On big-time loser energy from the CPC. On Ontario and Alberta having some problems. And Jen floats a wild theory that Matt THINKS won't get her cancelled.
It's true that a Liberal PM can do things a Conservative PM couldn't without arousing suspicion. That's one of the benefits of electing Liberals.
It doesn't just apply to barely consequential rhetoric like calling Trump "transformational". Chretien could cut spending in ways Mulroney never could have. He could pass the Clarity Act, cracking down on Quebec separatists in ways Mulroney never could have. Mulroney still had accomplishments, like passing the free trade agreement, but it was Chretien's support for free trade that changed it from a partisan controversy to an established norm.
The electoral system, and Parliamentary rules, have to treat parties exactly alike. The political culture does not. There is nothing that requires Canadian voters to make it equally easy for Liberals and Conservatives to get elected. The people who matter most politically lean strongly Liberal. Conservatives win occasionally by offering a contrast and doing everything right while Liberals are unpopular (and there's another theory that they could win through the Joe Clark / Erin O'Toole approach of becoming the Emergency Backup Liberal Party and erasing as much contrast as possible, while hoping the Liberals fumble and lose).
But voters don't owe the Conservatives anything. There does not have to be some approach that leads to Conservatives winning 50% of federal elections, any more than there has to be some approach Pepsico could take that would get people to drink as much Pepsi as Coke.
But "elbows up" to "suck up" in a week get the benefit of the doubt? Carney didn't promise a subtle long-term process, he promised an attack. He didn't promise to sit there silently while Trump invented Canadian trade statistics that Carney should know, but doesn't. He didn't promise to sit there silently while Trump insulted a Canadian Minister (though Freeland does deserve it for her hapless handling of USMCA).
Whoever won the election was going to send a trade delegation. At least Poilievre would have had the self-respect and sense not to beg for a meeting with Trump.
You are right there. I have no idea how Carney will run things, but I do worry about him not getting blowback if he deviates from his election promises. I guess he gets a free pass on the promises that contradicted each other.
Agree with all of this. These are all structural realities that favour the Liberals but whining about it won't do a thing other than give off loser energy.
Furthermore a focus on all these structural realities that favour the Liberals overlooks a pretty major structural reality that favours the Conservatives, namely that in most elections the NDP siphons off a lot of votes that would have otherwise gone to the Liberals (this election being an obvious exception to that rule). In a "typical" election that is a pretty big structural advantage to the Conservatives. And this is so baked in that you rarely hear it mentioned in a typical election. Sure, many are now saying, too bad for the Conservatives that the NDP vote collapsed 10 days ago. But if to win you need the *undeserved* advantage that is an also-ran party siphoning votes from your main rival you are on shaky ground to start. Whether this (usual) Conservative structural advantage offsets the Liberal advantages cited above is an interesting thought experiment. But perhaps if the Conservatives were grateful for that "unfairness" from which they benefit they would invest less energy in whining about the "unfair" headwinds they face and try to figure out a way to deal with them. And maybe they can't - Matt's boogeyman theory is compelling. But my word, the whining is so unappealing - where is your dignity?
It's a matter of demographics. The Liberals are the home team of Central Canada just as much as the Conservatives are the home team of Western Canada. Even Corey Hogan in Calgary Confederation, senior cabinet shoo-in with Carney, is a hard Blue Grit more economically conservative than much of the CPC.
Remember, in BC thr Liberals barely exist outside the immigrant and Central Canadian transplant ridings.
It will take a few more decades for the Western provinces to gain enough seats in Parliament to offset the number of seats in Central Canada. The new regulations prevent Quebec and the Atlantic provinces from losing any seats in Parliament.
I haven’t even started yet but I note that the podcast is now 1 hr 45 min long. Talk about mission creep - it used to be a comfortable hour / hour-and-a-quarter! Oh well, I’m sure that it’ll be interesting and insightful, as always, but I’ll just have to spread it over the weekend 😁
He said, on Mar 31st, 2025: “The unjustified threats by President Trump further strengthen the arguments in favour of the Canada First agenda that I have been fighting for my whole life. And while we propose those solutions, we will not forget the single Mom who cannot afford food. We will not forget the seniors who are choosing between eating and heating. We will not forget that 36 year-old couple whose biological clock is running out faster than they can afford to buy a home and have kids. We will not forget the families terrorized by crime and drugs. So we will continue, despite calls to the contrary, to talk about those things even if I am the only leader in the country that offers any change.”
What did CBC get from these words? The headline was “Poilievre catches heat from opponents for talk of 'biological clocks'".
So many who say that he should have engaged more with the mainstream media assume that this would have gone well for him and not just given them ammunition. I don't think that is quite so clear.
Maybe. But the mainstream media is still what voters utilize. As a side note, there is nothing to be gained by arguing about media bias and refusing to talk to them. Bias exists and everyone knows it. For me, the last people who should be telling us there is no bias are those who report the news. I think social media changed everything because journalists were now tweeting their reactions instead of keeping their traps shut and tell us what happened and what it means.
If Trump were pouring billions of dollars into Fox, the Democrats would still not be helping themselves by boycotting American media and tough questions at large. Outside of the leaders' debates Poilievre generally dodged any and all media sources that would ask him tough questions, including non-partisan independent media. (Carney did not engage in long-form interviews from potential critics either, but Poilievre set a low bar for Carney to cross here.)
Most disdain Russian media because it must support the government or perish. Canadian media still slips in a story here and there that doesn't support our government, which may be why Carney plans to double CBC's budget. CBC can then sell even cheaper advertizing, requiring higher subsidization of the rest of the industry. Once the traditional media is largely dependent on the government, all it would take would be an online harms act to bring the non-traditional media into line.
An you come up with another rationale for doubling the BC's budget?
Unless you have access to information that is not available to most people I'm not seeing any evidence for your point of view. And really, if it wasn't written down, was it ever said?
I have to agree with Jen quite unreservedly on the “can the Conservatives ever be elected” debate. Matt, you do sound fatalistic, and YOU’RE giving off loser energy. Flat out. Come on. The Conservatives lost a winnable election. I voted Conservative, I did not love their campaign. Notable errors and omissions for me.
- failure to engage the MSM. Major fail. Remember your apple chomping clips went viral Pierre.
- failure to reach out to Doug Ford and Tim Houston in the months or years prior. Brutal and damning leadership decision.
- policy announcements were very underwhelming, largely off target, and not well covered due to point #1
- I agree with other posters, the ban on local candidate debates was a very poor look and a mistake
This was a campaign run by the greatest opposition leader in modern Canadian history (imo). He looked lost without Trudeau as a foil.
He did not make the pivot to, or look like “I want to be Prime Minister” well.
I like the idea of more local candidate debates. But if I were running the CPC campaign I wouldn't love it when candidate A shows up to one and ends up backed into supporting a third trimester abortion ban and candidate B responds to the public safety topic by singing the virtues of defending your home with an AR-15, and suddenly these issues are fires to be put out for the next week.
Another structural disadvantage when your party includes supporters of issues that have been pushed outside the tiny Overton window in Canada.
I feel like Jen's take on Catholicism and populism in Canada is missing some factors. The Catholic Church was super political and quite illiberal in pre-Quiet Revolution Quebec. And there are a lot of MAGA Catholics in the U.S.- J.D. Vance most prominently, but also the U.S. Catholic bishops are quite right-wing and outspoken about it. You can get more examples of reactionary and hyperpolitical Catholicism outside Canada, too. I don't know if you could call Spanish fascism "populist" but it was heavily Catholic and supported by the Church.
I think you might be on to something but it's not just Catholicism qua Catholicism is a brake on hyperpolitical right wing politics, but rather something about the role of the Catholic Church in Canada, the Canadian Catholic experience specifically.
Quite agree. I am inclined to like Jenn’s theory, but my first thought on hearing it was “yes but explain J.D. Vance.” And then you had Cardinal Prevost calling him out regards his interpretation of Augustinian priorities, yet Trump was quick to congratulate his election as Pope. Lots of dangling threads to pull on here, it will be fascinating to watch. Also bear in mind that there are various strands of Catholicism, especially in the US (to wit, Prevost and Vance). None of this to say Jenn’s theory is wrong, just needs deeper investigation.
And I would really like to listen to On the Line with Tim Alberta.
Thank you Jen for raising the role of religion as a social force. I find your theory that a greater percentage of Catholics helps explains the difference between Canada and the US quite insightful and may well be correct.
My experience has been as follows.
Growing up in Quebec in the 1950s as a child sermons supporting political parties and anti Jews and English Protestants were the norm at election time.
Canada is definitely less religious (24% say it’s very important) vs 48% in the USA. My Canada small town - 30K or so has maybe 12 churches and meeting locations. My US town -same size -had around 35. Plus people meet at each other’s homes to worship.
When you meet a new person in my USA home small town the third question - after name and where you’re from - is have you joined a church yet followed by an invitation to visit theirs. In Canada - same size town - people react as if you asked them what their taste in sexual activity was.
Jen seems to be right 30% of Canadian Christians are Catholic vs 20% in the US.
I found that if you need help people in the US are much more likely to stop and help vs driving on and dialing 911 in Canada. The Canadian police even seem to encourage this behavior. I’m convinced religiosity is a primary reason for the difference.
People seem to do fund raisers and prayer vigils much more than in Canada. Just subjective.
Finally when I was in Guatemala I asked why the Christian churches were growing so rapidly. The answer was the Christian churches were distributing rice and beans after the service while the Catholic Churches were distributing blessings.
Unlike John, I don't have any terribly useful insight, however, one possible angle to explore with this theory is the nature of Protestantism in Canada vs the USA. My best guess is that a decent percentage of Protestants in Canada are Anglican, or at least a higher percentage than in the USA. The Anglicans have a different origin story than the more revolutionary Protestants (Lutheran, Calvinism, etc). The Anglicans are closest to the Catholics in outlook. If my assertion is true then the Canadian Protestants are more "watered down" than the American version, and when combined with the lower percentage of Protestants in Canada as a whole, may further contribute to the difference between Canada and USA.
Thanks for an additional perspective. I looked it up and in Canada 3% of the population identify as Anglican vs 1% identifying as Episcopalian in the US. You are right in Anglicans being close to Catholics. A good friend became an Anglican priest and in seminary she took the same courses as Catholic aspirants for three years before taking different ones in year 4. And I was advised (subject to correction) that the Catholic Church maintained at least until 1896 - when the Pope stopped the practice - an “ordination family tree” of bishops starting with Henry VIII. If you were in the right historic chain of ordination your ordination was considered legitimate by the Catholic Church.
Sure. At the time the church ran the French Catholic educational system. From the viewpoint of a 7 year old it was basically follow the doctrine and detailed rules or you would go to the hot place for all eternity. Fear was the motivator. I was beaten a few times for rebelliousness and having an English culture in a French school system. The books you could read or borrow at the public library were all church approved.
At the time the various religions and races all disliked each other. Carrying on religious wars from centuries earlier. (Same as the US colonies in the 1600s and 1700s BTW). The Irish Protestant (Orange Lodge) vs Papists (Knights of Columbus) were still fighting the Battle of the Boyne. The French and English were fighting the Plains of Abraham. After that battle and the UK seized New France most of the educated rulers fled leaving the Catholic Churches as the main administrators. If you could afford it you tithed it was encouraged.
Pope Pius VI put out restrictions on Jews in the 1770s. Since Quebec was church run administratively for 200 years ending 1960 it was not a great environment for Jews. Plus you had the French vs English cold civil wars.
Anyway that’s a family friendly taste. If you’re interested we could expand offline.
I was told that before the Quiet Revolution, it was common for the village priest’s sermon would just be telling the congregants to vote Maurice Duplessis and Union Nationale!
You were told right. I was a little kid in church when our priest said it. And our school teacher said that Duplessis said the holocaust wws an English lie.
To be fair to Poilievre, his choice of a seat to run in a by-election was always going to be at mercy of whatever small pool of MPs would be loyal enough to him personally to make a significant short-term sacrifice. Any Conservative MP that deeply loyal to Poilievre was probably bound to be the kind of hardcore Conservative that only the safe seats produce.
One of the most indefensible forms of cowardice the Conservatives displayed in this election was systematically skipping out on local all-candidates' debates. Apparently the local TV stations, the local farmers' organizations, local chambers of commerce, and the local community centres are all too anti-conservative, even though the Peoples' Party candidates were accessible enough to show up!
One missed opportunity for Poilievre to humble and better himself would have been to stay on as party leader *without* a seat in the House of Commons. Poilievre has enough of a pension that he could afford to tour Canada until the next election and reach new Canadians with town halls. If there is any MP whose worldview has been distorted by over-exposure to caucus politics and an absence of outsider political experience, that MP's name is Pierre Poilievre.
I live in an orange-red Lower Mainland riding. I was thinking of going with the Conservative as a sort of protest vote even though he was unlikely to win. My local paper requested blurbs from each candidate for an election information page they were putting together. Only two candidates did not respond: the Green that later dropped out of the race, and the Conservative.
Really? If you can’t be assed to send 200 words of boilerplate about your top three priorities to the only remaining local news outlet in our city of 250,000, how could I ever reasonably expect any kind of responsiveness from you if I ever needed to contact your office with a complaint or request?
Anyway, I did not vote for the Conservative candidate. If he doesn’t want to work for me he doesn’t have to!
I have to disagree about the utility of local candidate forums/debates. In my experience, they tend to be run by such objective groups as the local chamber of commerce or the local labour council. Then, 95% of attendees are one-issue busy-bodies, rabid partisans or just plain cranks. 5% are voters who genuinely want to learn about the candidates and where they stand.
I do I agree that ignoring or mistreating all media that didn’t fawn all over Poilievre was monumentally stupid. The old adage “never get in a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel” still applies. Having said that, there are plenty of “new media” outlets that the could have gone on that would have allowed them to get their message out without the slavish fawning.
Also, this book relates to your discussion: "The Politics of Evangelical Identity: Local Churches and Partisan Divides in the United States and Canadian". If I remember, the author finds that evangelicals in Canada don't have a political identity the way American Evangelicals do. So, I think it relates very well to your discussion on Tim Alberta's Book.
3. Nevertheless, I feel that growing up, we were very exposed to American Evangelicalism.
At the Christian camp the counsellors would play the coolest Christians bands, that sounded like punk or pop but had lyrics about Jesus. There was on CD in particular when the singer gives a speech about how American was founded as a Christian country. Meanwhile there were electric guitars in the background leading into a praise song. All emotional and manipulative. So as teenager's, we'd listen to this, and then go swimming in the muskokas. So many stories like, so many resources are written and made in the US.
Despite the American influence, I do believe we were uniquely Canadian. The American stuff was superfluous.
Also, for fun. Check out the 1985 Ontario election, and Bishop Garnsworthy's comments on public funded Roman Catholic School. Maybe your older readers will remember this. The newspaper eviscerated him. Church leaders have stayed in the shadows ever since.
I think secular, left-wing politics replaced God, but kept the fire and brimstone religiosity. The left are as evangelical as the Christian right. They accuse those who disagree with them of denialism, and one must just have blind faith in those things they purport to be facts. They have the bogeyman/devil. The world will end if we don't do XYZ. Intermarriage with those of different political beliefs is not likely something they are in favour of. They brainwash their kids from a young age and want the schools to buy into that as well. They start each event with a public "prayer," a land acknowledgment, and people must show their buy-in to the faith by introducing themselves by way of preferred pronouns. I gave up Catholicism decades ago, but I see that my siblings merely replaced Catholicism with something just as controlling. It's a strange, strange world.
Conservatives think Liberals are stupid or at least naive. Liberals think Conservatives are evil. One of these is an opinion, the other requires a certain degree of faith.
I am a conservative and in fact open to criticism of my party and leader. However it is Jenn’s incessant sniping that has turned me off so much that I must leave. She wrongly labels herself centre right. She is not. Matt might be. There is in fact an undeniable political double standard. Voters are only at fault for falling for media rhetoric but media is at fault for its bias, it’s obvious support of Liberal policies and for the spin it gives to the issues. Pretty soon listeners, especially uninformed or otherwise challenged listeners believe this Liberal gospel as truth! That is a real hurdle for any conservative leader. Farewell The Line. My time is better spent at The Hub where I am a paid subscriber.
Hmm. I came to ask Jen to stop using ‘Carney’ this and ‘Pierre’ that when she speaks of the two leaders. It rather suggests a bias towards the Conservatives. It’s either both by first name or both by surname, please. Just a common courtesy.
Nothing is intended by either. Lots of people default to calling me "Gerson," rather than "Jen" according to which name resonates with them. I don't read anything into it either way. "Carney" is punchier than "Mark" and "Pierre" is easier than "Poilievre." That's it, really. JG
Two comments: the first is that Canada is composed of more than Ontario and Albert. Yes, I know thats where your eyes and ears are focused right now but could you for God's sake mention other Canadian provinces and territories and seek out stories from those areas. Secondly, I’ve just let my Conservative Party membership lapse principally as a result of their spectacularly idiotic campaign. I remain a conservative pending a damage control evaluation of both parties strategy.
So, you don't think there is media bias? Go watch No Nonsense with Pamela Walin who did a podcast on the issue and, surprise, agreed that there is bias.
Carney is being praised to the heavens for his performance in Washington but what I saw showed weakness and deference to the President. ok some of it was needed BUT not a word to defend Freeland, and mouthing 'never' for the cameras does not project strength. go watch The Body Language Guy for his take on the presser.
My question is this - Carney ran on an attack platform (not sure where his policies that you seemed to see were nor how you missed the CPC platform but whatever) and then turned 180 degrees and became the subservient child to the President so now what? You were going to 'fight' and 'elbows up' and all that stuff and it all disappears over night? Just like the 180 degree reversal of all the LPC policies of the last ten years that the voters somehow bought. We don't have an urban vs rural split but rather a split of any kind of critical thinking vs a realistic look at how things are going and what is wrong. As evidence, Carney won on a platform of 'orange man bad' when anyone who really thought about it would have concluded that the US didn't want Canada as the 51st state. Unfrikinbelievable
I suspect that basically any outcome of the White House meeting short of Carney signing an annexation treaty would have been treated as a success by Liberals, boomers and the media.
Belligerent interaction? That's "elbows up". Cordial encounter and pleasantries? That's shrewd diplomacy. Trump insulting Carney? It's because he's frightened. Trump praising Carney? That's because he's impressed with how awesome our new leader is.
It's all aces when you move the goalposts freely.
And yes, the entire Carney 'anti-Trump' campaign was self-conscious, disingenuous, manipulative bullshit. It almost goes without saying. Even Trump has pretty much openly acknowledged that he considered it theatre and enjoyed the show (e.g. statements to the effect of "oh yah, he was just running for office, no hard feelings"). Yet nobody in the mainstream media, even really on the right, has coherently or strongly called this out.
I think Matt's right about the bogeyman thing. The Liberals always run against a bogeyman. They've nailed that schtick. I don't think that will change. Heck, even Andrew Scheer was a bogeyman to them.
Taken together, "things Liberals can get away with" constitute a set of impressive size. When it comes to cultivating and exploiting a sense of self-entitlement, Canada's 'ruling party' routinely leads the league. If a trophy is ever awarded, it will probably be called 'The Trudeau.'
This is classic home team bias, nothing more. The Liberals are the home team for the parts of Canada the media come from. You see the same thing with Leafs fans for instance.
The Conservatives have a much more strong coalition demographically. The Liberals coalition is mostly in the poorer, older, old stock and more eastern parts of Canada. The Conservatives coalition is younger, richer, more immigrant and western. Just let time do its thing. Once the Expo 67 hippy dippy generation is gone the Liberals will have to transform or perish.
In Alberta the Conservatives have the same benefit of the doubt that the Liberals get in Central Canada. They are the home team, they are family. Nothing more. It's just that Central Canada has most of Canada's population and Ontario is over half of English Canada, so they just have more seats.
This leads to Alberta separatism. A lot of what drives it is that "foreigners" lead the national agenda and are pushing their values into the rest of the country. It's tribal and orherism.
As for Danielle Smith and why she is soft footing separatism? She know what David and especially Rachel Parker are capable of. They are more responsible than anyone for organizing the knock out of Kenney, a devout Catholic. This couple, both the children of evangelical pastors by the way, have been proven to be able to organize for her, and they can organize against her, and they are separatists.
To the point of the podcast, a major reason Canada even exists is as a bulwark against populist Protestantism. Remember, the Laurentian Elite are an alliance of mainline Protestant and Catholics against the "American way" and evangelicalism is foundational to that.
Much if not most of what makes Alberta and Saskatchewan different than the rest of Canada is that these are the two provinces that weren't settled by the Laurentians. They were settled by people from elsewhere, including Metis, Mormons, Eastern Europeans, outsiders to the power centre and much less hostile to the "American Way." The superior economic success of the US versus Central and Eastern Canada also have much to do with it as does "sorting." Calgary is full of people who would have moved to the US if they could, to fulfill their ambitions. Alberta is "America lite."
Jen, I'm surprised you didn't call the Parker's already. I'm sure they would do the other podcast.
It's true that a Liberal PM can do things a Conservative PM couldn't without arousing suspicion. That's one of the benefits of electing Liberals.
It doesn't just apply to barely consequential rhetoric like calling Trump "transformational". Chretien could cut spending in ways Mulroney never could have. He could pass the Clarity Act, cracking down on Quebec separatists in ways Mulroney never could have. Mulroney still had accomplishments, like passing the free trade agreement, but it was Chretien's support for free trade that changed it from a partisan controversy to an established norm.
The electoral system, and Parliamentary rules, have to treat parties exactly alike. The political culture does not. There is nothing that requires Canadian voters to make it equally easy for Liberals and Conservatives to get elected. The people who matter most politically lean strongly Liberal. Conservatives win occasionally by offering a contrast and doing everything right while Liberals are unpopular (and there's another theory that they could win through the Joe Clark / Erin O'Toole approach of becoming the Emergency Backup Liberal Party and erasing as much contrast as possible, while hoping the Liberals fumble and lose).
But voters don't owe the Conservatives anything. There does not have to be some approach that leads to Conservatives winning 50% of federal elections, any more than there has to be some approach Pepsico could take that would get people to drink as much Pepsi as Coke.
I think this is exactly right. Nobody is owed the benefit of the doubt.
But "elbows up" to "suck up" in a week get the benefit of the doubt? Carney didn't promise a subtle long-term process, he promised an attack. He didn't promise to sit there silently while Trump invented Canadian trade statistics that Carney should know, but doesn't. He didn't promise to sit there silently while Trump insulted a Canadian Minister (though Freeland does deserve it for her hapless handling of USMCA).
Whoever won the election was going to send a trade delegation. At least Poilievre would have had the self-respect and sense not to beg for a meeting with Trump.
I think this is also right, fwiw. But I'm willing to withhold judgement on tactics until we see results (or lack thereof). JG
You are right there. I have no idea how Carney will run things, but I do worry about him not getting blowback if he deviates from his election promises. I guess he gets a free pass on the promises that contradicted each other.
Carney is smarter than the general public. He knows the "elbows up" attack the boomers want is a suicide mission.
Canadian boomers really are something else.
Agree with all of this. These are all structural realities that favour the Liberals but whining about it won't do a thing other than give off loser energy.
Furthermore a focus on all these structural realities that favour the Liberals overlooks a pretty major structural reality that favours the Conservatives, namely that in most elections the NDP siphons off a lot of votes that would have otherwise gone to the Liberals (this election being an obvious exception to that rule). In a "typical" election that is a pretty big structural advantage to the Conservatives. And this is so baked in that you rarely hear it mentioned in a typical election. Sure, many are now saying, too bad for the Conservatives that the NDP vote collapsed 10 days ago. But if to win you need the *undeserved* advantage that is an also-ran party siphoning votes from your main rival you are on shaky ground to start. Whether this (usual) Conservative structural advantage offsets the Liberal advantages cited above is an interesting thought experiment. But perhaps if the Conservatives were grateful for that "unfairness" from which they benefit they would invest less energy in whining about the "unfair" headwinds they face and try to figure out a way to deal with them. And maybe they can't - Matt's boogeyman theory is compelling. But my word, the whining is so unappealing - where is your dignity?
The Liberals aren't entitled to votes that roll off the NDP. Plenty of ridings where the matchup is between the NDP and Conservatives.
It's a matter of demographics. The Liberals are the home team of Central Canada just as much as the Conservatives are the home team of Western Canada. Even Corey Hogan in Calgary Confederation, senior cabinet shoo-in with Carney, is a hard Blue Grit more economically conservative than much of the CPC.
Remember, in BC thr Liberals barely exist outside the immigrant and Central Canadian transplant ridings.
It will take a few more decades for the Western provinces to gain enough seats in Parliament to offset the number of seats in Central Canada. The new regulations prevent Quebec and the Atlantic provinces from losing any seats in Parliament.
I'm 32 minutes in and so far my takeaway is that the Line needs a vacation. lol
I haven’t even started yet but I note that the podcast is now 1 hr 45 min long. Talk about mission creep - it used to be a comfortable hour / hour-and-a-quarter! Oh well, I’m sure that it’ll be interesting and insightful, as always, but I’ll just have to spread it over the weekend 😁
No, we are actually looking for the right length, so this is excellent feedback. Thank you. JG
Yeah, I have to listen in pieces as well.
Poilievre has every right to disdain the media.
He said, on Mar 31st, 2025: “The unjustified threats by President Trump further strengthen the arguments in favour of the Canada First agenda that I have been fighting for my whole life. And while we propose those solutions, we will not forget the single Mom who cannot afford food. We will not forget the seniors who are choosing between eating and heating. We will not forget that 36 year-old couple whose biological clock is running out faster than they can afford to buy a home and have kids. We will not forget the families terrorized by crime and drugs. So we will continue, despite calls to the contrary, to talk about those things even if I am the only leader in the country that offers any change.”
What did CBC get from these words? The headline was “Poilievre catches heat from opponents for talk of 'biological clocks'".
So many who say that he should have engaged more with the mainstream media assume that this would have gone well for him and not just given them ammunition. I don't think that is quite so clear.
Maybe. But the mainstream media is still what voters utilize. As a side note, there is nothing to be gained by arguing about media bias and refusing to talk to them. Bias exists and everyone knows it. For me, the last people who should be telling us there is no bias are those who report the news. I think social media changed everything because journalists were now tweeting their reactions instead of keeping their traps shut and tell us what happened and what it means.
And that is why the Liberal party subsidized the mainstream media.
Our media would go apeshit if Trump started pouring billions of dollars into Fox like a tin-pot dictator.
If Trump were pouring billions of dollars into Fox, the Democrats would still not be helping themselves by boycotting American media and tough questions at large. Outside of the leaders' debates Poilievre generally dodged any and all media sources that would ask him tough questions, including non-partisan independent media. (Carney did not engage in long-form interviews from potential critics either, but Poilievre set a low bar for Carney to cross here.)
Oh okay. Walk me through that if you would. Thanks.
Most disdain Russian media because it must support the government or perish. Canadian media still slips in a story here and there that doesn't support our government, which may be why Carney plans to double CBC's budget. CBC can then sell even cheaper advertizing, requiring higher subsidization of the rest of the industry. Once the traditional media is largely dependent on the government, all it would take would be an online harms act to bring the non-traditional media into line.
An you come up with another rationale for doubling the BC's budget?
Unless you have access to information that is not available to most people I'm not seeing any evidence for your point of view. And really, if it wasn't written down, was it ever said?
I have to agree with Jen quite unreservedly on the “can the Conservatives ever be elected” debate. Matt, you do sound fatalistic, and YOU’RE giving off loser energy. Flat out. Come on. The Conservatives lost a winnable election. I voted Conservative, I did not love their campaign. Notable errors and omissions for me.
- failure to engage the MSM. Major fail. Remember your apple chomping clips went viral Pierre.
- failure to reach out to Doug Ford and Tim Houston in the months or years prior. Brutal and damning leadership decision.
- policy announcements were very underwhelming, largely off target, and not well covered due to point #1
- I agree with other posters, the ban on local candidate debates was a very poor look and a mistake
This was a campaign run by the greatest opposition leader in modern Canadian history (imo). He looked lost without Trudeau as a foil.
He did not make the pivot to, or look like “I want to be Prime Minister” well.
I like the idea of more local candidate debates. But if I were running the CPC campaign I wouldn't love it when candidate A shows up to one and ends up backed into supporting a third trimester abortion ban and candidate B responds to the public safety topic by singing the virtues of defending your home with an AR-15, and suddenly these issues are fires to be put out for the next week.
Another structural disadvantage when your party includes supporters of issues that have been pushed outside the tiny Overton window in Canada.
How to defeat the boogie man? Joe did. Hillary and Kamala couldn’t. It can be done folks. Staying away from the pity parties helps… FWIW.
I feel like Jen's take on Catholicism and populism in Canada is missing some factors. The Catholic Church was super political and quite illiberal in pre-Quiet Revolution Quebec. And there are a lot of MAGA Catholics in the U.S.- J.D. Vance most prominently, but also the U.S. Catholic bishops are quite right-wing and outspoken about it. You can get more examples of reactionary and hyperpolitical Catholicism outside Canada, too. I don't know if you could call Spanish fascism "populist" but it was heavily Catholic and supported by the Church.
I think you might be on to something but it's not just Catholicism qua Catholicism is a brake on hyperpolitical right wing politics, but rather something about the role of the Catholic Church in Canada, the Canadian Catholic experience specifically.
Excellent points. JG
Quite agree. I am inclined to like Jenn’s theory, but my first thought on hearing it was “yes but explain J.D. Vance.” And then you had Cardinal Prevost calling him out regards his interpretation of Augustinian priorities, yet Trump was quick to congratulate his election as Pope. Lots of dangling threads to pull on here, it will be fascinating to watch. Also bear in mind that there are various strands of Catholicism, especially in the US (to wit, Prevost and Vance). None of this to say Jenn’s theory is wrong, just needs deeper investigation.
And I would really like to listen to On the Line with Tim Alberta.
Thank you Jen for raising the role of religion as a social force. I find your theory that a greater percentage of Catholics helps explains the difference between Canada and the US quite insightful and may well be correct.
My experience has been as follows.
Growing up in Quebec in the 1950s as a child sermons supporting political parties and anti Jews and English Protestants were the norm at election time.
Canada is definitely less religious (24% say it’s very important) vs 48% in the USA. My Canada small town - 30K or so has maybe 12 churches and meeting locations. My US town -same size -had around 35. Plus people meet at each other’s homes to worship.
When you meet a new person in my USA home small town the third question - after name and where you’re from - is have you joined a church yet followed by an invitation to visit theirs. In Canada - same size town - people react as if you asked them what their taste in sexual activity was.
Jen seems to be right 30% of Canadian Christians are Catholic vs 20% in the US.
I found that if you need help people in the US are much more likely to stop and help vs driving on and dialing 911 in Canada. The Canadian police even seem to encourage this behavior. I’m convinced religiosity is a primary reason for the difference.
People seem to do fund raisers and prayer vigils much more than in Canada. Just subjective.
Finally when I was in Guatemala I asked why the Christian churches were growing so rapidly. The answer was the Christian churches were distributing rice and beans after the service while the Catholic Churches were distributing blessings.
Hope this won’t get me banned from this forum.
That is valuable. Can you tell me more about your experience in the church in the '50s? JG
Unlike John, I don't have any terribly useful insight, however, one possible angle to explore with this theory is the nature of Protestantism in Canada vs the USA. My best guess is that a decent percentage of Protestants in Canada are Anglican, or at least a higher percentage than in the USA. The Anglicans have a different origin story than the more revolutionary Protestants (Lutheran, Calvinism, etc). The Anglicans are closest to the Catholics in outlook. If my assertion is true then the Canadian Protestants are more "watered down" than the American version, and when combined with the lower percentage of Protestants in Canada as a whole, may further contribute to the difference between Canada and USA.
Thanks for an additional perspective. I looked it up and in Canada 3% of the population identify as Anglican vs 1% identifying as Episcopalian in the US. You are right in Anglicans being close to Catholics. A good friend became an Anglican priest and in seminary she took the same courses as Catholic aspirants for three years before taking different ones in year 4. And I was advised (subject to correction) that the Catholic Church maintained at least until 1896 - when the Pope stopped the practice - an “ordination family tree” of bishops starting with Henry VIII. If you were in the right historic chain of ordination your ordination was considered legitimate by the Catholic Church.
Sure. At the time the church ran the French Catholic educational system. From the viewpoint of a 7 year old it was basically follow the doctrine and detailed rules or you would go to the hot place for all eternity. Fear was the motivator. I was beaten a few times for rebelliousness and having an English culture in a French school system. The books you could read or borrow at the public library were all church approved.
At the time the various religions and races all disliked each other. Carrying on religious wars from centuries earlier. (Same as the US colonies in the 1600s and 1700s BTW). The Irish Protestant (Orange Lodge) vs Papists (Knights of Columbus) were still fighting the Battle of the Boyne. The French and English were fighting the Plains of Abraham. After that battle and the UK seized New France most of the educated rulers fled leaving the Catholic Churches as the main administrators. If you could afford it you tithed it was encouraged.
Pope Pius VI put out restrictions on Jews in the 1770s. Since Quebec was church run administratively for 200 years ending 1960 it was not a great environment for Jews. Plus you had the French vs English cold civil wars.
Anyway that’s a family friendly taste. If you’re interested we could expand offline.
I was told that before the Quiet Revolution, it was common for the village priest’s sermon would just be telling the congregants to vote Maurice Duplessis and Union Nationale!
You were told right. I was a little kid in church when our priest said it. And our school teacher said that Duplessis said the holocaust wws an English lie.
To be fair to Poilievre, his choice of a seat to run in a by-election was always going to be at mercy of whatever small pool of MPs would be loyal enough to him personally to make a significant short-term sacrifice. Any Conservative MP that deeply loyal to Poilievre was probably bound to be the kind of hardcore Conservative that only the safe seats produce.
One of the most indefensible forms of cowardice the Conservatives displayed in this election was systematically skipping out on local all-candidates' debates. Apparently the local TV stations, the local farmers' organizations, local chambers of commerce, and the local community centres are all too anti-conservative, even though the Peoples' Party candidates were accessible enough to show up!
One missed opportunity for Poilievre to humble and better himself would have been to stay on as party leader *without* a seat in the House of Commons. Poilievre has enough of a pension that he could afford to tour Canada until the next election and reach new Canadians with town halls. If there is any MP whose worldview has been distorted by over-exposure to caucus politics and an absence of outsider political experience, that MP's name is Pierre Poilievre.
I live in an orange-red Lower Mainland riding. I was thinking of going with the Conservative as a sort of protest vote even though he was unlikely to win. My local paper requested blurbs from each candidate for an election information page they were putting together. Only two candidates did not respond: the Green that later dropped out of the race, and the Conservative.
Really? If you can’t be assed to send 200 words of boilerplate about your top three priorities to the only remaining local news outlet in our city of 250,000, how could I ever reasonably expect any kind of responsiveness from you if I ever needed to contact your office with a complaint or request?
Anyway, I did not vote for the Conservative candidate. If he doesn’t want to work for me he doesn’t have to!
I have to disagree about the utility of local candidate forums/debates. In my experience, they tend to be run by such objective groups as the local chamber of commerce or the local labour council. Then, 95% of attendees are one-issue busy-bodies, rabid partisans or just plain cranks. 5% are voters who genuinely want to learn about the candidates and where they stand.
I do I agree that ignoring or mistreating all media that didn’t fawn all over Poilievre was monumentally stupid. The old adage “never get in a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel” still applies. Having said that, there are plenty of “new media” outlets that the could have gone on that would have allowed them to get their message out without the slavish fawning.
1. Jen has had various comments over the years on the religion. They only get better.
I will read this Tim Alberto book.
2. This report from the evangelical fellowship gets into the complexity of Evangelical voting patterns in Canada: https://files.evangelicalfellowship.ca/min/rc/cft/V02I03/Evangelical_Voting_Trends_1996-2008.pdf
Also, this book relates to your discussion: "The Politics of Evangelical Identity: Local Churches and Partisan Divides in the United States and Canadian". If I remember, the author finds that evangelicals in Canada don't have a political identity the way American Evangelicals do. So, I think it relates very well to your discussion on Tim Alberta's Book.
3. Nevertheless, I feel that growing up, we were very exposed to American Evangelicalism.
At the Christian camp the counsellors would play the coolest Christians bands, that sounded like punk or pop but had lyrics about Jesus. There was on CD in particular when the singer gives a speech about how American was founded as a Christian country. Meanwhile there were electric guitars in the background leading into a praise song. All emotional and manipulative. So as teenager's, we'd listen to this, and then go swimming in the muskokas. So many stories like, so many resources are written and made in the US.
Despite the American influence, I do believe we were uniquely Canadian. The American stuff was superfluous.
Also, for fun. Check out the 1985 Ontario election, and Bishop Garnsworthy's comments on public funded Roman Catholic School. Maybe your older readers will remember this. The newspaper eviscerated him. Church leaders have stayed in the shadows ever since.
Excellent resources, thank you! JG
I think secular, left-wing politics replaced God, but kept the fire and brimstone religiosity. The left are as evangelical as the Christian right. They accuse those who disagree with them of denialism, and one must just have blind faith in those things they purport to be facts. They have the bogeyman/devil. The world will end if we don't do XYZ. Intermarriage with those of different political beliefs is not likely something they are in favour of. They brainwash their kids from a young age and want the schools to buy into that as well. They start each event with a public "prayer," a land acknowledgment, and people must show their buy-in to the faith by introducing themselves by way of preferred pronouns. I gave up Catholicism decades ago, but I see that my siblings merely replaced Catholicism with something just as controlling. It's a strange, strange world.
Conservatives think Liberals are stupid or at least naive. Liberals think Conservatives are evil. One of these is an opinion, the other requires a certain degree of faith.
I am a conservative and in fact open to criticism of my party and leader. However it is Jenn’s incessant sniping that has turned me off so much that I must leave. She wrongly labels herself centre right. She is not. Matt might be. There is in fact an undeniable political double standard. Voters are only at fault for falling for media rhetoric but media is at fault for its bias, it’s obvious support of Liberal policies and for the spin it gives to the issues. Pretty soon listeners, especially uninformed or otherwise challenged listeners believe this Liberal gospel as truth! That is a real hurdle for any conservative leader. Farewell The Line. My time is better spent at The Hub where I am a paid subscriber.
Hmm. I came to ask Jen to stop using ‘Carney’ this and ‘Pierre’ that when she speaks of the two leaders. It rather suggests a bias towards the Conservatives. It’s either both by first name or both by surname, please. Just a common courtesy.
Nothing is intended by either. Lots of people default to calling me "Gerson," rather than "Jen" according to which name resonates with them. I don't read anything into it either way. "Carney" is punchier than "Mark" and "Pierre" is easier than "Poilievre." That's it, really. JG
Can you define Centre-Right? I think many people say they are, but are not "according to my beliefs".
Two comments: the first is that Canada is composed of more than Ontario and Albert. Yes, I know thats where your eyes and ears are focused right now but could you for God's sake mention other Canadian provinces and territories and seek out stories from those areas. Secondly, I’ve just let my Conservative Party membership lapse principally as a result of their spectacularly idiotic campaign. I remain a conservative pending a damage control evaluation of both parties strategy.
So, you don't think there is media bias? Go watch No Nonsense with Pamela Walin who did a podcast on the issue and, surprise, agreed that there is bias.
Carney is being praised to the heavens for his performance in Washington but what I saw showed weakness and deference to the President. ok some of it was needed BUT not a word to defend Freeland, and mouthing 'never' for the cameras does not project strength. go watch The Body Language Guy for his take on the presser.
My question is this - Carney ran on an attack platform (not sure where his policies that you seemed to see were nor how you missed the CPC platform but whatever) and then turned 180 degrees and became the subservient child to the President so now what? You were going to 'fight' and 'elbows up' and all that stuff and it all disappears over night? Just like the 180 degree reversal of all the LPC policies of the last ten years that the voters somehow bought. We don't have an urban vs rural split but rather a split of any kind of critical thinking vs a realistic look at how things are going and what is wrong. As evidence, Carney won on a platform of 'orange man bad' when anyone who really thought about it would have concluded that the US didn't want Canada as the 51st state. Unfrikinbelievable
I suspect that basically any outcome of the White House meeting short of Carney signing an annexation treaty would have been treated as a success by Liberals, boomers and the media.
Belligerent interaction? That's "elbows up". Cordial encounter and pleasantries? That's shrewd diplomacy. Trump insulting Carney? It's because he's frightened. Trump praising Carney? That's because he's impressed with how awesome our new leader is.
It's all aces when you move the goalposts freely.
And yes, the entire Carney 'anti-Trump' campaign was self-conscious, disingenuous, manipulative bullshit. It almost goes without saying. Even Trump has pretty much openly acknowledged that he considered it theatre and enjoyed the show (e.g. statements to the effect of "oh yah, he was just running for office, no hard feelings"). Yet nobody in the mainstream media, even really on the right, has coherently or strongly called this out.
I think Matt's right about the bogeyman thing. The Liberals always run against a bogeyman. They've nailed that schtick. I don't think that will change. Heck, even Andrew Scheer was a bogeyman to them.
Just like Pierre Trudeau is the boogeyman in Alberta, still.
Taken together, "things Liberals can get away with" constitute a set of impressive size. When it comes to cultivating and exploiting a sense of self-entitlement, Canada's 'ruling party' routinely leads the league. If a trophy is ever awarded, it will probably be called 'The Trudeau.'
This is classic home team bias, nothing more. The Liberals are the home team for the parts of Canada the media come from. You see the same thing with Leafs fans for instance.
The Conservatives have a much more strong coalition demographically. The Liberals coalition is mostly in the poorer, older, old stock and more eastern parts of Canada. The Conservatives coalition is younger, richer, more immigrant and western. Just let time do its thing. Once the Expo 67 hippy dippy generation is gone the Liberals will have to transform or perish.
In Alberta the Conservatives have the same benefit of the doubt that the Liberals get in Central Canada. They are the home team, they are family. Nothing more. It's just that Central Canada has most of Canada's population and Ontario is over half of English Canada, so they just have more seats.
This leads to Alberta separatism. A lot of what drives it is that "foreigners" lead the national agenda and are pushing their values into the rest of the country. It's tribal and orherism.
As for Danielle Smith and why she is soft footing separatism? She know what David and especially Rachel Parker are capable of. They are more responsible than anyone for organizing the knock out of Kenney, a devout Catholic. This couple, both the children of evangelical pastors by the way, have been proven to be able to organize for her, and they can organize against her, and they are separatists.
To the point of the podcast, a major reason Canada even exists is as a bulwark against populist Protestantism. Remember, the Laurentian Elite are an alliance of mainline Protestant and Catholics against the "American way" and evangelicalism is foundational to that.
Much if not most of what makes Alberta and Saskatchewan different than the rest of Canada is that these are the two provinces that weren't settled by the Laurentians. They were settled by people from elsewhere, including Metis, Mormons, Eastern Europeans, outsiders to the power centre and much less hostile to the "American Way." The superior economic success of the US versus Central and Eastern Canada also have much to do with it as does "sorting." Calgary is full of people who would have moved to the US if they could, to fulfill their ambitions. Alberta is "America lite."
Jen, I'm surprised you didn't call the Parker's already. I'm sure they would do the other podcast.
The conservatives just can't seem to close the deal with voters, I think.
With Central and Eastern Canada, nope. They are seen as the foreign culture. Too American, not European enough
Too Western Canada, not Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal enough. Not nearly enough.