power. they will continue with the tradition of increasing entitlements to a country that can't afford the ones we have to keep the boomers and lazy types on the payroll. After 15 more years of rent seeking and octopus economics we will hit rock bottom and then maybe another party will be able to take the reins but it will be a wild ride as the implementation of "Maple Tiger" policies that will be required to try and float this dumpster will leave a great portion of society with whiplash as 60 years of sitting on your collective butts collecting incentives will leave a great portion of our country unable to cope. Libs will be back in power 4 years after that as the promise of universal income will be too great to ignore. I have almost lost complete hope for this place that I used to love. Its a disappointment that is hard to put into words. :(
There is a path out. Let's see if it unfolds. But, like you, I am not - because I have been given no reason to be - hopeful. And doesn't that suck? So much national potential; and such a disappointment to match. Maybe, just maybe, if an appeal to the Cowichan decision is made, we'll have a starting point to begin the bailing. But if the secret negotiations by the BC government result in a 'settlement' and the opportunity to appeal is lost, then that's the final nail. The country will have been lost and the US will have to take over sooner or later for its own strategic interests.
While Mr. Ma is undoubtedly a tool, I am not expecting he's a Chinese asset. Mr. Carney recruited him to cross the floor, after all. For Carney to do this if Ma was a Chinese asset, either Carney would be incredibly complicit in this but did it anyways to achieve le majoritaire, Carney didn't bother reading his classified emails ala the Marc Miller route, or CSIS/RCMP aren't able to come up with the evidence.
Of course, it shows how cynical I am of the Liberals that I can actually believe the first option.
The Chinese government doesn't exactly publish their list of assets, so Mr. Ma could easily be a Chinese asset without Mr. Carney or CSIS knowing. (It's not like any of us think CSIS has all this information thanks to the network of Canadian spies who have infiltrated all levels of Chinese state security.)
That said, I think the "useful idiot" is far more likely. There are plenty of those and Mr. Ma is from Hong Kong. Finding out that someone from Hong Kong has sympathy for China isn't terribly surprising. I mean, if we found out that someone born in France was sympathetic to the French government and French view of the world, I wouldn't be surprised. Why should we be surprised to find out that Mr. Ma is sympathetic to the Chinese government and it's view of the world?
The difference of course is that China is not our friend and France is. Maybe we shouldn't elect MPs like Mr. Ma in the first place. Maybe any Canadian political party that wasn't crazy should have been able to take one look early on and say "YIKES, no thanks we like our people to be 100% loyal to Canada and not at all interested in making the Chinese government look good!"
And yet both our major parties saw fit to make him one of their own. Mr. Ma shouldn't be an MP or even be involved in politics, but both the Conservatives and the LPC helped make him a prominent MP.
I realize, looking at the comments posted thus far (late on Friday night), that most here seem very fired up about the criticism levelled at the CEO of Air Canada for not having spoken French when offering his condolences to the families of the two pilots who died in the United States.
I'm afraid that I couldn't disagree more with Jen and Matt on this. Air Canada has a charter that demands its adherence to official bilingualism. This wasn't about Mr Rousseau's inability to speak French, but his failure to respect that charter and his insensitivity to the issue.
Surely he could have had his remarks translated into French and then chosen to have presented some of that in what he shared? Even if he mangled the portion he spoke in French, he would at least have been given some credit for having tried.
Jen, I understand that many where you are, in Calgary, feel the way you do. As someone who grew up in Edmonton, I am familiar with the mindset.
Even so, I still think this tack was wrong-headed.
I will speak for myself here: the reason I was sorta "fired up" about the criticism levelled at the CEO of Air Canada is because, in all the circumstances, that criticism was both entirely disproportionate to the offence and took the focus off the major issue here. This was an awful tragedy in which two pilots lost their lives and many others were injured, some of them quite seriously. I hate the expression but for once it applies - read the bloody room! Yes, it would have been better had the message been delivered in French and English. But to focus on that when the bodies may have been cold but were not even back in the country is offensive, at least to me.
Of course it was a terrible outcome; the two were in the prime of life.
WRT the linguistic issue, well, Rousseau should have known better; Air Canada's charter, and the fact that Antoine Forest was a Francophone, with family in Quebec, surely made the language issue an important one.
You've got it bass-ackwards. The US isn't forcing us closer to China. Our closeness to China is forcing the US to abandon us. If you read Sam Cooper, then you know how deeply China has infiltrated Canada.
Your string of good arguments is unbroken.
Well done, Jerry.
Had Donald Trump never been elected President, we would still be facing the same threats, undue influence, and pressure to conform from China.
Nicely done.
For me, I think the US is walking away from it's closest neighbor because the guy running the place is a geriatric lunatic. I think here in Canada, there is something very hidden about the relationship between the CCP and the liberal party. For me it started when Jean Chretien began doing yearly team Canada trips to the PRC along with provincial premiers, etc. A refusal to create a Royal Commission on Foreign Interference is pretty much occam's razor for me, all of it. A serious country would, I think, immediately want to root out the interference and prosecute its players.
Or I am asleep right now and we're in the Matrix. Sort of feels like it TBH. Big time.
As you point out, Canada has been snuggling up to China since long before Trump. Perhaps it is a chicken-and-egg situation, with the US and Canada mutually pulling away from each other. I would argue that, until Trump, it has mostly been going on during Democratic and Liberal rule. US-Canada relations were great under Reagan-Mulroney, and OK under Bush jr.-Harper.
Yes, Chretien had that big Team Canada mission to China in the 1990s. I remember being suspect about that at the time.
I tend to agree.
The US moving away from us is an independent phenomenon caused by Trump policies, if you can call them that, and would be happening the exact same regardless of our relationship with China.
At the same time, there is a really concerning connection between the Liberals and the Chinese government that is proven by their actions which are indistinguishable from those they would be making if there was such a connection.
As to the Matrix / simulation issue - doesn't it feel like certain people and events have real-life 'plot armour' where the rules of political and even physical reality don't apply to them? Donald Trump is one of them. What are the chances that his ear got nicked by a 5.56 bullet in a way that made him look maximally heroic but left no lasting damage whatsoever? 1 in a number equal to the number of atoms in the universe? Clearly a central-plot-required character.
Matrix glitches are brutal these days.
Poilievre was called Trump-Lite without appearing on Rogan.
It is telling that he had to go to the states to get out his message, which was not much different from what he has been saying since becoming party leader: fix Canada.
For me his message goes back to the apple incident. Some might call it character, who knows. All of his tactics have been adversarial gotcha attempts. It was this point when the people whose votes mattered decided he wasn't the guy for them. He tainted his message by behaviors and tactics that cement Carney as the only adult in the room. After a decade of Katy Perry's BF, I believe that's the key. That is, of course, if you haven't wrecked your appeal in the first place.
Adversarialism sucks.
People vote for people they like first and trust later. Sales 101. Sure Mark Carney slouches like Mr. Burns, but he isn't looking for the next opportunity to own his political enemies so he could own them on X that day.
I am not terribly impressed with the guy. He doesn't spend a lot of time in Canada. It would be nice if he did visit a couple of times a month. I believe he doesn't like the press any more than PP does and there have been a couple of moments during scrums where he looked indignant or put off by reporter's questions. I think the same can be said for when he is QP.
For me, I'm exhausted. And while I'm no fan of Mark Carney but he gives the appearance of doing something when he is jetting around signing MOUs. That matters tbh. At the same time, I won't be supporting the CPC any time soon because it is the NDP of the right. It seems to relish displaying lame-ass stunts like promising not to accepting their MP pension which is the CPC version of virtue signaling - something they detested in Katy Perry's bf.
Nobody ever said no to free money from the government.
The apple interview was going fine, Urquhart asked his gotcha questions, Poilievre asked him to explain, Urquhart couldn't, then the interview went fine again.
Carney asked Rosemary Barton to look inside her soul because she asked about his potential conflicts of interest, but nobody talks about that assholery.
Carney does give the appearance of doing things, but does very little. What he does do is not good for Canada. Can you imagine the howling when Poilievre wins an election and starts using his Bill C-5 and C-15 powers to build pipelines, or C-11 to shut down Islamists. The SCoC S.33 decision will take those powers from him shortly, though.
For me, my recollection was of him being a knob to a dumb reporter who was in over his head. Canada has just suffered ten years of the worst PM in the country's history while his conservative opposition did and still do dumb, gimmicky, goofy and frankly childish garbage. The Liberals always get a pass so I don't even consider that a factor any longer because the Liberal Party, as MG once noted, will do anything and say anything to win elections. Why do they get a pass? Toronto voters, Quebec voters and Ottawa voters, that's why, I think.
There is no point in pointing out that the eastern establishment dislike the CPC a lot. Like, a lot, lot. Mentioning it over and over and over and over eventually comes across as a major turnoff for people. I think. CPC should abandon this track because it is why, I believe, the CPC is unable to close the deal with Canadians.
At the end of the day, this is the path the CPC have chosen. They have wisely chosen other paths such as courting the labor movement, but the dumb ass shit the party does .. ugh. Just stop it and tell me why your plan is the best plan.
It's performative crap like Trudeau did and its dumb. Case in point, Jivani holding a bible to his chest in the HOC. Performative garbage. Makes me not want to vote for them because it's that crap that tells me they are far far far away from being ready for prime time.
Thank you for this.
The Carney government had better move fast to cauterize the disastrous remarks Mr Ma made during the testimony in committee of Margaret McCuaig-Johnston, a well-respected former public servant and presently an academic who studies PRC-related issues, including trade and economic relations.
Taken in the broader context of the government's outreach to the PRC and its ongoing slow-roll, or perhaps even the bowdlerization of the Foreign Agents' Registry, Ma's remarks have greatly increased the Prime Minister's vulnerability to political criticism.
PS: For what it's worth, an open letter about the Ma remarks, written by a prominent dissident, really underscores the scale of this problem.
C.f.: Rushan Abbas, Uyghur Leader Challenges MP Michael Ma on Uyghur Forced Labour: An Open Letter, President, Campaign for Uyghurs, 27 March 2026.
QUOTE
I am deeply alarmed by the remarks of Canadian MP Michael Ma, suggesting that if one has not personally seen forced labor in China, it cannot be true. By that logic, every dictatorship could erase its crimes simply by hiding them well enough.
The CCP’s ongoing Uyghur genocide is recognized by the independent London tribunal ruling and a dozen countries, including Canada. Uyghur forced labor is documented through credible reports, survivor testimonies, supply chain investigations, and even Chinese state media. UN experts stated in 2026 that the conditions may amount to enslavement. Calling these crimes anything else is ignorance at best and a defense of the CCP at worst.
I am a firsthand witness to this genocide. My sister, Dr. Gulshan Abbas, has been imprisoned for almost eight years in retaliation for my advocacy as an American citizen. If there is no genocide and forced labor, why does the CCP still hold her and try to silence me?
And this is not only about Uyghurs. Tibetans and Hong Kongers are all suffering under the same authoritarian regime. These cases should not be treated as a partisan issue but as a global moral and security threat that demands urgent attention.
I will be in Ottawa on 22 and 23rd of April and welcome a direct discussion with MP Ma on this matter and present the undeniable evidence of Uyghur atrocities and forced labor.
-Rushan Abbas,
President, Campaign for Uyghurs
END QUOTE
For more information about Abbas' latest book, see:
https://optimumpublishinginternational.com/events-1/2026/3/25/optimum-publishing-internationalhttps/wwwoptimumpublishinginternational
Generally agree with ya'll that we have bigger things to worry about as a nation than ye olde we-are-so-tired-of-arguing language chestnut. That said, in this particular instance, I feel it's more a case of etiquette than state-of-the-nation. From a personal, familial perspective of grief: under the circumstances it would be appropriate etiquette for someone at Air Canada (even if not the top guy) to be part of the public statement, speaking French and offering public condolences to the families of the pilots in their mother tongue.
Valid point, but one can equally say that making political hay of it is equally demonstrating a lack of compassion. I don't think Carney et al. did themselves any favours by acting like callous jerks.
yup agreed about the political making hay as well.
I don’t agree with the furor or the double standards, but your simple, civil, kind and thoughtful sentiment should have been given more consideration, in my opinion.
You expressed my view much better than could I.
Well done, PJ.
I have just stopped the podcast to post this comment.
G & G have just - again; again, I say - noted that our government is dysfunctional and getting worse; Matt has noted that the health care system, in which his family finds itself, continues to sink. Jen has today posted a column about an adult toy room in Calgary Silly Hall.
So, now to my hobby horse .....
Jen, you have decried we in Alberta who want to separate as being foolish, just awful folk, but, really, can you blame us when you look at the incredibly inept country that Canada has become? Simply put, Canada is too, too, too big and diverse to fix; the problems too great. You both place your hopes in MC; I don't. I won't tell you that he is not capable - I just don't know; what I will tell you is that the problems have become so massive and the ennui of the Canadian public and our body politic means that things simply will not get better.
I offer a brilliant slogan (not of my coinage): Canada is broken. Terminally so.
Like you, Ken, I have little faith in Mark Carney.
Canada is just where he parks his cars.
Unlike you, however, I believe that Canada can be successfully reclaimed, repaired, and reinvigorated with Constitutional Reform, and devolution of powers.
I respect the fact you feel differently. I am not trying to change your mind.
All I wish to achieve is to show folks there is another way forward.
Donald, I admire your optimism. Actually, I think that Canada is simply where MC has one of his chauffeurs and related government paid vehicle.
You state that you ".. believe that Canada can be successfully reclaimed, repaired and reinvigorated with Constitutional Reform and devolution of powers. ..."
Again, I admire your optimism.
My question for you is to ask SPECIFICALLY why do you believe that Canada will reform it's constitution, including devolution of powers? My thought is that significant constitutional reform is simply impossible given the amending formula. Further, it seems to me that devolution of powers implicitly requires those powers to go from the federales to the provinces and, it further seems to me, that many provinces have a vested interest in a strong federal government as that form provides much cash (originating here in Alberta, of course) to those provinces.
So, I would be interested in the reason(s) for your optimism. In your response, I dearly hope that you won't resort to such bromides as "Well, they just HAVE to see that that is the only hope, etc." My point is that if I could understand - and share - your optimism I might think differently about our need to separate. But, but, but. I cannot see any reason for that optimism (which is why I am asking you about the source of your optimism) and that is what leads me to separation.
I've been saying for years that Canada would be better off as independent nations. Heck, we would probably have more free trade than we have now.
The catch is… Alberta is just as inept as the federal government and the other provinces.
You’re no different than the rest of us. Think about it. You’ve had oil wealth for decades and you’ve built what with it? A giant deficit and an economy utterly reliant on that same resource.
Now I don’t want to be unfair… it’s not like my province would have done any better. Or any other province.
Canada’s problems are Alberta’s problems. And British Columbia’s and Ontario etc.
Andrew, you can certainly have your opinion of our provincial government and, in certain areas, I will agree; in other areas I disagree.
On the other hand, yes we've had oil wealth for some time but the removal of more than $20 billion per annum by the feds for distribution to other provinces more than accounts for what would otherwise be a noticeable savings account. You may disagree with me on this but you would be wrong.
As for Canada's problems being Alberta's problems I mostly disagree and I point out that when our provincial government takes various tacks we are mercilessly criticized by our worsers (definitely not our betters) in ROC and even here at home from those who have the ROC disease.
A large part of the separatist movement is a real desire to be able to stop the shit that is infecting Canada from becoming permanent here. Whether we can accomplish that or whether the ROC shit has taken too firm a hold here remains to be seen.
I’ll just say that over the last thirty years or so, I haven’t heard many Albertans describe their government as efficient or productive or even “competent”.
Their description of their own government seems about on par with how the federal government is normally described. Take out the names and I’m not convinced anyone could tell the difference.
I'm a Francophone from Montreal, who moved out of Quebec in 1972 to get away from the language issues. I should have travelled further.
It is not possible to understand the gut reaction of French Quebecers by logic alone. It crystallizes two and a half centuries of insecurity and defensiveness.
Originally the dividing line was between Catholics and Protestants. But as time went on, the clergy thought that discouraging knowledge of English among their parishioners would be a bulwark against the possibility of Protestantism. Then, after the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s and the falling away of formal religion in Quebec society, only the linguistic defensiveness remains.
As a result, all the insecurities and angst of Francophone Quebecers are bound up in their language. The merest slight is a deep insult, that must be corrected (avenged?). Canada has to live with it.
Felicidades a Matt por sus continuos esfuerzos por aprender español. Ojalá más de mis compañeros canadienses hicieran lo mismo.
I could read that.
Especially the English part.
I just noticed you said “I should have travelled further”. I reached the same conclusion about Canada (Thank you Pierre Vallières) pretty quickly. Took a long time but in my 70s along with fellow Americans from 25 countries I took the oath of citizenship. Now I can die a free man. 😎
You’ve got it right on. I escaped to Canada in 1960 when I was 16. Having a French name I was one of the white (fill in the term) of America described by Pierre Vallières. And as a cultural Anglo I was one of the enemy in Quebec. (In Mexico the term is “gabacho”).
I would add to your narrative that IMO starting with the election of Trudeau the Greater and the invasion of the Ottawa civil service by Quebecers the destruction (“reengineering”) of the dominant Canadian Anglo culture ( eg Official bilingualism and multiculturalism) was pretty much completed in about a decade. So French Quebeckers got their revenge.
George, unlike you or Matt, I was unable to read the Spanish concluding paragraph. I THINK it was greetings, that you are also studying Spanish and something, something. Good on both of you; you have an interest and that is a fine reason to pursue a new language.
I was, however, able to read the comments that preceded that concluding paragraph and they certainly ring true to me. I am a native Albertan but at one time in my career I travelled to Quebec quite a bit and, yes, your commentary does ring true for me.
But.
I don't blasted well care. I have heard this bleating for all my 75 years and I just don't wish to listen to any of it any longer. Having said that, I know that it won't change in Canada.
On the other hand, I am an Alberta separatist and I await our referendum this fall and I hope and pray that we will leave this place. Not the least of the reasons is to leave behind the constant victimhood from Quebec. [There are other, very positive reasons to leave.]
If, just to pick on one thing, the cereal companies still ship bilingual cereal boxes to us, I won't object at all. They can be trilingual (or even quadrilingual) if they want but it will be because it is a commercial choice and not a government mandate.
Yep. Canada needs to change or Canada will be changed.
Whether or not I agree with you, Ken, I enjoy reading your posts.
We all have such different experiences. I’m a franco-ontarian who moved to rural Québec (pronounced with a ‘k’ sound, not a ‘qw’ sound) 25 years ago. I don’t think it needs to be so difficult. He only needed to say a sentence or two in French and it didn’t have to be perfect. No one was expecting good French, only good intentions. If you want Québec to be a part of Canada, then making an effort to include this reality shouldn’t be debatable. Either we belong or we don’t. I can’t tell you how many times I hear Gurney make a generalization about how things are for «Canadians » and I think to myself-« he means English-speaking Canadians and he just doesn’t know better. » It doesn’t upset me. I understand the language/cultural blinders. But when you hear it often, you start to feel invisible, alienated. If someone is addressing all Canadians, they need a few sentences in French. We have had several prime ministers now who have had mediocre to terrible French ( and I will include JT in that lot). Again, it’s the effort and attention that matters. In this case, given that one of the deceased pilots was a francophone from Québec, it’s an even bigger slight.
As for the point regarding other languages- it isn’t possible to thrive anywhere outside of Québec without speaking English. And this is also true for every francophone outside of Québec. Within Québec, it is still possible to thrive only speaking French. Most Québecois feel strongly about keeping it that way.
I respect your opinions. My experience is indeed different from yours.
We are talking about a lot of actions, or omissions, that are mostly symbolic. But symbolism and respect run both ways. From where I sit, many of Quebec's measures against English in the province are petty and very unlikely to contribute to the flourishing of the French language. But they strike a chord, both among many French who celebrate them, and among the English, who understand them for the insults that they are.
Early drafts of the Geneva Convention on Genocide included the crime of cultural genocide. That provision was dropped and does not constitute international law. But if it had been retained, you could apply it and find Quebec is committing cultural genocide against its English minority (Adam Jones gives this as an example in his book on Genocide).
Great podcast as usual!. I just spent time in Florida for baseball and had nothing but pleasant and friendly experiiences with Americans wh do not like their politics right now and expressed love for our country. It sure was a better feeling than what our country isright now and thats sad. . Not sure if you heard the business interview Pierre did with Bloomberg. It was well received also. The comment about Carney seeing what state we are in here and knows whatever I gree with but probably with a different view. I dont think he entered Canadian politics to fix us, believe he has his own personal al agenda why he did and whether that is for the good of our country try or the good of something else remains to be seen and I'll wait.......
I don't think the US wants to consume us like dog would a chicken wing, they just want to distance themselves from the resulting dog turd.
I don't usually comment and overall I love The Line. But I note you both hate hypocrisy and call it out when you see it. But I seem to be the only one to comment on your casual discussion of your visits to the US in this episode, Jen to DC, Matt to Florida. You have talked about "asshole Canada" and about Canadians staying away from the US in droves and other steps we can take to show our displeasure, like not drinking bourbon. And I realize many folks need to go to the US for work, to visit family or for other good reasons. But I didn't hear any such justification for your visits and no acknowledgement even that you were indulging in US trips for clearly avoidable reasons. Seems to me the least you could have done was provide some acknowledgement and justification for the decision making while many of the rest of us have forgone vacations there for now. Seems a very small sacrifice to make given how you remind us regularly how existential this US threat is....for your consideration.
¡Que bien Señor Matt! ¡Es mucho mejor aprender el español en lugar del Quebecense! Hay màs de 200 millones latinos en America del Norte y solo 4 millones duros verdaderos francoquebecenses.
Tambien, in Espana (y Mexico y Panama y Costa Rica), los inviernos tiene calor. No tener nieve.
👍👍👍
Sigh. More than 20 percent of the Canadian population speaks French as a first language. Our history is bound up with the history of "the French fact".
Donc, les deux langues officielles du Canada sont l'anglais et le français, pas l'espagnol.
To claim, as you did, that "the numbers" somehow make it more sensible for us to speak Spanish, is to ignore all of that.
I don't think it makes sense for "us" to speak Spanish ahead of French. It might make sense for me to, though.
Spanish is a lovely language, and remarkably akin to Italian. Good on you for learning it.
I was going by the number of “vielle souche”/“pure laine” Quebeckers as per Wikipedia (admittedly a challengable source). I see them as the hard ass nationalists driving Quebec policy. More power to them.
You’re probably right about your numbers of French speakers. But I would question whether they live and work 100% in that language.
Ce que je veux dire c’est en choisissant une langue à apprendre en Amérique du Nord, c’est mieux d’apprendre une langue parlée par 200 millions de personnes plutôt qu’une langue parlée par 8 millions ( ou 4 selon le point de vue)
Purely from a commercial viewpoint.
Pour moi, qui parle mal le français, il s'agit de mieux connaître mes amis et voisins dans « l'autre solitude ».
Quant à l'utilité, eh bien, le français est parlé par des centaines de millions de personnes à travers le monde. Nombre de ces francophones considèrent le québécois (ou franco-canadien) comme un peu « désuet », mais pour eux, c'est toujours du français.
Ce sont des bonnes raisons. Nous avons tous nos valeurs.
Je ne doute pas qu’il y a beaucoup de Francophones a travèrs le monde. Je considerais seulement l’Amérique du Nord, incluant le Mexique.
As part of my pilot training it was ingrained in me that as “pilot in command” you are ultimately responsible for every thing that happens. And in case of an incident a lawyer - including your employer’s -will ensure that this comes out. And part of your responsibility is being aware to the extent possible of the traffic around you by your vision and listening to radio traffic. I expect some pointed questions along those lines.
Jen, did the decor of the West Wing look like Saddam Hussein and Liberace had a love child?
Best podcast yet.
It's taken a while, but what I'm hearing are two reasonably well informed people, who are not sugar-coating or reframing or subtly tweaking an apologetic narrative but, enunciating what some of the brute problems Canada faces as a country actually are and how these ongoing untreated problems (Jen referenced some as "non-virtuous" approaches... meaning 'death spiraling') are sinking the Canadian ship of state. I very much appreciated the analogy of this sinking ship because it captures how to fix it, explaining the importance of bailing first to equalize the effects of the untreated problems, of having to try to reduce the effects first in order to eventually expose the real problems causing them. That's exactly right because it grants us the metric to see if our public authorities and institutions are on task or not.
From out here in audience land, too often trying to describe and defend one's sense of approaching doom for cause, of pointing out endlessly that the rising water will sink this Canadian ship of state, means being targeted and dismissed as if we are the problem, as if we are extremists and traitors, as if elbows are simply not high enough, as if critics are not patriotic enough, for pointing out the consequences of not doing enough. The rising water we understand has many causes and being told that fixing all of them all at once by one politician is just too difficult because the political capital necessary to implement such a 'fix' is nearly impossible a task, an undertaking that will always cause the loss of support from those who benefit in any way from the sinking status quo. All true.
So it was refreshing and empowering to hear about the need to see some bailing from authority, to see the first steps (of bailing) towards getting to the problems that are fracturing the country today... and seeming to be only getting worse. Matt was exactly right to say Trump is the only force of influence - love, hate or tolerate him - that today holds Canadian leadership and those who support them accountable for why the ship of state is sinking. This is a necessary recognition because that is the first and fundamental step to fixing what is broken. Understanding and identifying the actual problems are necessary and fundamental to coming up with solutions that actually work.
We need more accountability and it was lovely to hear why that matters so much and why more Canadians need to push their representative more firmly in this direction. The increasing loss of responsible journalism makes this task ever more difficult, it's true. But it doesn't reduce its importance. More of us need to take this onboard. That's our civic duty.
Finally, it was refreshing that The Line understands the country needs to first hear and then see such undertakings from government and its public institutions if we are going to survive as a country, that these are the necessary goals we can start to achieve today, that we need to see evidence of achievement to start the process of getting to the multiple holes that need patching by at least bailing today, that we need to get back to re-establishing in public policies those stone-etched principles Jen saw on the public institutions of Washington. That's the course correction we need to undertake immediately, that needs plotting now in political platforms, if we are ever going to find safe harbour later. That's our task, our generation's challenge, before it's too late and we have to choose whether to sink or swim.
Great comments. Unfortunately, I think we are sunk. you have a morally bankrupt Liberal party that will say and do anything to retain power. they will continue with the tradition of increasing entitlements to a country that can't afford the ones we have to keep the boomers and lazy types on the payroll. After 15 more years of rent seeking and octopus economics we will hit rock bottom and then maybe another party will be able to take the reins but it will be a wild ride as the implementation of "Maple Tiger" policies that will be required to try and float this dumpster will leave a great portion of society with whiplash as 60 years of sitting on your collective butts collecting incentives will leave a great portion of our country unable to cope. Libs will be back in power 4 years after that as the promise of universal income will be too great to ignore. I have almost lost complete hope for this place that I used to love. Its a disappointment that is hard to put into words. :(
There is a path out. Let's see if it unfolds. But, like you, I am not - because I have been given no reason to be - hopeful. And doesn't that suck? So much national potential; and such a disappointment to match. Maybe, just maybe, if an appeal to the Cowichan decision is made, we'll have a starting point to begin the bailing. But if the secret negotiations by the BC government result in a 'settlement' and the opportunity to appeal is lost, then that's the final nail. The country will have been lost and the US will have to take over sooner or later for its own strategic interests.
While Mr. Ma is undoubtedly a tool, I am not expecting he's a Chinese asset. Mr. Carney recruited him to cross the floor, after all. For Carney to do this if Ma was a Chinese asset, either Carney would be incredibly complicit in this but did it anyways to achieve le majoritaire, Carney didn't bother reading his classified emails ala the Marc Miller route, or CSIS/RCMP aren't able to come up with the evidence.
Of course, it shows how cynical I am of the Liberals that I can actually believe the first option.
Carney is incredibly complicit in this but did it anyways to achieve le majoritaire.
The Chinese government doesn't exactly publish their list of assets, so Mr. Ma could easily be a Chinese asset without Mr. Carney or CSIS knowing. (It's not like any of us think CSIS has all this information thanks to the network of Canadian spies who have infiltrated all levels of Chinese state security.)
That said, I think the "useful idiot" is far more likely. There are plenty of those and Mr. Ma is from Hong Kong. Finding out that someone from Hong Kong has sympathy for China isn't terribly surprising. I mean, if we found out that someone born in France was sympathetic to the French government and French view of the world, I wouldn't be surprised. Why should we be surprised to find out that Mr. Ma is sympathetic to the Chinese government and it's view of the world?
The difference of course is that China is not our friend and France is. Maybe we shouldn't elect MPs like Mr. Ma in the first place. Maybe any Canadian political party that wasn't crazy should have been able to take one look early on and say "YIKES, no thanks we like our people to be 100% loyal to Canada and not at all interested in making the Chinese government look good!"
And yet both our major parties saw fit to make him one of their own. Mr. Ma shouldn't be an MP or even be involved in politics, but both the Conservatives and the LPC helped make him a prominent MP.
I realize, looking at the comments posted thus far (late on Friday night), that most here seem very fired up about the criticism levelled at the CEO of Air Canada for not having spoken French when offering his condolences to the families of the two pilots who died in the United States.
I'm afraid that I couldn't disagree more with Jen and Matt on this. Air Canada has a charter that demands its adherence to official bilingualism. This wasn't about Mr Rousseau's inability to speak French, but his failure to respect that charter and his insensitivity to the issue.
Surely he could have had his remarks translated into French and then chosen to have presented some of that in what he shared? Even if he mangled the portion he spoke in French, he would at least have been given some credit for having tried.
Jen, I understand that many where you are, in Calgary, feel the way you do. As someone who grew up in Edmonton, I am familiar with the mindset.
Even so, I still think this tack was wrong-headed.
I will speak for myself here: the reason I was sorta "fired up" about the criticism levelled at the CEO of Air Canada is because, in all the circumstances, that criticism was both entirely disproportionate to the offence and took the focus off the major issue here. This was an awful tragedy in which two pilots lost their lives and many others were injured, some of them quite seriously. I hate the expression but for once it applies - read the bloody room! Yes, it would have been better had the message been delivered in French and English. But to focus on that when the bodies may have been cold but were not even back in the country is offensive, at least to me.
Of course it was a terrible outcome; the two were in the prime of life.
WRT the linguistic issue, well, Rousseau should have known better; Air Canada's charter, and the fact that Antoine Forest was a Francophone, with family in Quebec, surely made the language issue an important one.