The prime minister is much more comfortable apologizing for things that happened 100 years ago than something that happened last week with him in the room.
Our PM doubtless considers "150 years" merely a judicious safety margin: anything he apologizes for that happened that long ago can't be pinned on him--and that's what matters. When it comes to admitting he's in the wrong and backing down gracefully for any mistake made since his party assumed power, forget it! This is a guy who was born wearing a "Not Me!" tee-shirt, and the phrase was probably emblazoned on his diapers. The talent for evasion he exhibits in Question Period comes naturally to him and has been honed to a fine art. Granted, the art is that of irresponsibility, but why quibble? Concede the man his area of expertise.
Precisely. One clear example -- he’s the guy who experienced the Kokanee Grope differently. This present occurrence should have been too easy for him to perform promptly, as he clearly had nothing to do with it.
Great podcast. I’ve got no substantial comment to add, but a question -- what kind of country would grant citizenship to a terrorist gangster like Nijjar?
If it helps your algorithm-tracking, I listen to the podcast through your SubStack account on my iPhone while engaging my morning walk -- this morning an especially pleasant one as I wrap up a week in the Nation’s Capital.
I wish I could communicate just how much people in organizations don't understand the geopolitical realignment and our economic decline. Obsession with details while the house burns doesn't begin to describe what is happening. I could scream directly at people, my bosses included, about these issues and how we need to do better and they would just smirk and get back to editing a document for the 14th time. Weep along with me.
The first half to two-thirds of this podcast could be summarized as 'an observational commentary on the continuing stoooorrrrry of Canada's relentless descent from a third-rate Mediocracy to a twelth-rate Incompetocracy'. How utterly vile and depressing to contemplate (the relentless descent, not the commentary concerning it). I share the sentiment of both of our intrepid Line Editors that we are epically, totally, and in all other ways boned. Even if by some miracle Canadians finally rid us of the current coalition government, I have little confidence that the CPC has the bench strength to pull us off the cliff.
This leads me to speculate what may come after what I see as the inevitable collapse of the Canadian Experiment. Ten years, twenty, more, less - who knows? I increasingly feel it inevitable.
We remain an amazingly resource-rich and vast geography that just happens to be north of the United States. Matt and Jen accurately summarize that Canada has all but squandered the ability to benefit from this fact (15 years to approval, or not, to build critical infrastructure may even be optimistic).
The question I would love to hear our Line Editors and their writers speculate on is...what might come after the Canadian Experiment collapses under its collosal ineptitude? Who will pick up the pieces and attempt to reassemble them into something that works? The US? China? India? We know all three have designs on what we have. For many years the Americans have been the largest influence on us. Over the last two decades it has been China and India who have been subtly reshaping this country, both from abroad and from within. The Americans, of course, have the most to be concerned about if China takes control over Post-Canada. They might be able to tolerate an India-controlled Post-Canada if they can successfully forge an economic-strategic bulwark against China's quest for world domination through an alliance with India. Not sure if the USA has the capacity or the desire to simply absorb us into their own disfunctional state, but I'm very sure they would tolerate an India-controlled northern neighbo(u)r to a Chinese one.
Anyway...thanks to Matt and Jen for their post-mortem of a thoroughly mortifying week to contemplate our failing country. However, they (and we) may tire of the weekly commentary as this country as currently governed continues to circle the bowl. Perhaps they can have some fun exploring the themes I've raised above. The lands and waters temporarily known as Canada are much, much too valuable to go unclaimed by world powers with more competent governance. It would be interesting to speculate what that might look like. It might even attract some more subscribers...hey, no one else is contemplating what might happen Post-Canada...why not The Line?
I am surprised that senior officers are not putting service before self and resigning. I served over 39 years in the RCN and it broke my heart to see how far it had fallen.
One thing not discussed about the India-Canada spat and its impact and implications. Rice is a staple food for millions of Canadians. An important part of many families diet. It also happens that India is a substantial exporter of rice to Canada.
Many Canadians who don't depend on rice may not notice but India has put on place an export ban and many families and restaurants are feeling the pinch.
For many Canadians it is more than just a war of words. At a time when food is already expensive and budgets stretched, there is now even more pressure being applied with the sudden shortage of this important staple.
Agreed with just about everything else discussed on the pod. Remember when we used to say the 21st century would belong to Canada? That feels so very long ago now. And I don't see anyone in the political class with the courage or ideas to lead us back there.
I’m with Jen Gerson regarding the use of the notwithstanding clause - it’s in the constitution as a check on the judiciary, it’s consistent with parliamentary supremacy, and if governments don’t pay a political price when they trigger it, hard to say they were wrong.
I think the underlying problem is actually that Canada’s constitution gives too much power to judges, and an expansive approach to a “living tree” philosophy has encouraged judges to meddle in political matters that should be dealt with by legislatures. We’ve also seen that Canada’s legal establishment is a fairly small, clubby group without a lot of ideological diversity. They’ll produce what seem to be great results if you’re of a similar mindset, but a lack of dissenting voices can also produce some poorly considered decisions that lead to decades of problems due to unforeseen consequences.
I listened to this today and so am a bit late - good podcast in my view.
A brief observation on the lamentable state of the CAF. As noted, this is scarcely a new issue. I served for some twenty years from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s. Bleak was the only adjective that could be mustered for that period. After I left the Service, it promptly got worse and really hasn't recovered in the nearly thirty years since.
What should have happened after Canada shipped ammunition and equipment to Ukraine, as we did starting in 2022, was a stream of orders going out to suppliers for replacements. To my knowledge this has not happened at all. Net incremental cost to Canada for our 'support' to Ukraine is likely close to zero - and that includes transporting the stuff overseas in that the budget for the aircraft used and so on is built into the standard operating budget. I suspect that some extra costs were involved but I very much doubt were material and if necessary just park the fighter aircraft and tie up the navy. The replacement orders didn't happen - how do I know? Well, it transpires we're out of ammunition and can't supply Ukraine much more.
It all beggars belief. Our slide into irrelevance proceeds apace.
On another day we can talk about financial incompetence...
Much comment on subs, likes & algorithms as is proper and not uncommon. Am looking forward to any insights you might provide on Friday afternoon's post from @CRTCeng. Comms are a problem with this government? No kidding.
That came out after we recorded and we had hoped to get something into the written dispatch but just wasn't feasible this weekend. I assure you, though, we're on top of it. Will get something out at The Line soon.
About section 33... the thing "the technocrats" seem to forget is what "the democrats" would do in response to the notwithstanding clause being removed. It's theoretically possible they'll do nothing and say "well I suppose it's better to be told by our betters what the law should be rather than deciding ourselves".... but I don't think that'll happen.
The other option is to make sure the Supreme Court makes the "right" decision... by making sure YOUR people are on the court and the other side's people are not.
That's sub-optimal for all of us, but I think a lot of people will choose that if given the choice between litmus testing the court to fit their own values and being ruled by an elite class who enforce the values of the minority.
But I don't think most of "the technocrats" are really technocrats. I think most of them just want decisions they agree with. There's no particular reason why a differently composed Supreme Court couldn't find all kinds of things in the "living tree".... things like unenumerated property rights. Or perhaps a right to carry a hand gun for self defence. After all, some people are physically stronger and able to brutally harm weaker people... and that power breaks down roughly on male/female lines... so there's no particular reason the court couldn't "read in" concealed carry rights. The list could go on and on, but I think it's pretty obvious that many of the people insisting that parliament shouldn't have the power to overrule the court would say something VERY different in that case.
I thought I heard Jen say that the Sask policy includes mandatory parental notification. It doesn’t. If the parents are not aware the child is “transitioning”, then the school won’t entertain the new name/gender, while connecting the child with supports. The school isn’t notifying the parents and ‘outing’ the kid.
I wrote this in response to Peter Mansbridge’s Friday podcast.
On your Friday podcast the three of you were commenting on the lack of political rewards when parties focus on international issues. Canadians are still of the mindset that they live in a fireproof house and until we get really punched in the face with an international crisis (be it environmental, or a physical attack of some sort) that attitude will continue. So until that event happens (the pandemic has not shaken us from that belief) the federal government of all political persuasions will do the barest minimum to maintain our seat in certain clubs, and as a result we'll be further pushed to the sidelines. I don't want to hear "Canada's Back!" until there are some actual concrete steps taken to back up that announcement (restoring our Foreign Service would be a start).
Another item, (which loops into the above paragraph) is that I think our universities need to introduce a Canadian Civics course as a requirement to gain their degrees. I was able to see some results of a focus group of Poly Sci Students from UBC and their knowledge of the Canadian system of government, foreign and defence issues, the responsibilities of the courts and law enforcement was sorely nieve and superficial. Yes I know high school students are taught civics but when University level students are ignorant of basic facts there is a problem that needs to be addressed. For example the Convoy and their manifesto is a reflection of the abject lack of understanding that many Canadians have of living in a country with a Constitutional Monarchy form of government.
My final point, (which likely sounds rather contradictory after reading the above) is that ordinary Canadians should not have to worry about foreign issues and Canada's place in the world. They should be confident that they elected mature and thoughtful politicians who will lean on the advice and experience of a world class domestic civil service, a foreign service that is tapped into countries that can help us or harm us, and a defence force that is funded, equipped, and trained to do the duties delegated to them from the politicians that they elected. The Pandemic exposed the rot in those foundations and I really worry that we don't have the gravitas and capability to do the critical assessment of how to fix those foundations.
...Poli sci generally includes a civics component on how Canada's government works. So if poli sci students don't know that, it's because they didn't pay attention or didn't understand it.
Our PM doubtless considers "150 years" merely a judicious safety margin: anything he apologizes for that happened that long ago can't be pinned on him--and that's what matters. When it comes to admitting he's in the wrong and backing down gracefully for any mistake made since his party assumed power, forget it! This is a guy who was born wearing a "Not Me!" tee-shirt, and the phrase was probably emblazoned on his diapers. The talent for evasion he exhibits in Question Period comes naturally to him and has been honed to a fine art. Granted, the art is that of irresponsibility, but why quibble? Concede the man his area of expertise.
Precisely. One clear example -- he’s the guy who experienced the Kokanee Grope differently. This present occurrence should have been too easy for him to perform promptly, as he clearly had nothing to do with it.
Great podcast. I’ve got no substantial comment to add, but a question -- what kind of country would grant citizenship to a terrorist gangster like Nijjar?
If it helps your algorithm-tracking, I listen to the podcast through your SubStack account on my iPhone while engaging my morning walk -- this morning an especially pleasant one as I wrap up a week in the Nation’s Capital.
Looking forward to seeing you in Toronto!
I wish I could communicate just how much people in organizations don't understand the geopolitical realignment and our economic decline. Obsession with details while the house burns doesn't begin to describe what is happening. I could scream directly at people, my bosses included, about these issues and how we need to do better and they would just smirk and get back to editing a document for the 14th time. Weep along with me.
The first half to two-thirds of this podcast could be summarized as 'an observational commentary on the continuing stoooorrrrry of Canada's relentless descent from a third-rate Mediocracy to a twelth-rate Incompetocracy'. How utterly vile and depressing to contemplate (the relentless descent, not the commentary concerning it). I share the sentiment of both of our intrepid Line Editors that we are epically, totally, and in all other ways boned. Even if by some miracle Canadians finally rid us of the current coalition government, I have little confidence that the CPC has the bench strength to pull us off the cliff.
This leads me to speculate what may come after what I see as the inevitable collapse of the Canadian Experiment. Ten years, twenty, more, less - who knows? I increasingly feel it inevitable.
We remain an amazingly resource-rich and vast geography that just happens to be north of the United States. Matt and Jen accurately summarize that Canada has all but squandered the ability to benefit from this fact (15 years to approval, or not, to build critical infrastructure may even be optimistic).
The question I would love to hear our Line Editors and their writers speculate on is...what might come after the Canadian Experiment collapses under its collosal ineptitude? Who will pick up the pieces and attempt to reassemble them into something that works? The US? China? India? We know all three have designs on what we have. For many years the Americans have been the largest influence on us. Over the last two decades it has been China and India who have been subtly reshaping this country, both from abroad and from within. The Americans, of course, have the most to be concerned about if China takes control over Post-Canada. They might be able to tolerate an India-controlled Post-Canada if they can successfully forge an economic-strategic bulwark against China's quest for world domination through an alliance with India. Not sure if the USA has the capacity or the desire to simply absorb us into their own disfunctional state, but I'm very sure they would tolerate an India-controlled northern neighbo(u)r to a Chinese one.
Anyway...thanks to Matt and Jen for their post-mortem of a thoroughly mortifying week to contemplate our failing country. However, they (and we) may tire of the weekly commentary as this country as currently governed continues to circle the bowl. Perhaps they can have some fun exploring the themes I've raised above. The lands and waters temporarily known as Canada are much, much too valuable to go unclaimed by world powers with more competent governance. It would be interesting to speculate what that might look like. It might even attract some more subscribers...hey, no one else is contemplating what might happen Post-Canada...why not The Line?
Puerto Rico, only a lot larger?
I am surprised that senior officers are not putting service before self and resigning. I served over 39 years in the RCN and it broke my heart to see how far it had fallen.
One thing not discussed about the India-Canada spat and its impact and implications. Rice is a staple food for millions of Canadians. An important part of many families diet. It also happens that India is a substantial exporter of rice to Canada.
Many Canadians who don't depend on rice may not notice but India has put on place an export ban and many families and restaurants are feeling the pinch.
For many Canadians it is more than just a war of words. At a time when food is already expensive and budgets stretched, there is now even more pressure being applied with the sudden shortage of this important staple.
Agreed with just about everything else discussed on the pod. Remember when we used to say the 21st century would belong to Canada? That feels so very long ago now. And I don't see anyone in the political class with the courage or ideas to lead us back there.
Also, you know what can sort-of substitute for rice in a pinch? Lentils.
I hear we send India a lot of lentils.
I’m with Jen Gerson regarding the use of the notwithstanding clause - it’s in the constitution as a check on the judiciary, it’s consistent with parliamentary supremacy, and if governments don’t pay a political price when they trigger it, hard to say they were wrong.
I think the underlying problem is actually that Canada’s constitution gives too much power to judges, and an expansive approach to a “living tree” philosophy has encouraged judges to meddle in political matters that should be dealt with by legislatures. We’ve also seen that Canada’s legal establishment is a fairly small, clubby group without a lot of ideological diversity. They’ll produce what seem to be great results if you’re of a similar mindset, but a lack of dissenting voices can also produce some poorly considered decisions that lead to decades of problems due to unforeseen consequences.
I listened to this today and so am a bit late - good podcast in my view.
A brief observation on the lamentable state of the CAF. As noted, this is scarcely a new issue. I served for some twenty years from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s. Bleak was the only adjective that could be mustered for that period. After I left the Service, it promptly got worse and really hasn't recovered in the nearly thirty years since.
What should have happened after Canada shipped ammunition and equipment to Ukraine, as we did starting in 2022, was a stream of orders going out to suppliers for replacements. To my knowledge this has not happened at all. Net incremental cost to Canada for our 'support' to Ukraine is likely close to zero - and that includes transporting the stuff overseas in that the budget for the aircraft used and so on is built into the standard operating budget. I suspect that some extra costs were involved but I very much doubt were material and if necessary just park the fighter aircraft and tie up the navy. The replacement orders didn't happen - how do I know? Well, it transpires we're out of ammunition and can't supply Ukraine much more.
It all beggars belief. Our slide into irrelevance proceeds apace.
On another day we can talk about financial incompetence...
Have a good week all.
Much comment on subs, likes & algorithms as is proper and not uncommon. Am looking forward to any insights you might provide on Friday afternoon's post from @CRTCeng. Comms are a problem with this government? No kidding.
That came out after we recorded and we had hoped to get something into the written dispatch but just wasn't feasible this weekend. I assure you, though, we're on top of it. Will get something out at The Line soon.
oops, cleared my comment, so I'll rewrite.
About section 33... the thing "the technocrats" seem to forget is what "the democrats" would do in response to the notwithstanding clause being removed. It's theoretically possible they'll do nothing and say "well I suppose it's better to be told by our betters what the law should be rather than deciding ourselves".... but I don't think that'll happen.
The other option is to make sure the Supreme Court makes the "right" decision... by making sure YOUR people are on the court and the other side's people are not.
That's sub-optimal for all of us, but I think a lot of people will choose that if given the choice between litmus testing the court to fit their own values and being ruled by an elite class who enforce the values of the minority.
But I don't think most of "the technocrats" are really technocrats. I think most of them just want decisions they agree with. There's no particular reason why a differently composed Supreme Court couldn't find all kinds of things in the "living tree".... things like unenumerated property rights. Or perhaps a right to carry a hand gun for self defence. After all, some people are physically stronger and able to brutally harm weaker people... and that power breaks down roughly on male/female lines... so there's no particular reason the court couldn't "read in" concealed carry rights. The list could go on and on, but I think it's pretty obvious that many of the people insisting that parliament shouldn't have the power to overrule the court would say something VERY different in that case.
Removing section 33 would be shortsighted.
I thought I heard Jen say that the Sask policy includes mandatory parental notification. It doesn’t. If the parents are not aware the child is “transitioning”, then the school won’t entertain the new name/gender, while connecting the child with supports. The school isn’t notifying the parents and ‘outing’ the kid.
I wrote this in response to Peter Mansbridge’s Friday podcast.
On your Friday podcast the three of you were commenting on the lack of political rewards when parties focus on international issues. Canadians are still of the mindset that they live in a fireproof house and until we get really punched in the face with an international crisis (be it environmental, or a physical attack of some sort) that attitude will continue. So until that event happens (the pandemic has not shaken us from that belief) the federal government of all political persuasions will do the barest minimum to maintain our seat in certain clubs, and as a result we'll be further pushed to the sidelines. I don't want to hear "Canada's Back!" until there are some actual concrete steps taken to back up that announcement (restoring our Foreign Service would be a start).
Another item, (which loops into the above paragraph) is that I think our universities need to introduce a Canadian Civics course as a requirement to gain their degrees. I was able to see some results of a focus group of Poly Sci Students from UBC and their knowledge of the Canadian system of government, foreign and defence issues, the responsibilities of the courts and law enforcement was sorely nieve and superficial. Yes I know high school students are taught civics but when University level students are ignorant of basic facts there is a problem that needs to be addressed. For example the Convoy and their manifesto is a reflection of the abject lack of understanding that many Canadians have of living in a country with a Constitutional Monarchy form of government.
My final point, (which likely sounds rather contradictory after reading the above) is that ordinary Canadians should not have to worry about foreign issues and Canada's place in the world. They should be confident that they elected mature and thoughtful politicians who will lean on the advice and experience of a world class domestic civil service, a foreign service that is tapped into countries that can help us or harm us, and a defence force that is funded, equipped, and trained to do the duties delegated to them from the politicians that they elected. The Pandemic exposed the rot in those foundations and I really worry that we don't have the gravitas and capability to do the critical assessment of how to fix those foundations.
Yours aye
...Poli sci generally includes a civics component on how Canada's government works. So if poli sci students don't know that, it's because they didn't pay attention or didn't understand it.