Regarding CPC complaints about the media: in Hungry, Peter Magyar just defeated Victor Ourban. Magyar wasn’t allowed on the TV networks or the billboards! I’m not saying that media doesn’t matter but also it’s not determinative. People aren’t empty vessels waiting to receive their daily upload from the CBC.
I honestly find the situation in Hungary somewhat inspiring. It shows us, surprisingly, that in "competitive authoritarianism", sometimes the competition can actually win. The people eventually get enough of the objective bullshit, that even a completely captive propaganda environment can't perpetually convince them that piss is rain. Well not the Canadian boomers, we probably have to wait for them all to die, but still.
Also note that we probably shouldn't be in a position to be taking solace by comparing ourselves to Hungary.
For sure, but he was in power 16 years. At some point it ends for all leaders (authoritarian or otherwise). But media support can really extend that shelf life.
I don't think Jen or Matt understand what (at least some of us) find frustrating about the coverage of PP and the Cons.
I'm not a partisan, I've never been a PP fan, and it was immediately obvious to me that the Cons failed to pivot during the election once Trump became the issue. I could not believe how stupid they were. They are worse politicians than the Liberals and I fully believe they don't treat their supporters well enough. These are all fair topics.
But when I hear harping about food at conventions or Jivani traveling to the USA, I contrast that with a trillion dollars of net investment leaving Canada the last decade (our GDP is only ~$2.4 trillion). I see family and friends still not able to get doctors. I see nothing getting built. I personally, not in the news, know businesses and founders who have or are leaving Canada - primarily for the USA. I see a state literally failing before my eyes and the Canada dream dying. I do not mean that metaphorically. It seems now the only way you can get ahead is (a) having boomer parents with property or (b) being connected to the government.
I have many, many personal stories I can tell about all the fucked up things happening in our various industries and governments. Not news stories, but things happening to myself, family and friends. I'm know that's true of the hosts and commenters here.
I want to hear about the government - what it's doing or not doing. Not because its Liberal, but because its the government. I could care less what PP is doing on Joe Rogan because he's in opposition with no real influence. I get this might get covered, but so much time is spent lambasting the Cons when we have a government grossly failing in front of our eyes. Again - not because its Liberal! I desperately want Carney to be an amazing PM, I hope he ends up the best ever!
It matters that the Cons suck at politics. I get it. But they're not the party in power and won't be for some time. Maybe never again as a party. The big problem with the "conference food take" was not that it's true, but that the Liberals said all kinds of newsworthy things at the convention. The real stories were never covered, the stories that mattered to our lives as Canadians.
---
P.S. An aside: I know PP failed at the election but I honestly do not think the Cons could have won the election once Trump threw it to Carney. Harper, a much better politician with a good team, needed a strong NDP to win. Once the NDP failed and Trump was doing everything he could to help Carney, I don't know what the Cons could have done. We are by-and-large a one-party country and that inertia is very, very difficult to overcome.
What say you commenters? How could the Cons have won?
Most Canadians are on the left every poll shows. They just don't care about economics as much as social benefits and being legends in their own minds comparing Canada to the US.
Your comment cuts right to it. One party ruined the country, hands down. They are ragging the puck trying to stay in power as long as possible while fixing as little as possible because the status quo benefits their insiders. The other party "has trouble with striking the right tone" while having real solutions that would measurably improve our situation, perhaps at the expense of seeming ideally "nice" to the right groups of people (typically the totally unproductive). The latter party can't get elected due to reasons that seem trivial and nonsensical. There just seems to be no comparison in severity of problems between the parties but it's flipped on its head for reasons that largely seem to be due to deeply unfair coverage.
What do our Line editors have to say about Bob Fife, editor of the fucking G&M, going on the CBC last weekend and saying that the entire Conservative party is a far right MAGA organization? Nobody wants to comment on that? isn't that view just a tad extreme for someone with his reach and supposed journalistic credentials? The same guy who tried to make the whole election about Poilievre's security clearance? Isn't this just a bit irresponsible?
And yah, nobody could have won with Trump literally interfering in the election against them. People treat Poilievre as a uniquely bad leader for failing to win under uniquely difficult circumstances.
Carney was elected largely due to his resume, so Pollievre absolutely should be trying to chip away at that. But the right way to make that argument is basically what Matt said: broadly contrast Canada's recent history of being overly deferential to credentialism with the state of our institutions and specifically point out areas where the Carney Liberals are failing to deliver. There's a real case that we shouldn't just put the smartest guy in the room in charge (most great leaders don't have PhDs after all) and that Pollievre's "street fighter" style is what's needed to break Canada's malaise, but the Conservatives just can't help themselves but attack the credentials themselves, which just ends up sounding petty / insecure.
It all has loser energy. Just like with the floor crossings - I'm fine if the Conservatives want to argue that the MPs are putting their own comfort / ambitions over what they argued just months ago was best for Canadians (though even then I'd be reluctant to waste any comms cycles on an issue that is unlikely to move voters), but instead they can't help themselves but effectively complain how unfair / illegitimate it all is.
It always seems to be one step forward, two steps back with Pollievre. At multiple points, like the "Canada First" rally and the Rogan interview, we see him at his best: mature, empathetic, pragmatic, and willing to fight for common sense solutions - I quite like that version of him and want to believe that's who he really is. But then there always seems to be a regression to the Trudeau-era silliness that turned so many Canadians off him in the first place.
interesting podcast I did enjoy it. I do think we are seeing the failings of Pierre and the CPC it is getting obvious. What I would like to see or hear is when Matt starts to speak about Carney's failings or inactivity it stops in about 40 seconds and we go into a rant for half the podcast about how Pierre and the conservatives are screwing up. Can we just have one 10 minute segment on what Carney has done for so far, or better yet what he hasn't done?
The notion that Carney's accomplishments and otherwise aren't getting covered here is inaccurate. Jen spoke at length all last week about what she saw from Liberals in Montreal. She wrote a whole column about it. I've written a series of columns about it. The problem, I think, is that people who think they're open to balance are only open to like a 95-5 balance. Something actually balanced feels outrageous to them.
Just for fun, I looked back at our last month of coverage, with a really simple question: Is this article more about the Liberals, the Conservatives, or unrelated to either and/or a mix that wasn't clear? That latter mixed group was a lot of them, but of those that were left, there were nine (9) podcasts/columns that were largely focused on Carney/the Liberals and three (3) that were largely focused on Poilievre/the CPC.
Does anyone actually object to that balance in theory, even if they have sad feelz when reading the stuff about Poilievre?
I don't want to be argumentative as I love your podcast and I love your columns. I read all of them. I've only missed two podcasts end of November and 1st of December when my son died. I don't think I've ever caught up on those ones yet. Maybe I've missed something but I noticed when you do start to talk about Carney and the Liberals and even when it's in the title you do but then all of a sudden something happens where the subject is changed quickly or Jen something goes off and something else and it winds up only being a tiny little piece so maybe I'll go back and listen again. I'm just looking for what's been done positively, and what hasn't been done or what we are being cautious about. I read his book. Maybe a run through of his 13- 14 months which I thought we were going to get at some point in time. Please correct me if I've missed that podcast. Columns I've read yours yes,some of it is covered and i've commented positively on the columns . Ive been right of centre conservative my whole life and I dont care who is the leader, just the right one (though wouldn't mind a female)
Like I said, I just looked at the last month. The idea that The Line, or me personally, is not commenting on Carney is just not in line with reality. We absolutely do talk about PP/CPC but the quick glance I did for the last month, showing about a 3:1 ratio for Libs-Tories, seems about right to me.
Lol count the minutes. Actually not some observations. A entire segment on the first 12-14 months. I feel the country I love is in trouble. Ive listened to others but prefer to hear yours. But if not thats fine. Thanks for listening.
It seems like the Alberta Separatists have taken the strategy of "just keep on giving Ottawa the room to keep on screwing up." It's working slowly but it's working. Alberta separatism is on the upswing in Alberta for reasons including the incompetence of Canada's establishment.
If Alberta leaves, it will be because Canada was too incompetent to stay together.
Jen's comments on floor crossing are absolutely correct. They are perfectly legitimate. It is a feature of a parliamentary system and on of the last levers MPs have to influence party leadership. Therefore, what they really are is an indication of a serious failure of Leadership.
If Elon Musk promised 175 MP's each a post-politics job where they worked one hour a year for one year and earned $5M for it, to join a new party of his centered around selling off Canada's resources for his personal benefit, and these MP's accepted, would that be ok with you?
There's clear indications of what amounts to bribery going on. Further, government has far more leverage than opposition in being able to make promises to floor crossers. Unless the opposition actually starts to get incredibly rich supporters involved and this turns into a dollar bidding war, what can they possibly offer that competes with "here's 100M for your riding so you can be a local hero" or "after you are done we will make you a judge"?
Floor crossings that alter a government proves beyond any reasonable doubt that one's vote is a charade at best and, when push comes to shove, simply doesn't matter compared to the wishes/preferences/greed of the elected who personally benefit by doing so. Justify floor crossings and wax poetically about this - being the last bastion of freedom the said elect Members can exercise - until the cows come home and talk about the supremacy of the rules that allow it. That'll make it right. After all, more communicationing is what Canadians have come to expect from their betters. But it's just more words.
Bottom line: at the end of the day the votes of Canadians are not respected enough by those who receive them to matter a tinker's damn. Presuming those who understand their wasted votes are somehow lacking so much civic knowledge as to dare to complain about this betrayal is just adding insult to injury. (Here on The Line, we get to pay for the privilege.) The alteration in governance it excuses injures - nay, eliminates - every single Canadian's power of choice of platform at the ballot box... whether the 'informed' apologists recognize this brute fact or not. Claiming that such unelected switcheroos are somehow good for liberal democracy is equivalent to bombing the village to save it. That's an argument only really smart, really well informed people would believe because, you know, it's communicationing that Canadians deserve, that when liberally smeared over real problems makes everything SO MUCH better. And don't we want to feel better?
That is an absurd proposition, and it would be nice if you provided actual evidence.
In the end this is how the system was designed to work. The ability to cross the floor allows MPs to act in the best interests of their constituents. It serves as a check on the power of the leader. This means that they can place country and constituents ahead of party. Ultimately, their constituents will have a say during the next election.
Finally, I've not seen current polling in the riding involved. However, looking at national polls it is possible that the MPs who crossed have rhe support of thier constituents.
At one point in the podcast, Jen talks about her gut feel that creating lots of money during covid would lead to inflation, whereas government supporting economists (like Carney) and our Finance Minister said no. Jen of course was right and they were wrong, but this was not chance. It was a mathematical certainty. Any top economist like Milton Friedman in the past or John Hussman now can show the math. Money is a transferable IOU, a perpetual claim on goods. Double the dollars and you double the claims on goods until the government buys them back and destroys them. This is why a bag of chips costs 10x what it cost 50 years ago. Not potato, aluminum or labour shortages. Technology has reduced the labour for each of those, but there is 13x more IOUs per capita.
This was one of my biggest data points toward realizing how thoroughly and frequently official experts are corrupted by ideology. But it was always clear that you can pay well-qualified people to say just about anything you want them to. Just attend a trial in court - both sides will have equally lavishly qualified people saying diametrically opposite things.
The world needed massive money printing to make lockdowns viable without the global economy crashing, so people who are the exact ones who should have known otherwise were persuaded or paid off to say that up is down.
The fact that dramatically increasing the money supply will cause prices to rise is one of those things that's so obvious and fundamental that you need decades of education to come up with a sufficiently complex "um actually" to argue otherwise and be at all persuasive. But you would still be wrong.
There was a lot of this kind of thing going on in the early 2020's across numerous topics as we will all recall.
For fun, I worked with ChatGPT to come up with a new allocation of MPs based solely on population, allowing that every province and territory gets at least one MP.
Province / Territory Current MPs Proportional MPs Difference
That would be impossible, you know, because I have never voted liberal in my life and I stopped trusting the MSM the minute they started getting paid by Ottawa. Sorry to have to disappoint, friend.
All other things being equal, and all other things are NOT equal in this case...
I would NEVER choose someone who's been a politician their whole life over someone who's had a long career, especially in leadership, outside politics.
I think a lot of people are willing to say that the floor crossings are caused by Poilievre being a uniquely bad leader, worse than the leaders of other parties past and present, and the worst leader the CPC has ever had, despite evidence to the contrary, because a) they personally don't like him, and b) the alternative, that the system is rigged and we are seeing an unprecedented level of corruption where offices are literally purchased, is too unpalatable to accept.
There haven't been mass floor crossings like this at the federal level ever before, so really it's one or the other.
Maybe before my time a bit so I had to look that up. Though I suspect if it was a leadership problem it would look more like this - disgruntled MP's sitting as independents or forming their own rump party, not crossing into government in convenient time to grant that government a majority (while raving about all their new perks).
It's all a leadership issue, I think, and the CPC believes Trudeau is sill the PM. Whatever the reasons for the recent floor crossings, they happened, time to move on. Time for Pierre Poilievre to bow out and someone from outside the party. And I think the CPC needs to jettison those who who keep putting forward private member's bills of idiocy.
Yes, yes. I know. Big tent. Members can express themselves happily.
How's that working out?
For me, they gotta go because all this does is paint the CPC as a socons which are not palatable to the voters that actually matter in Canada: Toronto and GTA, Montreal, Ottawa. Jettison them ASAP. They are an insignificant minority. The PPC is and never was a threat.
Ditch the strategy you used on Trudeau - he is a debutante now. Move on. Should the CPC really want to defeat Carney they need to stop suggesting he is a shit economist who knows nothing about economics.
Really, CPC supporters ... what's the next strategy to defeat Carney ... bathroom stall graffiti in black magic marker?
What proof do we actually have the Mark Carney is any good at economics? There are a ton of PhD's out there from prestigious schools who don't get to be world leaders by virtue of their education. He seems great at ingratiating himself to the wealthy and powerful, which likely helped him to get his many high-profile jobs, but I see a guy who presided over housing bubbles in two countries, and where I hear nothing good about his time at the Bank of England. Are we sure his track record is as great as he tells us?
Brief research shows that his time at Brookfield saw the company's returns slightly ahead of markets but behind some other asset managers, but also that his major contribution was to building out ESG investing programs - something that's being quietly unwound or de-emphasized in a lot of places. Note that he was not the CEO as some think, and was not involved in asset allocation etc, but board chair which is a much less hands-on role. So great if you want more BS DEI nonsense but I thought we were trying to get away from that in government also?
Also despite its use of numbers, economics isn't a "hard science" and is more like sociology than physics. We scoff at all the far-left sociology professors preaching nonsense out there. Do we trust all well-educated lawyers to be impartial and correct on matters of legal policy? Why does economics get a pass?
Not to say the recent CPC tactics have been phrased or formatted ideally, but are we really saying that Carney's credentials vs. ability is really beyond criticism? That's sure the media narrative.
Criticize all you like, but remember: PP cannot and will not ever be able to close the deal. His 25 pt. lead was because folks hated Katy Perry's boyfriend more and wanted him gone.
Are you an economist? A sociologist? I'm not. I'm a conservative voter who has not voted for the party since Stephen Harper. I'd venture to say there are lot of votes that could be had if folks like me had a party to vote for.
I either vote independent, or I spoil my ballot. Sure would be nice to vote conservative again.
Look, this line about his economic competence is radiating loser energy on a scale akin to the Leaf's historic loser energy. (thank you MG and JG for the term. It is perfection.)
People vote for those they like and trust - it's sales. Would you buy a car from someone you don't like or trust? I wouldn't and I'm sure you wouldn't either.
Without floor crossing, party leaders become de facto dictators, and I don't think anyone wants that. Harper and Trudeau concentrated far too much power in the PMO, and obviously that's not being reversed under Carney (and Poilievre clearly skews dictatorial, so no saviour there). We *need* floor crossers.
They have been de facto dictators since Trudeau 1.0 began to run everything through the PMO. Libs and Cons have both maintained that control through the PMO. ThIs turns MP's into fabulous sock puppets, which is what they are.
Our formerly-Green MP Jenica Atwin showed just the slightest bit of independence, and got drummed out of the party so forcefully that she felt she needed Liberal protection. I was on the local Green Party executive at the time, and the party staff in Toronto were downright vicious. And that was the *Green Party* — I expect the Liberals and Conservatives both employ scads of vicious party-office people.
So you'd replace leader authoritarianism with strict party discipline by MPs only? That just puts the leader in the same cage as whoever's unfortunate enough to be in the minority in caucus. Any genuine freedom permits leaving.
It works ok in Britain and Australia. Our party leaders are way too powerful and should be subordinate to the caucus. We have it totally the wrong way around.
The lesson from the failures of Pierre Poilievre and Andrew Scheer is not that young people should stay away from politics, nor the resulting insinuation that long-lasting political experience (a trait which intrinsically requires political engagement to start at a younger rather than an older age to be maximized) is somehow a bad thing. The lesson from these politicians' failures is that *diversity* of political experience matters just as much as *duration* or length of political experience. Scheer and Poilievre before becoming leaders basically had virtually no political experience with being anything other than being MPs with no distinct ideas of their own - they do not even have the political experience of a being a citizen without special political status engaged with the political system - just about anyone commenting in this thread has more experience with that form of political engagement than they do!
And Poilievre in particular has been *coddled* by the Conservatives from a young age - he's been rewarded for political failures in a way that almost no other Conservative politician ever has. His disastrous embarrassment of the Conservative Party over his tabling of the "Fair Elections" Act would have ended the career of a politician operating under a party whose leadership put just a little less value on grovelling sycophants like him.
By comparison, Mark Carney had almost no political experience prior to becoming Prime Minister, which in most circumstances would be a political disaster - but his minimal political experience is probably more diverse than Poilievre's long political career. So even though he has such an elite pedigree and leads the establishment party, he still manages to talk and communicate more like an ordinary citizen/human being than the meme-bot leading the alternatives!
Ironically, the non-Conservative who currently reminds me the most of Poilievre is the Ontario Liberal Party President (whom I have run against and lost, 776 votes versus 148 votes). She is quite politically experienced as a former Mayor and as a former Cabinet Minister, and yet she is strangling the democratic vitality of her own party as if she were a political know-nothing. But like Poilievre, she knows how to shamelessly pander to party elites and pretend to be something that she manifestly is not, and they both have filtered political experiences that cause both of them to be over-confident about their strengths in other political arenas (i.e. general appeal to the broad public in Poilievre's case, running a grassroots organization effectively in this Liberal's case).
Andrew Scheer was Speaker of the House from 2011-2015. He's the worst possible guy you can send out to talk to the media. I shake my head at it because the CPC doesn't learn anything from their performance since Harper left office.
After Trudeau won in 2015, a lot of Conservative politicians concluded they were looking at a Liberal majority for the next 4-5 years, and possibly another one after that. A lot of the “A” level talent who were heavy hitters in the Harper government decided it’d be a good time to take a break and do something else rather than slog out years in opposition. That meant the contenders in the next leadership contests were 2nd tier talent: Scheer and Bernier, for example.
What’s surprised me is that even after Trudeau proved much more vulnerable than expected in 2019, the big hitters haven’t returned to try for the leadership. Rona Ambrose, Lisa Raitt, Jason Kenney are all far more impressive and capable figures.
And even then Scheer won leadership by accident by being everyone's third choice. He was always meant to be a placeholder, and the fact that he was presented with an actual chance to win was a testament to how awful Justin Trudeau was. Of course he was such a poor communicator that he blew that chance though.
I maintain that if not for Covid, Trudeau would have lost the next election after 2019.
Tell us what you really think of PP haha. Joking aside, I am seriously curious as to what leads you to characterize PP as a grovelling sycophant who shamelessly panders to party elites? If anything, he comes across to me as arrogant (he seems to speak in the first person a lot as though he himself embodies the party) and perhaps too quickly dismissive of others which are not traits I associate with a sycophant who panders to others.
I remember the initial years of the Harper majority era where Poilievre was repeatedly representing the Conservative Party on media debate panels to defend legislation and policies by that government. It left a sour first impression on me when he regularly defended the indefensible and he was clearly engaging in the tactic of running down the clock on critics rather than actually trying to educate any non-Conservatives. He was also plainly trying to fluff Harper's feathers, and it paid off: there was no reason for Harper to appoint Poilievre to Cabinet (while sidelining the more likable and accomplished Michael Chong), other than that Harper really had a special weakness for yes-men who ask "How high?" when asked to jump. I like to ask Conservative colleagues what their earliest memories of Poilievre are, as many of them want to conveniently memory-hole the actual history of how he became a recognizable Canadian political figure,
That being said, the term "sycophant" is a better description of how Poilievre has developed as a political figure, rather than of his actions in the present. As a party leader he is notionally his own top-dog now, but as someone whose formative years were as a Harper loyalist, it does feel to me like his policies and his leadership tone are very derivative of that era.
Interesting observations. I don't dispute your characterization of his early days, just don't remember that myself. It was a while ago and at that time I was not as immersed in this stuff as I am now. I suspect PP's attack-dog mentality vis-a-vis Chong's more measured/laid back approach may have also played a role in Harper elevating the former over the latter. Harper did like to get out the shiv.
FWIW, I do think Chong is the only current member of caucus who could possibly win an election against a viable Liberal candidate. I think PP would have crushed Junior but unless the public turns on Carney the way they rightly did on Junior, I don't think PP can beat him. I see that as the current Conservative bet: stick with PP in hopes that Carney crashes (possible, maybe?).
On the subject of viable Liberal leaders, I do think PP would beat any other current prominent Liberal member of caucus. Clowns like Fraser, Miller et al are almost as contemptible as Junior and will likely always remain closely associated with him in the public mind. But I think Chong would also beat them and has a better chance of beating a still-viable Carney than does PP. Question is, how do you get Chong in the leadership without a massive fractious battle? Put that way, I see why the Conservatives have placed their money on a Carney crash. And why they are actually blessed that the Liberals now have a majority as that moves the likely next election date down the road thereby giving Carney more time to crash.
Thinking on your comment, Matt, about emotional coping I was reminded of Shane Gillis talking shit about his girlfriend's ex-boyfriends: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5JDCSLTQBM
Matt commented on the Danielle Smith floor crossing years ago. It was held out as a Gotcha moment that screams, "Conservatives do this and must never complain!" But the follow-through needed to be told, in all fairness. Did it work out well for the politicians? No! Did Albertans give them a loving bouquet of votes in the next election? No! The Conservative voters were having none of it. The takeaway wasn't that it was tried. It was that it was soundly rejected.
I do appreciate the very thorough correction regarding the refreshments stand at the CPC convention. The commitment to this detail is both heartening and amusing.
Also I will forever remember that if I ever get any amount of decision-making power in a political party, if nothing else I will do all I can to make sure there are adequate and easily-accessed refreshments at any and all meetings.
Regarding the discussion of the accidental release of inmates from Ontario jails. Gurney attributed this to underfunding and too much demand. He lets the Ford government off the hook far too easily. Let's look at the data From Statistics Canada:
In the full year before Ford became Premier of Ontario (2017/18) the province spent $178 per inmate day in its correction system in 2002/03 constant dollars. In 2023/24 (our last year of data available), this was up to $203 per day. That's a 14 percent increase after accounting for inflation.
If we compare Ontario with other provinces, in 2023/24 the cost per inmate day in Ontario's jails was $$357 per inmate day (current dollars). This is the second highest in Canada - behind only British Columbia which spent $418 per inmate day. By comparison, Alberta spent $183 per inmate day.
How about increased volume?
On the average day in 2017/18 there were 2,259.6 sentenced inmates in Ontario jails. By 2023/24 this had dropped to 1,287.9 or a decline of 43 percent.
Remand custody volume has gone up. These are folks locked up waiting for their day in court - legally presumed innocent but still behind a door without a doorknob. On the average day in 2017/18 there were 5,081.7 remand inmates in Ontario Jails. Under Doug Ford's watch, this increased to 8,024.0 per day or an increase of 57.9 percent.
Why the increase in remand incarceration?
Because the court system in the province (an area of provincial jurisdiction) has gotten slower. For total criminal cases, the median time needed to process a case has gone from 134 days in 2017/18 to 202 days sin 2023/24. That an increase in the length of time needed to deal with a case of 50.7 percent.
So let's pin the tail on the donkey. Mistakes happen more often in badly run systems. Incompetence is at least as much a factor as resourcing and volume. In the case of Ontario's justice system:
- More money is being spent in jails per inmate (and Ontario's spending is high in comparison to all provinces except British Columbia).
- Volume increases are coming completely in remand custody - and that is because the court system is becoming slower and more dysfunctional.
- The administration of provincial jails AND of the courts is the responsibility of the provincial government. In Ontario, under Doug Ford, both have become more expensive and less functional.
Carney is a product of good old fashioned Liberal Party coronation. I don't believe he is entirely comfortable as he gets testy when asked questions during a scrum.
Regarding CPC complaints about the media: in Hungry, Peter Magyar just defeated Victor Ourban. Magyar wasn’t allowed on the TV networks or the billboards! I’m not saying that media doesn’t matter but also it’s not determinative. People aren’t empty vessels waiting to receive their daily upload from the CBC.
I honestly find the situation in Hungary somewhat inspiring. It shows us, surprisingly, that in "competitive authoritarianism", sometimes the competition can actually win. The people eventually get enough of the objective bullshit, that even a completely captive propaganda environment can't perpetually convince them that piss is rain. Well not the Canadian boomers, we probably have to wait for them all to die, but still.
Also note that we probably shouldn't be in a position to be taking solace by comparing ourselves to Hungary.
For sure, but he was in power 16 years. At some point it ends for all leaders (authoritarian or otherwise). But media support can really extend that shelf life.
I don't think Jen or Matt understand what (at least some of us) find frustrating about the coverage of PP and the Cons.
I'm not a partisan, I've never been a PP fan, and it was immediately obvious to me that the Cons failed to pivot during the election once Trump became the issue. I could not believe how stupid they were. They are worse politicians than the Liberals and I fully believe they don't treat their supporters well enough. These are all fair topics.
But when I hear harping about food at conventions or Jivani traveling to the USA, I contrast that with a trillion dollars of net investment leaving Canada the last decade (our GDP is only ~$2.4 trillion). I see family and friends still not able to get doctors. I see nothing getting built. I personally, not in the news, know businesses and founders who have or are leaving Canada - primarily for the USA. I see a state literally failing before my eyes and the Canada dream dying. I do not mean that metaphorically. It seems now the only way you can get ahead is (a) having boomer parents with property or (b) being connected to the government.
I have many, many personal stories I can tell about all the fucked up things happening in our various industries and governments. Not news stories, but things happening to myself, family and friends. I'm know that's true of the hosts and commenters here.
I want to hear about the government - what it's doing or not doing. Not because its Liberal, but because its the government. I could care less what PP is doing on Joe Rogan because he's in opposition with no real influence. I get this might get covered, but so much time is spent lambasting the Cons when we have a government grossly failing in front of our eyes. Again - not because its Liberal! I desperately want Carney to be an amazing PM, I hope he ends up the best ever!
It matters that the Cons suck at politics. I get it. But they're not the party in power and won't be for some time. Maybe never again as a party. The big problem with the "conference food take" was not that it's true, but that the Liberals said all kinds of newsworthy things at the convention. The real stories were never covered, the stories that mattered to our lives as Canadians.
---
P.S. An aside: I know PP failed at the election but I honestly do not think the Cons could have won the election once Trump threw it to Carney. Harper, a much better politician with a good team, needed a strong NDP to win. Once the NDP failed and Trump was doing everything he could to help Carney, I don't know what the Cons could have done. We are by-and-large a one-party country and that inertia is very, very difficult to overcome.
What say you commenters? How could the Cons have won?
Most Canadians are on the left every poll shows. They just don't care about economics as much as social benefits and being legends in their own minds comparing Canada to the US.
We are in for quite the reckoning one day.
Your comment cuts right to it. One party ruined the country, hands down. They are ragging the puck trying to stay in power as long as possible while fixing as little as possible because the status quo benefits their insiders. The other party "has trouble with striking the right tone" while having real solutions that would measurably improve our situation, perhaps at the expense of seeming ideally "nice" to the right groups of people (typically the totally unproductive). The latter party can't get elected due to reasons that seem trivial and nonsensical. There just seems to be no comparison in severity of problems between the parties but it's flipped on its head for reasons that largely seem to be due to deeply unfair coverage.
What do our Line editors have to say about Bob Fife, editor of the fucking G&M, going on the CBC last weekend and saying that the entire Conservative party is a far right MAGA organization? Nobody wants to comment on that? isn't that view just a tad extreme for someone with his reach and supposed journalistic credentials? The same guy who tried to make the whole election about Poilievre's security clearance? Isn't this just a bit irresponsible?
And yah, nobody could have won with Trump literally interfering in the election against them. People treat Poilievre as a uniquely bad leader for failing to win under uniquely difficult circumstances.
The cons could have won my vote by,
1) not giving DT a pass (at best) and reflecting the country's, our cultures' obvious and appropriate offence;
2) developing and pitching a plan that was forward thinking and also addressed (instead of pretending it's "not a thing") the change in the US, and,
3) selling Canada to Canadians, instead of just telling us it all sux... which even the children know isn't a plan for the future.
The children, mine included, all talk about leaving Canada. "Canada is for suckers" is a direct quote from one of my kids.
The rant about the Conservatives was so bang on.
Carney was elected largely due to his resume, so Pollievre absolutely should be trying to chip away at that. But the right way to make that argument is basically what Matt said: broadly contrast Canada's recent history of being overly deferential to credentialism with the state of our institutions and specifically point out areas where the Carney Liberals are failing to deliver. There's a real case that we shouldn't just put the smartest guy in the room in charge (most great leaders don't have PhDs after all) and that Pollievre's "street fighter" style is what's needed to break Canada's malaise, but the Conservatives just can't help themselves but attack the credentials themselves, which just ends up sounding petty / insecure.
It all has loser energy. Just like with the floor crossings - I'm fine if the Conservatives want to argue that the MPs are putting their own comfort / ambitions over what they argued just months ago was best for Canadians (though even then I'd be reluctant to waste any comms cycles on an issue that is unlikely to move voters), but instead they can't help themselves but effectively complain how unfair / illegitimate it all is.
It always seems to be one step forward, two steps back with Pollievre. At multiple points, like the "Canada First" rally and the Rogan interview, we see him at his best: mature, empathetic, pragmatic, and willing to fight for common sense solutions - I quite like that version of him and want to believe that's who he really is. But then there always seems to be a regression to the Trudeau-era silliness that turned so many Canadians off him in the first place.
Sending out Andrew #$% Scheer to double down is a #$#@#% stroke of genius! Absolute genius! You've got them on the run now, Andy!!~!
interesting podcast I did enjoy it. I do think we are seeing the failings of Pierre and the CPC it is getting obvious. What I would like to see or hear is when Matt starts to speak about Carney's failings or inactivity it stops in about 40 seconds and we go into a rant for half the podcast about how Pierre and the conservatives are screwing up. Can we just have one 10 minute segment on what Carney has done for so far, or better yet what he hasn't done?
The notion that Carney's accomplishments and otherwise aren't getting covered here is inaccurate. Jen spoke at length all last week about what she saw from Liberals in Montreal. She wrote a whole column about it. I've written a series of columns about it. The problem, I think, is that people who think they're open to balance are only open to like a 95-5 balance. Something actually balanced feels outrageous to them.
Just for fun, I looked back at our last month of coverage, with a really simple question: Is this article more about the Liberals, the Conservatives, or unrelated to either and/or a mix that wasn't clear? That latter mixed group was a lot of them, but of those that were left, there were nine (9) podcasts/columns that were largely focused on Carney/the Liberals and three (3) that were largely focused on Poilievre/the CPC.
Does anyone actually object to that balance in theory, even if they have sad feelz when reading the stuff about Poilievre?
I don't want to be argumentative as I love your podcast and I love your columns. I read all of them. I've only missed two podcasts end of November and 1st of December when my son died. I don't think I've ever caught up on those ones yet. Maybe I've missed something but I noticed when you do start to talk about Carney and the Liberals and even when it's in the title you do but then all of a sudden something happens where the subject is changed quickly or Jen something goes off and something else and it winds up only being a tiny little piece so maybe I'll go back and listen again. I'm just looking for what's been done positively, and what hasn't been done or what we are being cautious about. I read his book. Maybe a run through of his 13- 14 months which I thought we were going to get at some point in time. Please correct me if I've missed that podcast. Columns I've read yours yes,some of it is covered and i've commented positively on the columns . Ive been right of centre conservative my whole life and I dont care who is the leader, just the right one (though wouldn't mind a female)
Like I said, I just looked at the last month. The idea that The Line, or me personally, is not commenting on Carney is just not in line with reality. We absolutely do talk about PP/CPC but the quick glance I did for the last month, showing about a 3:1 ratio for Libs-Tories, seems about right to me.
Lol count the minutes. Actually not some observations. A entire segment on the first 12-14 months. I feel the country I love is in trouble. Ive listened to others but prefer to hear yours. But if not thats fine. Thanks for listening.
Please!
It seems like the Alberta Separatists have taken the strategy of "just keep on giving Ottawa the room to keep on screwing up." It's working slowly but it's working. Alberta separatism is on the upswing in Alberta for reasons including the incompetence of Canada's establishment.
If Alberta leaves, it will be because Canada was too incompetent to stay together.
Jen's comments on floor crossing are absolutely correct. They are perfectly legitimate. It is a feature of a parliamentary system and on of the last levers MPs have to influence party leadership. Therefore, what they really are is an indication of a serious failure of Leadership.
If Elon Musk promised 175 MP's each a post-politics job where they worked one hour a year for one year and earned $5M for it, to join a new party of his centered around selling off Canada's resources for his personal benefit, and these MP's accepted, would that be ok with you?
There's clear indications of what amounts to bribery going on. Further, government has far more leverage than opposition in being able to make promises to floor crossers. Unless the opposition actually starts to get incredibly rich supporters involved and this turns into a dollar bidding war, what can they possibly offer that competes with "here's 100M for your riding so you can be a local hero" or "after you are done we will make you a judge"?
Floor crossings that alter a government proves beyond any reasonable doubt that one's vote is a charade at best and, when push comes to shove, simply doesn't matter compared to the wishes/preferences/greed of the elected who personally benefit by doing so. Justify floor crossings and wax poetically about this - being the last bastion of freedom the said elect Members can exercise - until the cows come home and talk about the supremacy of the rules that allow it. That'll make it right. After all, more communicationing is what Canadians have come to expect from their betters. But it's just more words.
Bottom line: at the end of the day the votes of Canadians are not respected enough by those who receive them to matter a tinker's damn. Presuming those who understand their wasted votes are somehow lacking so much civic knowledge as to dare to complain about this betrayal is just adding insult to injury. (Here on The Line, we get to pay for the privilege.) The alteration in governance it excuses injures - nay, eliminates - every single Canadian's power of choice of platform at the ballot box... whether the 'informed' apologists recognize this brute fact or not. Claiming that such unelected switcheroos are somehow good for liberal democracy is equivalent to bombing the village to save it. That's an argument only really smart, really well informed people would believe because, you know, it's communicationing that Canadians deserve, that when liberally smeared over real problems makes everything SO MUCH better. And don't we want to feel better?
That is an absurd proposition, and it would be nice if you provided actual evidence.
In the end this is how the system was designed to work. The ability to cross the floor allows MPs to act in the best interests of their constituents. It serves as a check on the power of the leader. This means that they can place country and constituents ahead of party. Ultimately, their constituents will have a say during the next election.
Finally, I've not seen current polling in the riding involved. However, looking at national polls it is possible that the MPs who crossed have rhe support of thier constituents.
Don't be so eager to justify an obvious subversion of democracy.
I guess we all cope in different ways.
I see no subversion. Canada maintained a healthy democracy since confredations despite MPs, MLAs and MPPs changing parties since the beginning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_politicians_who_have_switched_parties?wprov=sfla1
At one point in the podcast, Jen talks about her gut feel that creating lots of money during covid would lead to inflation, whereas government supporting economists (like Carney) and our Finance Minister said no. Jen of course was right and they were wrong, but this was not chance. It was a mathematical certainty. Any top economist like Milton Friedman in the past or John Hussman now can show the math. Money is a transferable IOU, a perpetual claim on goods. Double the dollars and you double the claims on goods until the government buys them back and destroys them. This is why a bag of chips costs 10x what it cost 50 years ago. Not potato, aluminum or labour shortages. Technology has reduced the labour for each of those, but there is 13x more IOUs per capita.
This was one of my biggest data points toward realizing how thoroughly and frequently official experts are corrupted by ideology. But it was always clear that you can pay well-qualified people to say just about anything you want them to. Just attend a trial in court - both sides will have equally lavishly qualified people saying diametrically opposite things.
The world needed massive money printing to make lockdowns viable without the global economy crashing, so people who are the exact ones who should have known otherwise were persuaded or paid off to say that up is down.
The fact that dramatically increasing the money supply will cause prices to rise is one of those things that's so obvious and fundamental that you need decades of education to come up with a sufficiently complex "um actually" to argue otherwise and be at all persuasive. But you would still be wrong.
There was a lot of this kind of thing going on in the early 2020's across numerous topics as we will all recall.
For fun, I worked with ChatGPT to come up with a new allocation of MPs based solely on population, allowing that every province and territory gets at least one MP.
Province / Territory Current MPs Proportional MPs Difference
Ontario 122 128 6
Quebec 78 80 2
British Columbia 43 45 2
Alberta 37 39 2
Manitoba 14 13 -1
Saskatchewan 14 11 -3
Nova Scotia 11 9 -2
New Brunswick 10 8 -2
Newfoundland and Labrador 7 5 -2
Prince Edward Island 4 2 -2
Yukon 1 1 0
Northwest Territories 1 1 0
Nunavut 1 1 0
343 343
Not a huge difference but noteworthy.
Excellent podcast. The loser energy radiating from the CPC right now was enough to make Marilyn Gladu jump ship.
That for me was a holy shit moment.
I think PP needs to resign and go spend time with his young family.
you have eaten the "Liberal" and CBC, MSM poisoned bait.
That would be impossible, you know, because I have never voted liberal in my life and I stopped trusting the MSM the minute they started getting paid by Ottawa. Sorry to have to disappoint, friend.
All other things being equal, and all other things are NOT equal in this case...
I would NEVER choose someone who's been a politician their whole life over someone who's had a long career, especially in leadership, outside politics.
I think a lot of people are willing to say that the floor crossings are caused by Poilievre being a uniquely bad leader, worse than the leaders of other parties past and present, and the worst leader the CPC has ever had, despite evidence to the contrary, because a) they personally don't like him, and b) the alternative, that the system is rigged and we are seeing an unprecedented level of corruption where offices are literally purchased, is too unpalatable to accept.
There haven't been mass floor crossings like this at the federal level ever before, so really it's one or the other.
Once a good number of Canadian Alliance quit and started their own caucus led by Deb Grey. The reason: Stockwell Day wasn't working out.
Maybe before my time a bit so I had to look that up. Though I suspect if it was a leadership problem it would look more like this - disgruntled MP's sitting as independents or forming their own rump party, not crossing into government in convenient time to grant that government a majority (while raving about all their new perks).
It's all a leadership issue, I think, and the CPC believes Trudeau is sill the PM. Whatever the reasons for the recent floor crossings, they happened, time to move on. Time for Pierre Poilievre to bow out and someone from outside the party. And I think the CPC needs to jettison those who who keep putting forward private member's bills of idiocy.
Yes, yes. I know. Big tent. Members can express themselves happily.
How's that working out?
For me, they gotta go because all this does is paint the CPC as a socons which are not palatable to the voters that actually matter in Canada: Toronto and GTA, Montreal, Ottawa. Jettison them ASAP. They are an insignificant minority. The PPC is and never was a threat.
Ditch the strategy you used on Trudeau - he is a debutante now. Move on. Should the CPC really want to defeat Carney they need to stop suggesting he is a shit economist who knows nothing about economics.
Really, CPC supporters ... what's the next strategy to defeat Carney ... bathroom stall graffiti in black magic marker?
Leaving aside the differences about leadership.
What proof do we actually have the Mark Carney is any good at economics? There are a ton of PhD's out there from prestigious schools who don't get to be world leaders by virtue of their education. He seems great at ingratiating himself to the wealthy and powerful, which likely helped him to get his many high-profile jobs, but I see a guy who presided over housing bubbles in two countries, and where I hear nothing good about his time at the Bank of England. Are we sure his track record is as great as he tells us?
Brief research shows that his time at Brookfield saw the company's returns slightly ahead of markets but behind some other asset managers, but also that his major contribution was to building out ESG investing programs - something that's being quietly unwound or de-emphasized in a lot of places. Note that he was not the CEO as some think, and was not involved in asset allocation etc, but board chair which is a much less hands-on role. So great if you want more BS DEI nonsense but I thought we were trying to get away from that in government also?
Also despite its use of numbers, economics isn't a "hard science" and is more like sociology than physics. We scoff at all the far-left sociology professors preaching nonsense out there. Do we trust all well-educated lawyers to be impartial and correct on matters of legal policy? Why does economics get a pass?
Not to say the recent CPC tactics have been phrased or formatted ideally, but are we really saying that Carney's credentials vs. ability is really beyond criticism? That's sure the media narrative.
Criticize all you like, but remember: PP cannot and will not ever be able to close the deal. His 25 pt. lead was because folks hated Katy Perry's boyfriend more and wanted him gone.
Are you an economist? A sociologist? I'm not. I'm a conservative voter who has not voted for the party since Stephen Harper. I'd venture to say there are lot of votes that could be had if folks like me had a party to vote for.
I either vote independent, or I spoil my ballot. Sure would be nice to vote conservative again.
Look, this line about his economic competence is radiating loser energy on a scale akin to the Leaf's historic loser energy. (thank you MG and JG for the term. It is perfection.)
People vote for those they like and trust - it's sales. Would you buy a car from someone you don't like or trust? I wouldn't and I'm sure you wouldn't either.
The CPC needs to change or it will be changed.
Without floor crossing, party leaders become de facto dictators, and I don't think anyone wants that. Harper and Trudeau concentrated far too much power in the PMO, and obviously that's not being reversed under Carney (and Poilievre clearly skews dictatorial, so no saviour there). We *need* floor crossers.
They have been de facto dictators since Trudeau 1.0 began to run everything through the PMO. Libs and Cons have both maintained that control through the PMO. ThIs turns MP's into fabulous sock puppets, which is what they are.
Agreed. Still I'd prefer individual MP’s showed more independent thinking within their own parties. But you can't always get what you want.
Our formerly-Green MP Jenica Atwin showed just the slightest bit of independence, and got drummed out of the party so forcefully that she felt she needed Liberal protection. I was on the local Green Party executive at the time, and the party staff in Toronto were downright vicious. And that was the *Green Party* — I expect the Liberals and Conservatives both employ scads of vicious party-office people.
A better method would be to let the caucus replace the leader with a majority show of hands.
So you'd replace leader authoritarianism with strict party discipline by MPs only? That just puts the leader in the same cage as whoever's unfortunate enough to be in the minority in caucus. Any genuine freedom permits leaving.
It works ok in Britain and Australia. Our party leaders are way too powerful and should be subordinate to the caucus. We have it totally the wrong way around.
The lesson from the failures of Pierre Poilievre and Andrew Scheer is not that young people should stay away from politics, nor the resulting insinuation that long-lasting political experience (a trait which intrinsically requires political engagement to start at a younger rather than an older age to be maximized) is somehow a bad thing. The lesson from these politicians' failures is that *diversity* of political experience matters just as much as *duration* or length of political experience. Scheer and Poilievre before becoming leaders basically had virtually no political experience with being anything other than being MPs with no distinct ideas of their own - they do not even have the political experience of a being a citizen without special political status engaged with the political system - just about anyone commenting in this thread has more experience with that form of political engagement than they do!
And Poilievre in particular has been *coddled* by the Conservatives from a young age - he's been rewarded for political failures in a way that almost no other Conservative politician ever has. His disastrous embarrassment of the Conservative Party over his tabling of the "Fair Elections" Act would have ended the career of a politician operating under a party whose leadership put just a little less value on grovelling sycophants like him.
By comparison, Mark Carney had almost no political experience prior to becoming Prime Minister, which in most circumstances would be a political disaster - but his minimal political experience is probably more diverse than Poilievre's long political career. So even though he has such an elite pedigree and leads the establishment party, he still manages to talk and communicate more like an ordinary citizen/human being than the meme-bot leading the alternatives!
Ironically, the non-Conservative who currently reminds me the most of Poilievre is the Ontario Liberal Party President (whom I have run against and lost, 776 votes versus 148 votes). She is quite politically experienced as a former Mayor and as a former Cabinet Minister, and yet she is strangling the democratic vitality of her own party as if she were a political know-nothing. But like Poilievre, she knows how to shamelessly pander to party elites and pretend to be something that she manifestly is not, and they both have filtered political experiences that cause both of them to be over-confident about their strengths in other political arenas (i.e. general appeal to the broad public in Poilievre's case, running a grassroots organization effectively in this Liberal's case).
Andrew Scheer was Speaker of the House from 2011-2015. He's the worst possible guy you can send out to talk to the media. I shake my head at it because the CPC doesn't learn anything from their performance since Harper left office.
After Trudeau won in 2015, a lot of Conservative politicians concluded they were looking at a Liberal majority for the next 4-5 years, and possibly another one after that. A lot of the “A” level talent who were heavy hitters in the Harper government decided it’d be a good time to take a break and do something else rather than slog out years in opposition. That meant the contenders in the next leadership contests were 2nd tier talent: Scheer and Bernier, for example.
What’s surprised me is that even after Trudeau proved much more vulnerable than expected in 2019, the big hitters haven’t returned to try for the leadership. Rona Ambrose, Lisa Raitt, Jason Kenney are all far more impressive and capable figures.
And even then Scheer won leadership by accident by being everyone's third choice. He was always meant to be a placeholder, and the fact that he was presented with an actual chance to win was a testament to how awful Justin Trudeau was. Of course he was such a poor communicator that he blew that chance though.
I maintain that if not for Covid, Trudeau would have lost the next election after 2019.
They need to draft Manjit Minhas.
Tell us what you really think of PP haha. Joking aside, I am seriously curious as to what leads you to characterize PP as a grovelling sycophant who shamelessly panders to party elites? If anything, he comes across to me as arrogant (he seems to speak in the first person a lot as though he himself embodies the party) and perhaps too quickly dismissive of others which are not traits I associate with a sycophant who panders to others.
I remember the initial years of the Harper majority era where Poilievre was repeatedly representing the Conservative Party on media debate panels to defend legislation and policies by that government. It left a sour first impression on me when he regularly defended the indefensible and he was clearly engaging in the tactic of running down the clock on critics rather than actually trying to educate any non-Conservatives. He was also plainly trying to fluff Harper's feathers, and it paid off: there was no reason for Harper to appoint Poilievre to Cabinet (while sidelining the more likable and accomplished Michael Chong), other than that Harper really had a special weakness for yes-men who ask "How high?" when asked to jump. I like to ask Conservative colleagues what their earliest memories of Poilievre are, as many of them want to conveniently memory-hole the actual history of how he became a recognizable Canadian political figure,
That being said, the term "sycophant" is a better description of how Poilievre has developed as a political figure, rather than of his actions in the present. As a party leader he is notionally his own top-dog now, but as someone whose formative years were as a Harper loyalist, it does feel to me like his policies and his leadership tone are very derivative of that era.
Interesting observations. I don't dispute your characterization of his early days, just don't remember that myself. It was a while ago and at that time I was not as immersed in this stuff as I am now. I suspect PP's attack-dog mentality vis-a-vis Chong's more measured/laid back approach may have also played a role in Harper elevating the former over the latter. Harper did like to get out the shiv.
FWIW, I do think Chong is the only current member of caucus who could possibly win an election against a viable Liberal candidate. I think PP would have crushed Junior but unless the public turns on Carney the way they rightly did on Junior, I don't think PP can beat him. I see that as the current Conservative bet: stick with PP in hopes that Carney crashes (possible, maybe?).
On the subject of viable Liberal leaders, I do think PP would beat any other current prominent Liberal member of caucus. Clowns like Fraser, Miller et al are almost as contemptible as Junior and will likely always remain closely associated with him in the public mind. But I think Chong would also beat them and has a better chance of beating a still-viable Carney than does PP. Question is, how do you get Chong in the leadership without a massive fractious battle? Put that way, I see why the Conservatives have placed their money on a Carney crash. And why they are actually blessed that the Liberals now have a majority as that moves the likely next election date down the road thereby giving Carney more time to crash.
They aren't betting on Carney, they are betting that all the folks behind Carney, including the civil service crash and burn.
It's a pretty good bet to be honest
Thinking on your comment, Matt, about emotional coping I was reminded of Shane Gillis talking shit about his girlfriend's ex-boyfriends: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5JDCSLTQBM
Matt commented on the Danielle Smith floor crossing years ago. It was held out as a Gotcha moment that screams, "Conservatives do this and must never complain!" But the follow-through needed to be told, in all fairness. Did it work out well for the politicians? No! Did Albertans give them a loving bouquet of votes in the next election? No! The Conservative voters were having none of it. The takeaway wasn't that it was tried. It was that it was soundly rejected.
I do appreciate the very thorough correction regarding the refreshments stand at the CPC convention. The commitment to this detail is both heartening and amusing.
Also I will forever remember that if I ever get any amount of decision-making power in a political party, if nothing else I will do all I can to make sure there are adequate and easily-accessed refreshments at any and all meetings.
Regarding the discussion of the accidental release of inmates from Ontario jails. Gurney attributed this to underfunding and too much demand. He lets the Ford government off the hook far too easily. Let's look at the data From Statistics Canada:
In the full year before Ford became Premier of Ontario (2017/18) the province spent $178 per inmate day in its correction system in 2002/03 constant dollars. In 2023/24 (our last year of data available), this was up to $203 per day. That's a 14 percent increase after accounting for inflation.
If we compare Ontario with other provinces, in 2023/24 the cost per inmate day in Ontario's jails was $$357 per inmate day (current dollars). This is the second highest in Canada - behind only British Columbia which spent $418 per inmate day. By comparison, Alberta spent $183 per inmate day.
How about increased volume?
On the average day in 2017/18 there were 2,259.6 sentenced inmates in Ontario jails. By 2023/24 this had dropped to 1,287.9 or a decline of 43 percent.
Remand custody volume has gone up. These are folks locked up waiting for their day in court - legally presumed innocent but still behind a door without a doorknob. On the average day in 2017/18 there were 5,081.7 remand inmates in Ontario Jails. Under Doug Ford's watch, this increased to 8,024.0 per day or an increase of 57.9 percent.
Why the increase in remand incarceration?
Because the court system in the province (an area of provincial jurisdiction) has gotten slower. For total criminal cases, the median time needed to process a case has gone from 134 days in 2017/18 to 202 days sin 2023/24. That an increase in the length of time needed to deal with a case of 50.7 percent.
So let's pin the tail on the donkey. Mistakes happen more often in badly run systems. Incompetence is at least as much a factor as resourcing and volume. In the case of Ontario's justice system:
- More money is being spent in jails per inmate (and Ontario's spending is high in comparison to all provinces except British Columbia).
- Volume increases are coming completely in remand custody - and that is because the court system is becoming slower and more dysfunctional.
- The administration of provincial jails AND of the courts is the responsibility of the provincial government. In Ontario, under Doug Ford, both have become more expensive and less functional.
I believe many people are surprised at how Carney has quickly become comfortable as a politician & PM. Polievre rarely looks comfortable.
Carney is a product of good old fashioned Liberal Party coronation. I don't believe he is entirely comfortable as he gets testy when asked questions during a scrum.