I learned to love scallops during my ten weeks at CFRS Cornwallis back in ‘85. On the offer every day, they were fresh from just down the road in Digby. Amazing!
I do hope that a pipeline will get built. It is the most important first step in diversifying our economy away from our current dependence on the United States. Even if a pipeline takes some eight years to complete, and Mr. Trump will be gone, our need to diversify will remain.
On bringing greenhouse gases under control, the solution lies through technology and market forces, not restrictive regulation. Already, solar power has become competitive in many situations, and this will continue. Meanwhile, nuclear energy (small modular reactors) will provide a reliable baseline. Fossil fuel use will decline as alternatives become cheaper.
On Steven Guilbeault, I had to smile. On previous episodes, you talked about Canadian values (in the context of comparing us to Americans). But you failed to recognize that there are at least two different sets of Canadian values, those of Quebec and those of the rest of Canada. While Mr. Guilbeault is negatively viewed in the rest of Canada (rightly, in my opinion), he is a hero in Quebec. His extreme environmentalism resonates deeply there (even though Quebecers show no desire to sacrifice materially in that cause). Of course, we know that Quebec's culture is different on other grounds. Look at the reactions to its secularism laws in the rest of Canada (generally appalled), while franco-Quebecers are in favour.
On military matters, I understand that the Europeans are angry with the United States, and will be reluctant to trust them in future. But I would take them more seriously if they were taking meaningful steps to build a unified military force. Absent that, there will remain a dependence on the Americans, especially in an increasingly hostile world. From what I can see, Europe is a continent in decline in the long term -- they are in worse shape than the Americans. And I don't think that they are waking up particularly quickly.
On Jen's comment that our advantage is that we see them, but they don't see us. True. But it is not clear to me that we see ourselves particularly clearly. Newsletters such as The Line certainly help. But there certainly is a long way to go. Anyway, a big thank you to Matt and Jen.
Regarding Quebecers and M. Guilbeault, La Presse, a federalist rag, has a regular column on "Environnement" and have been mum about the pipeline and him bolting. Except to mock him. https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/caricatures/2025-11-29/retour-aux-sources.php. My bet is the environweenies are in a state of disbelief.
I appreciated the balanced take on what the Carney-Alberta deal actually means, when so many in the commentariat are acting as if it means 100% for sure Carney is doing whatever it takes to build a pipeline.
In the long term, it's hard to escape the suspicion that the sweet spot will be Carney getting credit for supporting a pipeline, but the thing never actually getting built because reasons. And if Carney subtly bears responsibility for some of those reasons (like granting various constituencies vetoes that exist nowhere in our constitutional structure, or the economics not working because of the costs and risks his own government is imposing), anybody saying that out loud can be shouted down as a conspiracy theorist or worse when the time comes. Heck, he might be retired before it's completely clear it isn't happening.
Carney's different from Trudeau, but he's not above mirroring Trudeau's successes. And Trudeau was an absolute master of getting credit for supporting things in principle without bearing any of the costs of actually doing them. The last election Trudeau won was largely on the desperate need to fire unvaxxed public servants and to round up "assault-style" rifles, neither of which he ever actually did.
Sure, Carney might surprise. He's new to practical politics, and we don't really know what he'll do under true pressure, when he faces hard political trade-offs. He can't be sure himself, however much he might have imagined such situations in his daydreams. But politics don't work fundamentally differently for him from any other Lib, and the politics are on the side of nice noises and no actual pipe.
Carney, for those naive souls who thought he actually is something "saving" Canada, is disappointing already. Carney is "just visiting". Produced already a whole bunch of shallow fakery.
To follow up on the previous comment Quebec and Canada IMO are like a totally estranged couple staying in a failed marriage because the cost of spitting up is perceived to be too much. And both places are held back from achieving their separate potentials. IMO Confederation was essentially a shotgun marriage arranged by British colonial masters. (Like a lot of similar British attempts eg India, Pakistan, etc) And if Alaska and Hawaii can thrive as part of the US then so could the separate parts of Canada succeed with another country in between.
I'm a Toronto anglophone and a convinced Quebec Separatist. Totally different and incompatible cultures, they've spent two generations making sure of that. Quebec needs to be either in Canada and treated the same as everywhere else, or out as their own sovereign country, and it's clear they don't want in.
They can do their own thing but get no more equalization payments and most importantly no more sending MP's to Ottawa to screw over the rest of the country. Out! Maybe then Quebecers will realize that they can't have the benefits of a wealthy society while smugly pissing all over everything that makes that possible, being the worst examples of Canadians who collectively do this.
The US isn't the reliable ally that Canadians can take advantage of anymore.
That said, Canada is still the underachieving country with an underperforming people, and the reasons to deflect blame are running out.
Eventually Canadians need to become serious people and start focusing on doing things instead of saying things.
This starts with culture. Business, science and leadership should quite frankly be incentivized socially more instead to security, risk aversion and "team fit." Parents need to start raising their kids to see business ownership as a goal instead of something kids with bad grades do as a fallback (and then those same people to be vilified when they buy a nice boat.)
My point is that if Canadians don't grow up from the resource farmer mentality and learn to add value to the world, then what is the point of Canada? As a mirror image society to the US, like the mirror universe in Star Trek?
Perhaps this was good enough for the boomers and Gen X, but it isn't good enough for the kids. The spread between the US and Canada is too wide now. Australia and Western Europe are passing US by and Central Europe is catching up fast.
Like my teen asked me, "what's the point of Canada if everything is harder, less fun and poorer here? Wouldn't it just make more sense to join the US?"
If we don't make a better country for our kids they will just leave, or ask to join the US. No amount of Laurentian culture will change that.
Jen’s “side rant”, beginning just after the 37 minute mark, needs its own podcast rebroadcast.
ObstReperous is another good O word to be added to obnoxious and odious to describe Guilbeault and a few other Liberal cabinet members - Champagne, for starters.
Do I think the Liberal government has a secret plan to screw Alberta? I doubt it. I'm not expecting a pipeline, I am expecting this agreement will amount to precisely nothing because we cannot get anything done in this country. I'm not entirely confident Carney is the guy to lead Canada right now. He seems out of his element. No political instincts. I could be wrong. I hope I am because we need stability and a united country if we're not going to get squashed like a bug in our dangerous new world order.
Sean, no, the LPC government does not have a secret plan to screw we in Alberta; their plan is as it ever was, to advantage central Canada. That was the purpose of Confederation and remains the raison d'etre for O & Q.
Now, having said that, the PREVIOUS LPC government had a very explicit plan to screw we in Alberta. The Face Painter wanted to shut our industry down; he actually said that publicly some years ago. Of course, he later denied meaning that but he did say it and his actions demonstrated that he, in fact, did mean it.
I similarly do not expect a pipeline to actually get built. I hope that I am wrong but I don't expect it. The separatists here will utilize that soon to be "broken promise" as more fodder for their goal of separation. How will I vote? I cannot say yet but I am definitely open to listening to them and (for a short while yet) the folks singing the "Stay" song.
Ah, you want a united country! Wrong place for you in Canada, my son.
a) it finds agreement with first nations whom have been given a de facto veto by Carney (ie. years of litigation with maybe a 50/50 chance of success at best)
b) if finds agreement with David Eby's NDP government of BC, which has also been give a de facto veto by Carney
c) if finds a private-sector actor willing to fund it and champion it, even though every single detrimental federal policy preventing such an actor from stepping forward still exists and that Carney has shown no signs of wanting to get rid of (minus the tanker ban which may, eventually, be "modified" or "adjusted" in some way).
Let's get real. There will be no pipeline under this scenario. Carney knows this. Smith knows this. She is just going through the motions to placate her voter base.
Smith DID get a big under-reported win in the form of easing restrictions and emissions caps on Alberta's electricity grid. This may be a bigger win for her and Alberta in the medium and long term.
Can we admit now that Justin Trudeau was so out of touch as to be effectively insane? Because that's what even Liberals are tacitly acknowledging. What does that say about the normalizing and gaslghting that took place for 10 fucking years as everyone around him and most of the media justified his destructive excesses? We somehow thought the Mad King was a better choice than over the top beige bureaucrat Erin O'Toole?
Jen's comments about military pragmatism is interesting.
This may not be the case in Canada. There appears to be a willingness in the CAF to downplay changes in tone that ultimately will come down to political decisions, in favour of severe ingrained biases that favour a US military centric approach. They are particularly poor at reading the political room. They are also particularly poor at recognition of military development being part political. Look at the current 'military requirements are the only thing that matter' trope - a puritanical belief espoused by senior ex-Generals in various forums. Yes the military should be pure to their part, but their part is not the whole.
In addition, the CAF junior member through senior leader shows a covetous nature for the cool kit the US has. All the while the senior leadership routinely engages in intra-service competition to get (more than) their fair share of this kit. Pragmatism may frequently be trumped by aspiration. Cynically, exacerbated by future employment potential past their military careers.
The comment that many Trudeau-era cabinet members are "standing on the beach watching the tide go out" gave me a sense of hope. I wonder if the party leaders behind it all, and who have power to steer the direction and strategy of the LPC, are paying attention. The next round of nominees for the next election (whenever it is) will be telling.
With regard to how American's see the world, Edward Luttwack described the phenomenon in his book on China and highlighted that it real and common to all great states.
I learned to love scallops during my ten weeks at CFRS Cornwallis back in ‘85. On the offer every day, they were fresh from just down the road in Digby. Amazing!
Every Friday at lunch wasn't it? Chowder, scallops (marshmallows of the sea) fish and chips. We never had it so good.
May have been, i just remember they were there alot. Food at Gagetown could not match it.
Pro Patria
Gagetown has its own charms. Especially if you don't mind game meat.
I do hope that a pipeline will get built. It is the most important first step in diversifying our economy away from our current dependence on the United States. Even if a pipeline takes some eight years to complete, and Mr. Trump will be gone, our need to diversify will remain.
On bringing greenhouse gases under control, the solution lies through technology and market forces, not restrictive regulation. Already, solar power has become competitive in many situations, and this will continue. Meanwhile, nuclear energy (small modular reactors) will provide a reliable baseline. Fossil fuel use will decline as alternatives become cheaper.
On Steven Guilbeault, I had to smile. On previous episodes, you talked about Canadian values (in the context of comparing us to Americans). But you failed to recognize that there are at least two different sets of Canadian values, those of Quebec and those of the rest of Canada. While Mr. Guilbeault is negatively viewed in the rest of Canada (rightly, in my opinion), he is a hero in Quebec. His extreme environmentalism resonates deeply there (even though Quebecers show no desire to sacrifice materially in that cause). Of course, we know that Quebec's culture is different on other grounds. Look at the reactions to its secularism laws in the rest of Canada (generally appalled), while franco-Quebecers are in favour.
On military matters, I understand that the Europeans are angry with the United States, and will be reluctant to trust them in future. But I would take them more seriously if they were taking meaningful steps to build a unified military force. Absent that, there will remain a dependence on the Americans, especially in an increasingly hostile world. From what I can see, Europe is a continent in decline in the long term -- they are in worse shape than the Americans. And I don't think that they are waking up particularly quickly.
On Jen's comment that our advantage is that we see them, but they don't see us. True. But it is not clear to me that we see ourselves particularly clearly. Newsletters such as The Line certainly help. But there certainly is a long way to go. Anyway, a big thank you to Matt and Jen.
Regarding Quebecers and M. Guilbeault, La Presse, a federalist rag, has a regular column on "Environnement" and have been mum about the pipeline and him bolting. Except to mock him. https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/caricatures/2025-11-29/retour-aux-sources.php. My bet is the environweenies are in a state of disbelief.
Hey Geebo good riddance to you, too bad I has no opportunity to trip you up on your way out !!
I appreciated the balanced take on what the Carney-Alberta deal actually means, when so many in the commentariat are acting as if it means 100% for sure Carney is doing whatever it takes to build a pipeline.
In the long term, it's hard to escape the suspicion that the sweet spot will be Carney getting credit for supporting a pipeline, but the thing never actually getting built because reasons. And if Carney subtly bears responsibility for some of those reasons (like granting various constituencies vetoes that exist nowhere in our constitutional structure, or the economics not working because of the costs and risks his own government is imposing), anybody saying that out loud can be shouted down as a conspiracy theorist or worse when the time comes. Heck, he might be retired before it's completely clear it isn't happening.
Carney's different from Trudeau, but he's not above mirroring Trudeau's successes. And Trudeau was an absolute master of getting credit for supporting things in principle without bearing any of the costs of actually doing them. The last election Trudeau won was largely on the desperate need to fire unvaxxed public servants and to round up "assault-style" rifles, neither of which he ever actually did.
Sure, Carney might surprise. He's new to practical politics, and we don't really know what he'll do under true pressure, when he faces hard political trade-offs. He can't be sure himself, however much he might have imagined such situations in his daydreams. But politics don't work fundamentally differently for him from any other Lib, and the politics are on the side of nice noises and no actual pipe.
Carney, for those naive souls who thought he actually is something "saving" Canada, is disappointing already. Carney is "just visiting". Produced already a whole bunch of shallow fakery.
To follow up on the previous comment Quebec and Canada IMO are like a totally estranged couple staying in a failed marriage because the cost of spitting up is perceived to be too much. And both places are held back from achieving their separate potentials. IMO Confederation was essentially a shotgun marriage arranged by British colonial masters. (Like a lot of similar British attempts eg India, Pakistan, etc) And if Alaska and Hawaii can thrive as part of the US then so could the separate parts of Canada succeed with another country in between.
Yepp !! Lots of people though freak out about this, funny.
I'm a Toronto anglophone and a convinced Quebec Separatist. Totally different and incompatible cultures, they've spent two generations making sure of that. Quebec needs to be either in Canada and treated the same as everywhere else, or out as their own sovereign country, and it's clear they don't want in.
They can do their own thing but get no more equalization payments and most importantly no more sending MP's to Ottawa to screw over the rest of the country. Out! Maybe then Quebecers will realize that they can't have the benefits of a wealthy society while smugly pissing all over everything that makes that possible, being the worst examples of Canadians who collectively do this.
👍👍👍
The US isn't the reliable ally that Canadians can take advantage of anymore.
That said, Canada is still the underachieving country with an underperforming people, and the reasons to deflect blame are running out.
Eventually Canadians need to become serious people and start focusing on doing things instead of saying things.
This starts with culture. Business, science and leadership should quite frankly be incentivized socially more instead to security, risk aversion and "team fit." Parents need to start raising their kids to see business ownership as a goal instead of something kids with bad grades do as a fallback (and then those same people to be vilified when they buy a nice boat.)
My point is that if Canadians don't grow up from the resource farmer mentality and learn to add value to the world, then what is the point of Canada? As a mirror image society to the US, like the mirror universe in Star Trek?
Perhaps this was good enough for the boomers and Gen X, but it isn't good enough for the kids. The spread between the US and Canada is too wide now. Australia and Western Europe are passing US by and Central Europe is catching up fast.
Like my teen asked me, "what's the point of Canada if everything is harder, less fun and poorer here? Wouldn't it just make more sense to join the US?"
If we don't make a better country for our kids they will just leave, or ask to join the US. No amount of Laurentian culture will change that.
Jen’s “side rant”, beginning just after the 37 minute mark, needs its own podcast rebroadcast.
ObstReperous is another good O word to be added to obnoxious and odious to describe Guilbeault and a few other Liberal cabinet members - Champagne, for starters.
Do I think the Liberal government has a secret plan to screw Alberta? I doubt it. I'm not expecting a pipeline, I am expecting this agreement will amount to precisely nothing because we cannot get anything done in this country. I'm not entirely confident Carney is the guy to lead Canada right now. He seems out of his element. No political instincts. I could be wrong. I hope I am because we need stability and a united country if we're not going to get squashed like a bug in our dangerous new world order.
Hopefully Champagne can become Carney's right hand man.
Sean, no, the LPC government does not have a secret plan to screw we in Alberta; their plan is as it ever was, to advantage central Canada. That was the purpose of Confederation and remains the raison d'etre for O & Q.
Now, having said that, the PREVIOUS LPC government had a very explicit plan to screw we in Alberta. The Face Painter wanted to shut our industry down; he actually said that publicly some years ago. Of course, he later denied meaning that but he did say it and his actions demonstrated that he, in fact, did mean it.
I similarly do not expect a pipeline to actually get built. I hope that I am wrong but I don't expect it. The separatists here will utilize that soon to be "broken promise" as more fodder for their goal of separation. How will I vote? I cannot say yet but I am definitely open to listening to them and (for a short while yet) the folks singing the "Stay" song.
Ah, you want a united country! Wrong place for you in Canada, my son.
I'm 58. Unless you're older than me, don't call me "my son".
Actually, Sean, you ARE old enough/young enough to be my son; I reach my seventy-fifth anniversary in nineteen days.
Jen said exactly what I’ve thought forever. Finally. It needed to be said. Good job.
“I live off-grid.i need to go to town and buy some fuel for my Generator.” “They sell off grid fuel now?”
Water wheel? Steam powered from chopped wood? Lol.
You are right, can't be a polite people without a healthy acceptance of hypocrisy
Let me get this straight.
Alberta can get it's pipeline if, and only if:
a) it finds agreement with first nations whom have been given a de facto veto by Carney (ie. years of litigation with maybe a 50/50 chance of success at best)
b) if finds agreement with David Eby's NDP government of BC, which has also been give a de facto veto by Carney
c) if finds a private-sector actor willing to fund it and champion it, even though every single detrimental federal policy preventing such an actor from stepping forward still exists and that Carney has shown no signs of wanting to get rid of (minus the tanker ban which may, eventually, be "modified" or "adjusted" in some way).
Let's get real. There will be no pipeline under this scenario. Carney knows this. Smith knows this. She is just going through the motions to placate her voter base.
Smith DID get a big under-reported win in the form of easing restrictions and emissions caps on Alberta's electricity grid. This may be a bigger win for her and Alberta in the medium and long term.
Can we admit now that Justin Trudeau was so out of touch as to be effectively insane? Because that's what even Liberals are tacitly acknowledging. What does that say about the normalizing and gaslghting that took place for 10 fucking years as everyone around him and most of the media justified his destructive excesses? We somehow thought the Mad King was a better choice than over the top beige bureaucrat Erin O'Toole?
Jen's comments about military pragmatism is interesting.
This may not be the case in Canada. There appears to be a willingness in the CAF to downplay changes in tone that ultimately will come down to political decisions, in favour of severe ingrained biases that favour a US military centric approach. They are particularly poor at reading the political room. They are also particularly poor at recognition of military development being part political. Look at the current 'military requirements are the only thing that matter' trope - a puritanical belief espoused by senior ex-Generals in various forums. Yes the military should be pure to their part, but their part is not the whole.
In addition, the CAF junior member through senior leader shows a covetous nature for the cool kit the US has. All the while the senior leadership routinely engages in intra-service competition to get (more than) their fair share of this kit. Pragmatism may frequently be trumped by aspiration. Cynically, exacerbated by future employment potential past their military careers.
The comment that many Trudeau-era cabinet members are "standing on the beach watching the tide go out" gave me a sense of hope. I wonder if the party leaders behind it all, and who have power to steer the direction and strategy of the LPC, are paying attention. The next round of nominees for the next election (whenever it is) will be telling.
With regard to how American's see the world, Edward Luttwack described the phenomenon in his book on China and highlighted that it real and common to all great states.
Jen, you nailed it...the realism, the politics, the hope and the balance of the pipeline MOU. Nicely done.