When I was with Natural Resources Canada, I was working with the team tasked with developing a governance model for the Canadian Nuclear Laboratory. To get some idea of how the US does this, I contacted the public affairs section of Oak Ridge National Laboratory - a US lab that has a nuclear weapons component - and asked if they had a summary of their contract with the company that ran the lab on behalf of the US Department of Energy, giving a reason why I was asking. I assumed I'd get a fact sheet of a couple of paragraphs, if I got anything at all other than a "can't tell you" response. To my amazement, the answer was, "send us your email and we'll send the contract to you". And they did.
I don't think it's true that a provincial premier is unimpeded in the performance of his direct responsibilities if he has an anti-science view of climate. Provinces make decisions about all kinds of things from emergency preparedness to energy policy to forestry, all of which will be made foolishly by anyone with a false belief about climate.
More importantly, a politician with no regard for evidence on climate cannot be trusted to have reliable fact-based views on anything else. To Matt's point, it is an indictment of his overall fitness to lead. I agree that it may not matter in some roles; if the guy mowing the lawn at the legislature thinks the moon landing was fake, he can keep his job. But premiers deal with many issues that require them to understand and evaluate evidence. That job is WAY above the line where ignoring reality and substituting a pig headed belief in what one wishes were true can be excused.
Axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, climate change is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind, stop the crime! Call me crazy! Happy Thanksgiving!
Decent podcast you two! CTV, again, - you may not like it but the explaination of a 'technical error' jsut doesn't wash. I am not stupid enough to believe that NO ONE looked at that clip before it ran and said 'play it'. Lead stories are looked at 'cause, they are, like you know, THE F***ING LEAD STORY! Besides, no one gets fired over a technical error - demoted, transferred, reprimanded maybe but not fired.
Watching the LPC party sleepwalk through the issues is simply amazing! Joly waffling on support for Israel because of her constituency makeup is believable so get ready for her leadership run. you think JT was a poor choice now - wait till she is the dear leader.
So climate change. You make it sound like the 'science' is agreed on. The WEATHER is changing but the climate has changed for millenia. Carbon in the atmosphere has increased the production of food across the globe - plants need carbon guys. Decarbonizing Canada in twenty years by destroying our economy is not going to reduce carbon levels one iota - oh, carbon levels have been way higher than at this point in millenia past. Look it up or listen to a pod cast by Climate Change Nexus or read a few books. Technology will help us reduce carbon output BUT if we took the money we are wasting on wind generation and solar panels (wind doesn't always blor nor the sun always shine) and put it into improving life in the third world we would end poverty AND increase global wealth and production to an unbelievable degree.
Don't believe that wind mills aren't worth it? They need to be electrically started to produce electricity. They have to be stopped or throttled back during high winds and when it gets below -20 C the blades are too fragile to be spun (they might shatter) so they are stationary. Solar panels - maybe a 20 year life span then what do we do with the waste?
Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving to Matt and Jen and all of you out there. We have much to be thankful for even in our current situation - no one is firing rockets at us!
Your commentary on climate change is damnably ignorant and lazy and I’m not letting it go unchallenged (and lest you accuse me of ad hominem, I’m not saying you’re ignorant and lazy, just your comments) and here are my counterpoints:
2. Yep, the climate has changed over millennia, but atmospheric greenhouse gas levels haven't changed this drastically in the entirety of human history (and if you think that that won't have consequences, I ask you to think about the fact that it was largely due to such stable ghg concentrations that humans were able to develop civilizations at all).
3. Atmospheric carbon dioxide increases do not definitively boost plant growth, and the corresponding temperature increases are more than likely to reduce overall crop yields, so your assertion that it increases food production is just wrong.
4. Stating that decarbonization will necessitate "destroying the economy" is such a broad statement that it's worthless.
5. Imploring us to look up the Climate Change Nexus or "read a few books" is hilarious; the Nexus flat out sells t-shirts claiming that there is no climate crisis (you can be the proud owner of one for $33.50!) and no, I don't need to "read their stuff" because again, YOU are the one on whom the burden of proof for your statements rests, and you're betraying either your own ignorance or your own confirmation bias because if you were as committed to reading books (or really anything) on climate change as you assert we should do, you'd know you were wrong on this and on any of the aforementioned points.
6. On your point about poverty reduction, well, at least we can agree that it would be a worthy cause, even if it begs the question of why we don't do both since climate change negatively affects the poor more than the rich anyway.
Gavin, you come off a little strong but OK, no offense taken. I gie short comment as opposed to quoting and naming but here you go. False Alarm, How Climate Change Pani Costs Us Trillions, hurts the Poor and Fails to Fix the Planet - Bjorn Lomborg,The Real Inconvenient Truth, It's Warming but it's Not CO2 - M. J. Sangster, Fake Invisible Catatstrophies and Threats of Doom - Patrick Moore, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened - Susan J Cockford. As to the economy, compare where Canada is post COVID to where the USA is economically. We are usually fairly close in growth but we are now diverging at a significant rate - major difference? carbon tax on fuel that we need to move ourselves and things, heat our homes and so forth.. Oh, as a side note, our house does care about the environment and we do all we can to protect and preserve it but contrary to what you believe the science is not settled, it evolves just like the science on virtually everything. Happy Thanksgiving.
Science is forever open to new findings and corrections, but in no sane world do we ignore the "current" findings of what established science tells us. The science linking atmospheric temperatures to global CO2 levels dates from the 19th century and is testable in a lab setting.
Your comments about the carbon tax supposedly hurting growth suggest that in addition to being distrustful of the arguments of climate scientists, you are also distrustful of the arguments of economists, including of Republican economists: https://www.ft.com/content/fa0815fe-3299-11e9-bd3a-8b2a211d90d5
Stefan, I would like to see evidence that carbon pricing actually benefits an economy or even that it actually reduces carbon emissions. Canada has, what I believe you will agree, one of, if not the most agressive carbon pricing program in the world and yet ... there has been no carbon emission reduction. What we have seen is increases in poverty, seniors unable to afford food, families running out of paycheck before the month is done and so forth. yes there are lots of reasons we can point to for some of those issues but taking money out of our pockets when we buy fuel, paying a tax on everything we buy (the companies aren't sucking that up) is a big reason we are in trouble as a country. I did the math on the carbon rebate from Ottawa as opposed to what I pay in carbon tax just on the fuel for my car and truck (a diesel and a six cylinder respectively) and, living in Regina, I amout just on those two things. I'm not even taking into account the increase in heating and food as well as all the other items I buy on my fixed income. In short, the carbon pricing is not helping me one bit.
If we hobble the oiol industry further we risk losing our equalization payments that see money flow from the west to the east. One also needs to consider that if we exported oil and CNG that could be used to replace oil we would have alarger inpact on reducing world wide CO2 production (assuming that is really what we want), help electrify countries, aid our allies in Germany (take a llok at thier standard of living in recent years) AND increase income for Canadians and Canadian governments. That seems to me a win win situation.
"Canada has, what I believe you will agree, one of, if not the most agressive carbon pricing program in the world and yet ... there has been no carbon emission reduction."
The efficacy of the Canadian carbon price to date would be hampered by the fact that it remains fairly new and the fact that the Conservatives at every step of the way have promised to repeal it. No rational business would make investments to evade carbon price costs while it looks like the carbon price will be gone under a new government in about a year.
" the carbon pricing is not helping me one bit."
Assuming that your math checks out (a perfectly mature person could accidentally miss or omit a specific rebate here and there), that might mean that you live a more carbon-intensive lifestyle than most Canadians. Hard for me to judge, which is why I lean more towards analyses of the population-level impact.
"If we hobble the oiol industry further we risk losing our equalization payments that see money flow from the west to the east."
I don't think that Canadian oil exports are being hurt by the carbon tax. Norway combines a higher carbon price with a healthy oil export market.
The second you say “the science is settled” you discredit and expose yourself as a religious fanatic and not a critical pragmatic thinker. As only one point, I’ll bring your attention to the Soho Koonin - Dessler debate of August 15th, 2022 as counter evidence to the “the science being settled” on the scope and impact of this issue. When the ideas are publicly debated it seems the religious crowd ends up on the wrong end of things. The aggressive approach and sanctimonious “I’m not letting it go unchallenged” leadoff and condescending “please do better” closing is self defeating to your position and credibility as well. Take that for what it’s worth.
A Liberal guy I know who's like somewhat inside, but also outside had said that the issue is the Liberal Party have been listening to fewer and fewer people. And his explanation for the party not doing anything is that anyone who's trying something new will get yelled at, so will end up play it safe with their job and do nothing.
This was a great podcast, top notch. I was appalled by the Joly story. If she feels compelled to vacillate on support for Israel because she has some Muslims in her riding, what would take to push into putting on the full nazi uniform. Moral compromises can be a very slippery slope. On another note, I had to stop listening at the CTV portion. That horse has been dead for a while. Still, great podcast.
As always enjoyed the podcast. A couple of things…with the CTV/Bell issue. I do not know what really happened with the error on the CTV article. What I resent and what is very wrong is Bell is allowed to monopolize the market and be a part of the issue of Canadians overpaying for cell service and our taxpayers dollars are subsidizing their media department. This is unacceptable and they should be forced to properly fund their media arm from their own profits. The ridiculous income taken by the CEO as our taxpayer dollars subsidize a portion of his company is unacceptable.
I love the “purity test” section and the chasing votes vs setting a firm stance (whatever that may be). As long as we want flawless Politicians with perfect backgrounds instead of regular humans who have lived a life which should have “learning moments” we will end with what we have in our political world. Give me people who have learned from their life and believe passionately in their issues versus this ineffective governance we exist with today. Honesty, integrity and owning your “stuff”….that is my wishlist.
Lastly, I think what changed me was Lac Magnatic. The rail car with the oil exposed there, and the guy went out there and simply told the truth. And no one liked it.
To Matt’s point on it doesn’t matter if a Premier has crazy fringe ideas. I think it does matter. As someone responsible for administering health and education in the province, I don’t want someone with kooky theories on vaccines or public health running the healthcare system or someone with weird ideas on how youth should be/should not be indoctrinated in public schools running our education systems. Same goes for anyone with kooky ideas on natural resource management or justice and policing. Heck it was a premier that thought allowing people to access and use hard drugs in public was a good idea.
After years of putting up with the NDP's kookiness on drug policies, I'll gladly give Rustad's kookiness a chance. Also, I don't find climate evangelists to be sane, to be honest. Anyone who says things like the science is settled and calls people who question the science "deniers" puts them on part with those who used to hand out pamphlets in the street saying the world is going to end and who claim you'll go to hell unless you believe in their God.
Remember "9 out of 10 doctors prefer Lucky Strike"? Remember the huge money the tobacco industry spent convincing us that smoking was good for you? Remember finding out that they had known for decades that their product is not only highly addictive but carcinogenic? The oil industry is following the same playbook.
What does that even mean? Do you think Justin should bicycle from Ottawa to meetings in Vancouver? The oil industry is the 900 pound gorilla in the world. And a big source of Canada's wealth. Do I wish his government had done a lot more on this issue? Absolutely. I certainly don't think we need more politicians who march ahead with blinders on. Pity the people trying to get home insurance in Florida these days.
One of the more obvious ways to reduce carbon emissions is to eliminate unnecessary travel and I can think of two ways to do that.
1. Vacation near where you live. ie. not in the other side of the continent and certainly not overseas. That works for prime ministers and the rest of us.
2. For the prime minister, (or any opposition leader) have caucus retreats at the location closest to most MPs. So not in BC.
Is crazy an advantage for political leaders? Yes, but it’s a bit of a balancing act. Crazy people are really, really obsessed with their obsessions. Cater to them, and you can get fervent, devoted support. The challenge is balancing the support you get from the fanatics against the potential to alienate normal voters. The sweet spot is some issue that the fanatics care deeply about, but induces little more than a shrug from the normies. A good example is COVID vaccine mandates: there’s still a sizeable contingent of anti-vaxxers who are consumed with boiling anger over the issue; most Canadians got their vaccines, the pandemic is over along with the restrictions, and they really don’t give a damn.
I think something that is frequently overlooked is Justin Trudeau's desire to defeat anything and everything Stephen Harper accomplished. Immediately upon coming into office, Justin Trudeau started dismantling every accomplishment achieved by the Harper government. There are two things left for him to beat. First, and most obviously, Pierre Poilievre is a product of Stephen Harper, and Trudeau has a visceral loathing for Poilievre and truly believed he is the ONLY one who can defeat him in the next election. But this matter only comes second to one thing:
3558 Days.
That was the length of time that Stephen Harper was Prime Minister, and it's the final hurdle for Justin Trudeau to jump for his defeat of Stephen Harper to be complete. The actual calendar date for this is August 1st, 2025. After that date, Justin Trudeau will move past Stephen Harper in relation to their terms in office. This is the politics of revenge. I think once they are past that particular date, Justin Trudeau will be happy with whatever fate is handed to him.
Totally agree. I think JT is a petty person and is definitely not above this level of oneupmanship. Another thing I think is relevant is that there's a lot of stuff on JT that he doesn't want made public. When he first got elected, Gerry Butts did his darnedest to clean up JT's Google history. There are a lot of things that used to be readily available that suddenly disappeared. I wish I'd saved some of those articles. There's a reason JT is hanging on, and there's a reason he's been hell-bent of controlling the media and trying to kill off publications like Blacklock's Reporter. He doesn't want to be exposed. History will not look kindly upon him, in my opinion.
Re: CTV. What coward of a leader blames the equipment and then fires the juniors. We as taxpayers have given millions to these "news" outlets and they can't even buy new equipment (if I recall was his excuse). Its a failure of leadership. The Star article was full of fluff. Calling, Bell's CEO in the Cons camp because he donate to Jean Chartest...
Climate Change. If it was really serious we wouldn't see Trudeau flying around in his Private jet. Remember all Rules for thee but not for me.
Found this podcast better than last weeks. Tighter commentary, less need for repeating the same points over and over again (I think last week I Fast Forward the CBC section as it was repetitive).
Come on guys. Our leaders want to hold YOU accountable for things they don’t like you saying. They have no interest in doing anything that hold THEM to account.
Thank you for this commentary and, in particular, your remarks about the way that the federal government has demonstrated a failure to deal with serious challenges as they arise.
I would like it, though, if you did more to consistently breakdown references to "the Canadian government" to "the political operatives", "the senior executives" and "intelligence professionals". You do try, but more information and analysis would be better.
Thank you, as well, for your (brief) comments about the looney tunes views of some self-described "progressive" Liberals regarding the CSIS reporting of foreign interference (and, of course, the testimony offered by former CSIS Director David Vigneault). That many partisans are so blinded by their own self-perception as to resort to such disreputable responses is disheartening. Then again, such behaviour seems to be consistent with the broader dynamic, i.e.: the one that tells us that the Liberal Party of Justin Trudeau is in an epic death spiral.
Finally, I am grateful that you alluded to the dysfunction at the provincial and regional level.
Thank you for the second last sentence - made me smile happily. I will be borrowing the term "Liberal Party of Justin Trudeau" occasionally modifying it. In case the term is copyrighted, I will pay the license fees, in home-made beer only.
JT has taken what was a servicable political party and destroyed it. I can't tell you how disappointed I am, given that his father, as flawed as some of his policies were, was certainly one of the top five Prime Ministers in Canadian history.
When I was with Natural Resources Canada, I was working with the team tasked with developing a governance model for the Canadian Nuclear Laboratory. To get some idea of how the US does this, I contacted the public affairs section of Oak Ridge National Laboratory - a US lab that has a nuclear weapons component - and asked if they had a summary of their contract with the company that ran the lab on behalf of the US Department of Energy, giving a reason why I was asking. I assumed I'd get a fact sheet of a couple of paragraphs, if I got anything at all other than a "can't tell you" response. To my amazement, the answer was, "send us your email and we'll send the contract to you". And they did.
Happy Thanksgiving, Jen, Matt, readers and families!
I don't think it's true that a provincial premier is unimpeded in the performance of his direct responsibilities if he has an anti-science view of climate. Provinces make decisions about all kinds of things from emergency preparedness to energy policy to forestry, all of which will be made foolishly by anyone with a false belief about climate.
More importantly, a politician with no regard for evidence on climate cannot be trusted to have reliable fact-based views on anything else. To Matt's point, it is an indictment of his overall fitness to lead. I agree that it may not matter in some roles; if the guy mowing the lawn at the legislature thinks the moon landing was fake, he can keep his job. But premiers deal with many issues that require them to understand and evaluate evidence. That job is WAY above the line where ignoring reality and substituting a pig headed belief in what one wishes were true can be excused.
Axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, climate change is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind, stop the crime! Call me crazy! Happy Thanksgiving!
Decent podcast you two! CTV, again, - you may not like it but the explaination of a 'technical error' jsut doesn't wash. I am not stupid enough to believe that NO ONE looked at that clip before it ran and said 'play it'. Lead stories are looked at 'cause, they are, like you know, THE F***ING LEAD STORY! Besides, no one gets fired over a technical error - demoted, transferred, reprimanded maybe but not fired.
Watching the LPC party sleepwalk through the issues is simply amazing! Joly waffling on support for Israel because of her constituency makeup is believable so get ready for her leadership run. you think JT was a poor choice now - wait till she is the dear leader.
So climate change. You make it sound like the 'science' is agreed on. The WEATHER is changing but the climate has changed for millenia. Carbon in the atmosphere has increased the production of food across the globe - plants need carbon guys. Decarbonizing Canada in twenty years by destroying our economy is not going to reduce carbon levels one iota - oh, carbon levels have been way higher than at this point in millenia past. Look it up or listen to a pod cast by Climate Change Nexus or read a few books. Technology will help us reduce carbon output BUT if we took the money we are wasting on wind generation and solar panels (wind doesn't always blor nor the sun always shine) and put it into improving life in the third world we would end poverty AND increase global wealth and production to an unbelievable degree.
Don't believe that wind mills aren't worth it? They need to be electrically started to produce electricity. They have to be stopped or throttled back during high winds and when it gets below -20 C the blades are too fragile to be spun (they might shatter) so they are stationary. Solar panels - maybe a 20 year life span then what do we do with the waste?
Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving to Matt and Jen and all of you out there. We have much to be thankful for even in our current situation - no one is firing rockets at us!
Your commentary on climate change is damnably ignorant and lazy and I’m not letting it go unchallenged (and lest you accuse me of ad hominem, I’m not saying you’re ignorant and lazy, just your comments) and here are my counterpoints:
1. The science of climate change is as settled as the science that allows you to comment on this page, and the burden of proof is on YOU to disprove what the scientific community now accepts as nigh-incontrovertible. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/01/12/what-uncertainties-remain-in-climate-science/
2. Yep, the climate has changed over millennia, but atmospheric greenhouse gas levels haven't changed this drastically in the entirety of human history (and if you think that that won't have consequences, I ask you to think about the fact that it was largely due to such stable ghg concentrations that humans were able to develop civilizations at all).
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
3. Atmospheric carbon dioxide increases do not definitively boost plant growth, and the corresponding temperature increases are more than likely to reduce overall crop yields, so your assertion that it increases food production is just wrong.
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-help-and-hurt-crops/
4. Stating that decarbonization will necessitate "destroying the economy" is such a broad statement that it's worthless.
5. Imploring us to look up the Climate Change Nexus or "read a few books" is hilarious; the Nexus flat out sells t-shirts claiming that there is no climate crisis (you can be the proud owner of one for $33.50!) and no, I don't need to "read their stuff" because again, YOU are the one on whom the burden of proof for your statements rests, and you're betraying either your own ignorance or your own confirmation bias because if you were as committed to reading books (or really anything) on climate change as you assert we should do, you'd know you were wrong on this and on any of the aforementioned points.
6. On your point about poverty reduction, well, at least we can agree that it would be a worthy cause, even if it begs the question of why we don't do both since climate change negatively affects the poor more than the rich anyway.
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2021/09/climate-change-and-inequality-guivarch-mejean-taconet
Please do better.
Gavin, you come off a little strong but OK, no offense taken. I gie short comment as opposed to quoting and naming but here you go. False Alarm, How Climate Change Pani Costs Us Trillions, hurts the Poor and Fails to Fix the Planet - Bjorn Lomborg,The Real Inconvenient Truth, It's Warming but it's Not CO2 - M. J. Sangster, Fake Invisible Catatstrophies and Threats of Doom - Patrick Moore, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened - Susan J Cockford. As to the economy, compare where Canada is post COVID to where the USA is economically. We are usually fairly close in growth but we are now diverging at a significant rate - major difference? carbon tax on fuel that we need to move ourselves and things, heat our homes and so forth.. Oh, as a side note, our house does care about the environment and we do all we can to protect and preserve it but contrary to what you believe the science is not settled, it evolves just like the science on virtually everything. Happy Thanksgiving.
Science is forever open to new findings and corrections, but in no sane world do we ignore the "current" findings of what established science tells us. The science linking atmospheric temperatures to global CO2 levels dates from the 19th century and is testable in a lab setting.
Your comments about the carbon tax supposedly hurting growth suggest that in addition to being distrustful of the arguments of climate scientists, you are also distrustful of the arguments of economists, including of Republican economists: https://www.ft.com/content/fa0815fe-3299-11e9-bd3a-8b2a211d90d5
Stefan, I would like to see evidence that carbon pricing actually benefits an economy or even that it actually reduces carbon emissions. Canada has, what I believe you will agree, one of, if not the most agressive carbon pricing program in the world and yet ... there has been no carbon emission reduction. What we have seen is increases in poverty, seniors unable to afford food, families running out of paycheck before the month is done and so forth. yes there are lots of reasons we can point to for some of those issues but taking money out of our pockets when we buy fuel, paying a tax on everything we buy (the companies aren't sucking that up) is a big reason we are in trouble as a country. I did the math on the carbon rebate from Ottawa as opposed to what I pay in carbon tax just on the fuel for my car and truck (a diesel and a six cylinder respectively) and, living in Regina, I amout just on those two things. I'm not even taking into account the increase in heating and food as well as all the other items I buy on my fixed income. In short, the carbon pricing is not helping me one bit.
If we hobble the oiol industry further we risk losing our equalization payments that see money flow from the west to the east. One also needs to consider that if we exported oil and CNG that could be used to replace oil we would have alarger inpact on reducing world wide CO2 production (assuming that is really what we want), help electrify countries, aid our allies in Germany (take a llok at thier standard of living in recent years) AND increase income for Canadians and Canadian governments. That seems to me a win win situation.
"Canada has, what I believe you will agree, one of, if not the most agressive carbon pricing program in the world and yet ... there has been no carbon emission reduction."
It does not. Canada has a fairly middle-of-the-road carbon tax rate, and probably every single country with a higher rate has lower emissions: https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/compliance/price
The efficacy of the Canadian carbon price to date would be hampered by the fact that it remains fairly new and the fact that the Conservatives at every step of the way have promised to repeal it. No rational business would make investments to evade carbon price costs while it looks like the carbon price will be gone under a new government in about a year.
" the carbon pricing is not helping me one bit."
Assuming that your math checks out (a perfectly mature person could accidentally miss or omit a specific rebate here and there), that might mean that you live a more carbon-intensive lifestyle than most Canadians. Hard for me to judge, which is why I lean more towards analyses of the population-level impact.
"If we hobble the oiol industry further we risk losing our equalization payments that see money flow from the west to the east."
I don't think that Canadian oil exports are being hurt by the carbon tax. Norway combines a higher carbon price with a healthy oil export market.
Here you go Stephan -
https://www.voronoiapp.com/climate/France-and-Canada-Lead-in-Global-Carbon-Tax-Revenue-1016
And, Koonin's book: Unsettled. And Judith Curry's recent book: Climate Uncertainty and Risk.
The second you say “the science is settled” you discredit and expose yourself as a religious fanatic and not a critical pragmatic thinker. As only one point, I’ll bring your attention to the Soho Koonin - Dessler debate of August 15th, 2022 as counter evidence to the “the science being settled” on the scope and impact of this issue. When the ideas are publicly debated it seems the religious crowd ends up on the wrong end of things. The aggressive approach and sanctimonious “I’m not letting it go unchallenged” leadoff and condescending “please do better” closing is self defeating to your position and credibility as well. Take that for what it’s worth.
A Liberal guy I know who's like somewhat inside, but also outside had said that the issue is the Liberal Party have been listening to fewer and fewer people. And his explanation for the party not doing anything is that anyone who's trying something new will get yelled at, so will end up play it safe with their job and do nothing.
This was a great podcast, top notch. I was appalled by the Joly story. If she feels compelled to vacillate on support for Israel because she has some Muslims in her riding, what would take to push into putting on the full nazi uniform. Moral compromises can be a very slippery slope. On another note, I had to stop listening at the CTV portion. That horse has been dead for a while. Still, great podcast.
As always enjoyed the podcast. A couple of things…with the CTV/Bell issue. I do not know what really happened with the error on the CTV article. What I resent and what is very wrong is Bell is allowed to monopolize the market and be a part of the issue of Canadians overpaying for cell service and our taxpayers dollars are subsidizing their media department. This is unacceptable and they should be forced to properly fund their media arm from their own profits. The ridiculous income taken by the CEO as our taxpayer dollars subsidize a portion of his company is unacceptable.
I love the “purity test” section and the chasing votes vs setting a firm stance (whatever that may be). As long as we want flawless Politicians with perfect backgrounds instead of regular humans who have lived a life which should have “learning moments” we will end with what we have in our political world. Give me people who have learned from their life and believe passionately in their issues versus this ineffective governance we exist with today. Honesty, integrity and owning your “stuff”….that is my wishlist.
Lastly, I think what changed me was Lac Magnatic. The rail car with the oil exposed there, and the guy went out there and simply told the truth. And no one liked it.
So yeah, we like to be lied to.
To Matt’s point on it doesn’t matter if a Premier has crazy fringe ideas. I think it does matter. As someone responsible for administering health and education in the province, I don’t want someone with kooky theories on vaccines or public health running the healthcare system or someone with weird ideas on how youth should be/should not be indoctrinated in public schools running our education systems. Same goes for anyone with kooky ideas on natural resource management or justice and policing. Heck it was a premier that thought allowing people to access and use hard drugs in public was a good idea.
Yes, craziness matters.
After years of putting up with the NDP's kookiness on drug policies, I'll gladly give Rustad's kookiness a chance. Also, I don't find climate evangelists to be sane, to be honest. Anyone who says things like the science is settled and calls people who question the science "deniers" puts them on part with those who used to hand out pamphlets in the street saying the world is going to end and who claim you'll go to hell unless you believe in their God.
Remember "9 out of 10 doctors prefer Lucky Strike"? Remember the huge money the tobacco industry spent convincing us that smoking was good for you? Remember finding out that they had known for decades that their product is not only highly addictive but carcinogenic? The oil industry is following the same playbook.
And yet it doesn’t stop Trudeau et al from reducing their carbon footprint, does it?
What does that even mean? Do you think Justin should bicycle from Ottawa to meetings in Vancouver? The oil industry is the 900 pound gorilla in the world. And a big source of Canada's wealth. Do I wish his government had done a lot more on this issue? Absolutely. I certainly don't think we need more politicians who march ahead with blinders on. Pity the people trying to get home insurance in Florida these days.
One of the more obvious ways to reduce carbon emissions is to eliminate unnecessary travel and I can think of two ways to do that.
1. Vacation near where you live. ie. not in the other side of the continent and certainly not overseas. That works for prime ministers and the rest of us.
2. For the prime minister, (or any opposition leader) have caucus retreats at the location closest to most MPs. So not in BC.
The catch is…. everyone either wants to deny that emissions are a problem or have other people change.
Happy thanksgiving, J.
Is crazy an advantage for political leaders? Yes, but it’s a bit of a balancing act. Crazy people are really, really obsessed with their obsessions. Cater to them, and you can get fervent, devoted support. The challenge is balancing the support you get from the fanatics against the potential to alienate normal voters. The sweet spot is some issue that the fanatics care deeply about, but induces little more than a shrug from the normies. A good example is COVID vaccine mandates: there’s still a sizeable contingent of anti-vaxxers who are consumed with boiling anger over the issue; most Canadians got their vaccines, the pandemic is over along with the restrictions, and they really don’t give a damn.
No video version?
No chance to see Jen as she makes yet another effort to glam up [when that is not necessary, let it be said]?
Delay in uploading. Another hour or two.
Jen is very presentable.
I think something that is frequently overlooked is Justin Trudeau's desire to defeat anything and everything Stephen Harper accomplished. Immediately upon coming into office, Justin Trudeau started dismantling every accomplishment achieved by the Harper government. There are two things left for him to beat. First, and most obviously, Pierre Poilievre is a product of Stephen Harper, and Trudeau has a visceral loathing for Poilievre and truly believed he is the ONLY one who can defeat him in the next election. But this matter only comes second to one thing:
3558 Days.
That was the length of time that Stephen Harper was Prime Minister, and it's the final hurdle for Justin Trudeau to jump for his defeat of Stephen Harper to be complete. The actual calendar date for this is August 1st, 2025. After that date, Justin Trudeau will move past Stephen Harper in relation to their terms in office. This is the politics of revenge. I think once they are past that particular date, Justin Trudeau will be happy with whatever fate is handed to him.
Totally agree. I think JT is a petty person and is definitely not above this level of oneupmanship. Another thing I think is relevant is that there's a lot of stuff on JT that he doesn't want made public. When he first got elected, Gerry Butts did his darnedest to clean up JT's Google history. There are a lot of things that used to be readily available that suddenly disappeared. I wish I'd saved some of those articles. There's a reason JT is hanging on, and there's a reason he's been hell-bent of controlling the media and trying to kill off publications like Blacklock's Reporter. He doesn't want to be exposed. History will not look kindly upon him, in my opinion.
Re: CTV. What coward of a leader blames the equipment and then fires the juniors. We as taxpayers have given millions to these "news" outlets and they can't even buy new equipment (if I recall was his excuse). Its a failure of leadership. The Star article was full of fluff. Calling, Bell's CEO in the Cons camp because he donate to Jean Chartest...
Climate Change. If it was really serious we wouldn't see Trudeau flying around in his Private jet. Remember all Rules for thee but not for me.
Found this podcast better than last weeks. Tighter commentary, less need for repeating the same points over and over again (I think last week I Fast Forward the CBC section as it was repetitive).
Come on guys. Our leaders want to hold YOU accountable for things they don’t like you saying. They have no interest in doing anything that hold THEM to account.
Thank you for this commentary and, in particular, your remarks about the way that the federal government has demonstrated a failure to deal with serious challenges as they arise.
I would like it, though, if you did more to consistently breakdown references to "the Canadian government" to "the political operatives", "the senior executives" and "intelligence professionals". You do try, but more information and analysis would be better.
Thank you, as well, for your (brief) comments about the looney tunes views of some self-described "progressive" Liberals regarding the CSIS reporting of foreign interference (and, of course, the testimony offered by former CSIS Director David Vigneault). That many partisans are so blinded by their own self-perception as to resort to such disreputable responses is disheartening. Then again, such behaviour seems to be consistent with the broader dynamic, i.e.: the one that tells us that the Liberal Party of Justin Trudeau is in an epic death spiral.
Finally, I am grateful that you alluded to the dysfunction at the provincial and regional level.
Thank you for the second last sentence - made me smile happily. I will be borrowing the term "Liberal Party of Justin Trudeau" occasionally modifying it. In case the term is copyrighted, I will pay the license fees, in home-made beer only.
JT has taken what was a servicable political party and destroyed it. I can't tell you how disappointed I am, given that his father, as flawed as some of his policies were, was certainly one of the top five Prime Ministers in Canadian history.
PS: Happy Thanksgiving.
'They're a Holocaust denier' seems like a reasonable reason to vote against a school board trustee.