On the comment that the Prime Minister alleges is homophobic, I agree that one can interpret the comment either way, but my unwillingness to interpret charitably comes out differently that Matt Gurney's.
I'm just done with people crying wolf over claims that the other side are bigots. This goes both ways. If the Prime Minister wants to claim that a Conservative made an anti-gay remark in the commons rather simply mocking the idea that an absurdly expensive bathroom is necessary government business than he'd better come with all the receipts and by that I mean full context with audio and video.
I don't care and the boy has cried wolf too many times.
If Trudeau were a woman, that comment would be considered sexist or misogynist (only because "misogynist" is a word people, especially the PM and gang, like to say often haha). If he were trans, it would be considered transphobic (see my parenthetical note on "misogynist.") So no, I don't think the comment was an intentional "gay joke," although I have to confess that no matter how many times I played it back, I could not hear it in its entirety. So maybe I'm missing some important context. I doubt it, though. It's the House of Commons. People yell shit comments out all the time.
Copper tubs are ridiculously expensive, though, someone called it out with the first comment that came to mind. Everyone brings their own life experience to how they interpret that remark. It was a stupid and not particularly funny joke, and had the PM ignored it, it probably wouldn't have received very little publicity at all. But the PM chose to respond in a spectacular fashion that, judging from the looks on their faces, surprised the rest of his team. Seemed to me to be a bit of an own goal.
I really need Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives to do better than this. I get it - playing populist rage monkey is fun, it’s helped to generate a steady stream of small dollar donations. It’s not how to run a country. Fixing the problems the Liberals created by chasing progressive fads without paying attention to fundamentals of good governance isn’t going to be accomplished with jeremiads against the news media or defending juvenile comments made by a member of their party. It’s going to take sustained disciplined focus. If Poilievre doesn’t want to do that, he’s at least going to have to empower those who will do it while he gets into thr next online flame war.
I totally agree. I am concerned that PP is losing the centre/right people like me that are prepared to vote for him. He first came to my attention during the WE charity scandal. I liked his relentless questioning and thought he uncovered and ultimately destroyed an expensive brainwashing (to create future Trudeau liberals) machine entrenched in schools. But he really must become a little more likeable and behave like a true leader rather than the mean petty man that is too often on display.
I for one am tired of liberal and left parties going on and on about phobic this and racist that . They have been terrible at actual governance and this is all the have left . Let’s find one person who said something and paint every MP, every MLA , every voter with this same brush . It’s tiring and boring .
Great show. Keep it real. Honest journalism and criticism. We all will need to keep the next govt in check. Love the the growth of the podcast. On the right track
1. On supply management. I’m a dyed in the wool capitalist for the most part. But call me crazy that a country ensuring it can feed itself is a bit of a good, dare I say smart idea? I’m not all in on supply management, but if some of it keeps that ace in the hole I’m not super quick or keen to get rid of it entirely… That said. Fuck the Bloc.
2. I’m not with you on your CTV take. This isn’t an “isolated incident.” And it’s egregious. CTV hasn’t been unbiased in a very very long time. Just another propaganda outlet doing its thing serving the system that feeds it. I think the take and conspiracy on the Bell CEO and the Liberals is too micro and linear as well. There is system and pervasive culture here at work. The culture and ideology enables the behavior. This is contributed to by the CEO, but he/she is just one body part of the overall beast. Good on the Conservatives to block out Bell lobbyists. They should do it to all of them. It’s consistent with what they’ve said. Make your case to the public, not to us. Let the public make your case to us. Maybe it’s idealist, but to reset this corrupt situation we need a hard swing back the other way.
The dairy monopoly doesn't do anything for "a country ensuring it can feed itself". It's a regime that willfully constricts the size of the Canadian dairy industry in order to allow greater monetary returns on lower production. It's illegal to market dairy goods without buying into the quota system, precisely because if there were no such law *then there would be more Canadians willing to produce dairy at lower cost*.
The scandal with the dairy monopoly is not how it hurts foreign competition, but rather how it artificially eliminates dairy job opportunities in Canada. But every dairy farmer in the country defends the system because they're not the ones excluded from employment.
He might have, but I have also heard the rumors about Trudeau's current preferences...whatever. So I thought it was, if anything, a jibe at Trudeaus hypocrisies.
On handcrafted copper bathtubgate, I'll give the Conservatives this much: I think if the consul general were a woman, somebody might still have made the same joke about meetings in the bathtub. There would of course have been innuendo, but not gay innuendo.
However, politicians should have some self-awareness. Conservatives know, or ought to know, that people think a lot of them are anti-gay bigots (maybe with good reason, maybe with largely outdated reasons). When you offer up juvenile innuendo with a gay angle, it's going to be interpreted as motivated by homophobia, even if in the moment it was motivated by bathtubs and the gay part was situational. If the consul general were a woman and there were a far right conspiracy theory that Trudeau was having an affair with her, same thing and they'd need to know the dumb joke is going to sound more sinister than it otherwise would.
In a way it reminds me of that time Trudeau jokingly corrected somebody at a townhall for saying "mankind" and insisted that it should be "peoplekind". Ya, I'm sure he meant it as a joke but it's exactly the kind of thing a lot of people think he'd say so it didn't come across that way to them.
Its interesting that you say people think of Conservatives as anti-gay bigots and Jen and Matt think that only 40's and under accept gays. I wonder how all those on the left that support Palestine can find that compatible with the Islamic take on gays. And as an over 50 year old, I could care less about anyone else's sex life and as with most true conservatives, believe that no government should care either.
Ditto. I remember being accepting of gay people back in the early 1980s, before I knew any openly gay people. It’s never been an issue for me. I am pretty sure my gay friends would not have been offended by the bathtub comment. But whatever.
I am also a little over 50 and have a fair bit of experience with conservative politics and campaigns (mainly but not entirely in Ontario). I could say a lot about what in my experience is real, exaggerated, or false about prejudice among conservatives (slightly different answers for elected types, pros, and general activists). But I’ve seen enough qual research to know a lot of people think many conservatives are homophobic and otherwise prejudiced, whether or not it’s true.
I agree. The type of joke it is depends on a lot of things. It wasn't a particularly good joke, however (although I couldn't hear the entire thing), but conservatives should know better. They have to hold themselves to a higher standard.
If someone in the Conservative Party had said “Mr Trudeau is wearing more make up than I am today,” as Freeland said to Poilievre, would that have been a gay joke or not a gay joke. I imagine the former would be true. There is indeed a double standard.
I’m not going to play move-the-goal-post here. You said they need to have a higher standard, so you grant that the comment that was actually made, not the hypothetical one you’re creating, wasn’t good. I am asserting that it wasn’t good but it won’t hurt them. Because, well, read the comments.
You write in part, "It wasn't a particularly good joke"
On the other hand, who ever said that Garnet Genuis or any Conservative MP was a comedian? They do not understand comedy and simply should try to stay away from trying to be funny. If I think back, perhaps the last funny MP was Eugene Whelan and his green Stetson but he was accidentally funny.
Fair point. I honestly don’t care either way about the comment in the house. It absolutely won’t change my vote in any way. House antics are house antics. I’m more concerned about how badly managed Canada is and for the first time in my life am afraid for the country’s future. I don’t think any party will be able to dig us out of this mess, but I certainly don’t think we can afford more Trudeau, financially, ethically, morally.
Dammit this was a bloody good podcast. "Grotesque hypocritical sanctimony" is the absolute perfect description for Junior and the rest of the clowns with whom he runs; well done, Matt.
And yes, God bless the Bloc! What a service they are doing for the Country by potentially shining a spotlight on supply management. In my experience, I'd bet that 75% of the population would look at you with a blank stare if you asked them what supply management even is - the Bloc doing their part to stimulate the populace to educate itself on this issue could be fantastic. If PP does not jump on this after his legitimate observation about oligolopys running amok in this Country he should never be taken seriously again (and this week's ludicrous hyperventilating about conspiracies in the upper levels of BCE is a data point already suggesting he ought not to be taken seriously).
I said this last week but it is again relevant. Per the Agriculture Canada website there are roughly 9,500 dairy farms in Canada (4,400 in Quebec, 3,300 in Ontario and fewer than 500 in every other Province). There are 29,000 jobs in the dairy manufacturing sector and 17,000 jobs in dairy farm ops. This small number of people is going to swing an election in Canada when over 17 million ballots were cast in the last election? I don't see it - what is the counter argument?
Indeed, if the impacts of supply management were actually explained to the population it seems likely that advocating for their abolition would prove wildly popular to literally millions of voters . For every voter employed in the dairy industry who, due to their apparent employment interest, switches a vote that would have otherwise gone to PP (and it won't be ALL of them) I'd bet there would be many, many more voters who would change their vote in the opposite direction. Again, what is the argument that advocating for the abolition of supply management would be a loser in a general election?
The milk marketing board spends many millions of our milk dollars to increase support for themselves. It is why very few politicians will even touch the issue. They see where the money, and the influence is.
I’m not too worried about making Canadians pay more for their dairy products to keep separatists whose only loyalty and allegiance is to the Quebec Nation and not Canada. But I will be extremely sad when the upcoming renegotiations on the free trade agreement between the three North American partners crash and burn because of the smallest country in the partnership being intransigent over the fate of Quebec farmers.
While true, I do not think that is responsive to my point. My hypothesis is that among the electorate at large (not voters in a leadership campaign), more voters if informed on the issue would prefer to see the abolition of supply management than its maintenance.
The financial contributions of which you speak are merely a means to an end and not not the end itself - the end being to win the election. In 2023 the Conservatives brought in $35.2 million, the most for any political party in Canadian history. As far as I could tell from a quick perusal of the Elections Canada website, dairy lobbyists did not make up any significant portion of this amount. (It is very possible I missed something and am happy to be corrected.)
I get that money matters. But where is the evidence that the dairy industry has the financial heft to make an actual difference in the outcome of a general election? In 2023 the Liberals raised $15 million and the gaps in contributions continue to grow in the CPC's favour in 2024. Were the Conservatives to come out against supply management do we think that the dairy cartel is going to throw $20 million-plus at the Liberals? Furthermore, even if the financial playing field were level (or even in the Liberals favour), it's hard to see how that would change the results in the next election. Junior is toast barring something insane occurring. And were that to occur, the event would be so insane as to be immune to the effects of financial contributions.
These bromides about how supply management is sacrosanct and a fatal third rail for anyone who goes near it simply do not stand up to scrutiny from what I can see. I want to see actual evidence and not declarative conclusions. This Country is royally fucked economically and requires major structural changes that only begin with dismantling supply management. In the absence of evidence that advocating for its abolition would cost someone an election it is utterly shameful for the entire political class in this Country to continue to protect these cartels.
Now, much to my dismay I learned today that the Bloc's bill in question (Bill C-282) was actually passed by the House of Commons in 2023 (with PP voting FOR IT) and is now in the Senate. So I think we can take that as definitive proof that supply management is here to stay - and that PP ain't coming to save us. But that does not answer the question of interest to me which is: what is the actual evidence supporting the conclusion that a party advocating for the abolition of supply management would suffer negative consequences at the ballot box?
The “dairy cartel” is the bovine equivalent of “abortion” only with big bucks attached from sources that are not all apparent. No one will touch it, but it comes up regularly.
Yes just imagine over quota milk going to food banks instead of down the drain or allowing more cheese, ice cream and other dairy products for prices that reflect the real market. That's what happens with beef, wheat, oil -- oh wait that is the prairies that are devoid of Liberals. Sure Harper, Mulroney et al should have disbanded this scam years ago but maybe...
I think it quite ironic that you both shit all over Poilievre for lashing out at CTV for far too long, when you spent far too long talking about the issue. Moreover, I think Jen was too quick to leap to the conclusion that Poilievre's primary motive concerning CTV was to influence them to provide him "positive" coverage. In short, he's being hypocritical. She seemed unwilling to consider that perhaps his motive was simply aimed at persuading CTV to provide him unbiased coverage. Coverage that wasn't manipulated to paint him in a negative light.
TBH I think you both misunderstand what Poilievre is doing. I think he is executing (not perfectly) a bad strategy, rather than showing horrible indiscipline in executing against the conventional goal of constantly using carrots and sticks to try to get more favorable media coverage.
CPC behavior under Poilievre looks to me like they are following the Ron DeSantis playbook, getting ultra combative at every opportunity on the theory that they are better off enduring bad coverage and laying down a storyline that it is biased, rather than attempting to get slightly better media coverage which this (right wing fever swamp) viewpoint says has been proven always to fail.
Matt asks rhetorically whether they want an intractable forever war. Yes. Yes they do. I think they want an intractable forever war.
What carrots do you envision that would garner positive media coverage for CPC? They are already on the dole. The media refuses to deal honestly and call out Trudeau. Where is the outrage over the lack of transparency, the enshittification of the Freedom of Information, the coverups of all things China, etc.?
I didn’t say I believed the usual approaches would work particularly well, just that Poilievre’s CPC appears to be very skeptical of this and to have gone a different direction. FWIW I don’t think it’s true that media don’t call out Trudeau; one can always quibble about whether the level of skepticism and challenge is as great as it ought to be, but it appears to me that he gets way less benefit of the doubt now than in 2013-16 and even during COVID.
Love the show but I think you may have gotten it wrong on the tub. Talk of the tub and ‘engagement’ preceded the comment which, if it had been ‘does he engage with them *from* the tub’ would have been just as funny (and for the same reason - just picture it) and to the point (why should taxpayers pay for a copper soaking tub). Smearing someone as homophobic should not be done lightly and certainly not to score political points. It’s as bad as what is being accused.
It's a gay joke. A relatively minor one. One can make a gay joke without necessarily being a homophobic bigot, and we all need to stop overreacting to juvenile humour. JG
Absolutely. The whole thing was a nothing-burger. The only reason this became a topic is because gay activists (some of them being hyper-activists) over a time period of a couple of decades systematically brainwashed the population to become frantic the moment the word 'gay' is mentioned. A permanent time-out on this topic, and related topics, is overdue.
Nah, it became a thing because of Trudeau's response. People on Twitter were questioning his mental health (take Twitter for what it's worth, though. lol)
I watched the video of the interaction. I didn’t hear the purportedly homophobic comment, but I believe there are some homophobes in the CPC & I was 100% ready to believe it was a homophobic comment.
Today I see the transcript and... I have a pretty sensitive homophobia-dar but, assuming the transcript is accurate, I really don’t see it here. I see a “disbelief you are justifying a $5k bathtub as ‘engaging with international leaders’” comment. I dunno — I’m neither male, nor a journo, and maybe my ability to picture of a humorous image of two government officials standing in a fancy bathtub, without picturing them having sex, is a rare and precious skill. But even if that is true, it is impossible to read the comment as a homophobic jibe *at the Prime Minister*, it only refers to the Ambassador & foreign leaders.
It’s at 14:55 in Thursday’s Hansard — it starts with Poilievre:
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I will comment on one spectacular social housing project of his and that is the brand-new, lavish apartment he bought his friend the new consul general to New York. It cost $9 million for his friend Tom Clark to have a “stunning powder room...finished in jewel onyx”, “Cristallo Gold quartzite countertops”, a handcrafted “copper soaking tub”, “custom bronze [bathroom] fixtures” and a $5,000 coffee machine.
Did the Prime Minister go and inspect this palace in the sky on his recent trip to New York?
Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, engaging with international leaders on fighting climate change, on solving global crises, on standing up unequivocally for Ukraine—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: Does he engage with them in the bathtub?
An hon. member: Did Tom get the top bunk?
————————-
To be honest, I think the “top bunk” comment is far more homophobic than the bathtub comment. I don’t know why the LPC didn’t run with that instead.
Yeah! The “top bunk” is the problem here. The bathtub comment is a joke of opportunity. The second part is targeted. Focusing on the first part is irresponsible of everyone, imo
The “top bunk” comment (commenter unidentified) is problematic - ignorant because of the homosexual inference, but not necessarily indicating “homophobia. The bathtub one, to which Genuis confessed to having made, has zero to do with sex, gay or otherwise. No NDP or Liberal will leave a single stone unturned in their hunt for the offending MP. This shit is just another contribution to an unserious country with an unserious government. Trudeau’s “US anti-abortion church” comment doesn’t rise to any higher level than this. It’s all crud.
This may not have to do 100% with the episode, but i was thinking today, that with the Bloc calling the shots, our country is now being led by a separatist party........let that sink in for a minute.
I hope that the Liberals are, with whatever they have left.
Great episode, did exactly as you guys said, pissed me off a little, but that's what reporters are supposed to do from time to time.
"with the Bloc calling the shots, our country is now being led by a separatist party"
No, that isn't true. For the government to fail both the Bloc and the NDP would need to vote non-confidence, and most observers think it's the latter who are more pliable despite the heavy-handed talk of "ripping up" the CASA. And, of course, the Conservatives could always choose to work with the government but simply choose not to. So even if the Bloc manages to wield some policy influence, that would only be possible if every major party chooses to create the necessary conditions for that to happen.
...... the Conservatives could always choose to work with the government but simply choose not to .... work with the Trudeauist Liebranos government which has been systematically destroying the viability of Canada.
Even assuming that the Trudeau Liberals are in fact a terrible government, your logic is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the Conservatives are committed to never working with even a single other political party, then the incentive is for other parties to always work with other non-Conservative parties. Don't like the Liberals always leaning on the NDP for support? Conservatives should look in the mirror and see how they are to blame for that outcome.
What are you even talking about? The Bloc, the NDP, and the Liberals are explicitly engaged in policy negotiations in the runup to coming confidence votes.
Hm. People who believe that the Trudeauist Liebranos ( a.k.a. Laurentian Corruptocrats) are a great government are the kind of people who will believe that the Sun is a golden snake eating its tail, and that mathematics is racist.
You are continuing to deflect the point. If a Liberal government is bad for not adopting Conservative policies, that's an argument *in favour* of Conservatives trying to negotiate policy changes from said government. That's not an argument for clownish rage-farming and assuring the Liberals that they better work with any other party to keep power.
Stefan, for anyone to negotiate (i.e. PP and his party) there has to be someone who is a counterparty to such negotiations. There is no such counterparty in the Parliament of Canada.
Stefan, it is my recollection that the job of the opposition was very succinctly summarized by the Right Honorable John George Diefenbaker: "The job of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is to oppose." [apologies if my memory got some of the words a bit out of order]
That is one way of looking at the job of the Opposition - and please understand that the minor parties are not officially the Opposition, i.e. PP is the leader of the Conservative Party and is the Leader of His Majesty's Official Opposition in Parliament for which he receives a house (Stornoway) and extra emoluments (pay and perks to us little people) for that role. Therefore, the minor parties can do as the wish.
Matt’s anecdote about MRI waits taking 8 weeks in Canada vs a couple of hours in Buffalo made me go weepy the instant I heard it. I have a good Ottawa buddy with cancer issues who was prepared to pay $500 US equivalent for a private MRI in Quebec or NY state rather than wait 3 months in Ottawa. Then he found out from the Ottawa medical establishment that they would or could not accept these private MRIs for whatever reason. What a fucking toilet Canada has become in so many areas. But when you get a government that explains lack of results on an issue by outlining how many resources they spent on it - like a teacher giving E for effort instead of even a C or D - it’s no wonder
While its changing slowly, many Canadians blanch at the thought of someone paying to get ahead of them in line even if it means the lines will get shorter. They refuse to recognize that we do have a two tiered system where the rich get the care the need outside of the Canadian system with money that could be directed directly to improving facilities and services in Canada.
Agree with you 100%. But you have to be quite rich or have lots of mortgageable equity to afford the cost of private health care. In my view It’s the poor and middle class who are being screwed by long wait times that they can’t escape.
In the US we get a lot of go fund me to help out. I don’t see much in Canada. Maybe it’s considered un patriotic.
Excellent episode. As a "I don't want to vote for any of these people" voter, I have no complaints about the across-the-board criticism.
You mentioned Nate Erskine-Smith's (correct IMO) assessment the Liberals needed to focus on effective governing, and it occurs to me that Nate may be the only Liberal left who doesn't come across as some combination of delusional, sanctimonious, out-of-touch, and/or totally dejected. He's actually willing to criticize previous Liberal choices and understands why Canadians are angry at them and talks about solutions. I don't agree with all of his politics, but he's the one person I could see actually making the Liberal brand relevant again (frankly, the NDP would also be wise to poach him as their leader).
Yes, BCE is part of an oligopoly. But the correct remedy is not to break up the oligopoly, at least not in the antitrust sense of forcing some divestitures. The correct remedy is to allow more competition, and specifically, to allow free entry by foreign providers. The reluctance of the Liberals to do that may be evidence of crony capitalism. But that would be credible only if it becomes CPC policy to allow said entry by foreigners. As for CTV being part of an organized anti-CPC campaign, that is just bonkers. Such a campaign, if it existed, would not limit itself to isolated incidents.
I am afraid that Matt and Jen are correct, the CPC and many of its supporters are out for revenge. But some of us think that they may also accomplish positive things. After all, Mr. Poilievre has stated his core principles repeatedly. in lengthy one-on-one interviews: smaller government, less identity politics, more seriousness in foreign affairs, and especially a focus on economic issues, something that the Liberals have never taken seriously.
So no, I am not offended by this podcast. I only hope that it is incomplete, focusing on tactics. I hope that there are strategies as well, which are being kept quiet so as not to offend affected voters. Serious reforms are bound to hurt some people, and perhaps announcements are being postponed. As Kim Campbell said, elections are no time to discuss policy. I would add, neither are the run-ups to elections.
I would have no problem with divestitures. This could be regionally as happened with AT&T and Standard Oil -- that worked out for everyone. Or divesting content from communications and communications from infrastructure. I would also consider foreign providers.
I would have no objection if BCE were obliged to divest Bell Media and associated ventures. There would be no do loss to the public. On the other hand, there may be no gain either. BCE has no particular power in the media space, and it is not leveraging activities in media to increase market power in telecommunications (or vice versa).
I would be worried at taking apart BCE's network. As you say, an analogous divestiture happened in the U.S. But noe AT&T and Verizon both have fully integrated networks, serving all parts of the U.S. There are very significant economies of network construction and operation. Integration across regions and across different services both lower costs and increase the quality of service for customers.
Ideally, competition should come from different end-to-end, fully integrated suppliers. Right now, we have two and a half such networks, and they don't compete much. Experience elsewhere has shown that it takes the presence of four providers to provide sufficient competition. So we need at least one more. Unlikely to come from Canadians, so we should encourage, not block, foreigners.
On the comment that the Prime Minister alleges is homophobic, I agree that one can interpret the comment either way, but my unwillingness to interpret charitably comes out differently that Matt Gurney's.
I'm just done with people crying wolf over claims that the other side are bigots. This goes both ways. If the Prime Minister wants to claim that a Conservative made an anti-gay remark in the commons rather simply mocking the idea that an absurdly expensive bathroom is necessary government business than he'd better come with all the receipts and by that I mean full context with audio and video.
I don't care and the boy has cried wolf too many times.
If Trudeau were a woman, that comment would be considered sexist or misogynist (only because "misogynist" is a word people, especially the PM and gang, like to say often haha). If he were trans, it would be considered transphobic (see my parenthetical note on "misogynist.") So no, I don't think the comment was an intentional "gay joke," although I have to confess that no matter how many times I played it back, I could not hear it in its entirety. So maybe I'm missing some important context. I doubt it, though. It's the House of Commons. People yell shit comments out all the time.
Copper tubs are ridiculously expensive, though, someone called it out with the first comment that came to mind. Everyone brings their own life experience to how they interpret that remark. It was a stupid and not particularly funny joke, and had the PM ignored it, it probably wouldn't have received very little publicity at all. But the PM chose to respond in a spectacular fashion that, judging from the looks on their faces, surprised the rest of his team. Seemed to me to be a bit of an own goal.
I really need Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives to do better than this. I get it - playing populist rage monkey is fun, it’s helped to generate a steady stream of small dollar donations. It’s not how to run a country. Fixing the problems the Liberals created by chasing progressive fads without paying attention to fundamentals of good governance isn’t going to be accomplished with jeremiads against the news media or defending juvenile comments made by a member of their party. It’s going to take sustained disciplined focus. If Poilievre doesn’t want to do that, he’s at least going to have to empower those who will do it while he gets into thr next online flame war.
I totally agree. I am concerned that PP is losing the centre/right people like me that are prepared to vote for him. He first came to my attention during the WE charity scandal. I liked his relentless questioning and thought he uncovered and ultimately destroyed an expensive brainwashing (to create future Trudeau liberals) machine entrenched in schools. But he really must become a little more likeable and behave like a true leader rather than the mean petty man that is too often on display.
The stuff on display is what media choose to display.
I for one am tired of liberal and left parties going on and on about phobic this and racist that . They have been terrible at actual governance and this is all the have left . Let’s find one person who said something and paint every MP, every MLA , every voter with this same brush . It’s tiring and boring .
Great show. Keep it real. Honest journalism and criticism. We all will need to keep the next govt in check. Love the the growth of the podcast. On the right track
Great podcast as always.
1. On supply management. I’m a dyed in the wool capitalist for the most part. But call me crazy that a country ensuring it can feed itself is a bit of a good, dare I say smart idea? I’m not all in on supply management, but if some of it keeps that ace in the hole I’m not super quick or keen to get rid of it entirely… That said. Fuck the Bloc.
2. I’m not with you on your CTV take. This isn’t an “isolated incident.” And it’s egregious. CTV hasn’t been unbiased in a very very long time. Just another propaganda outlet doing its thing serving the system that feeds it. I think the take and conspiracy on the Bell CEO and the Liberals is too micro and linear as well. There is system and pervasive culture here at work. The culture and ideology enables the behavior. This is contributed to by the CEO, but he/she is just one body part of the overall beast. Good on the Conservatives to block out Bell lobbyists. They should do it to all of them. It’s consistent with what they’ve said. Make your case to the public, not to us. Let the public make your case to us. Maybe it’s idealist, but to reset this corrupt situation we need a hard swing back the other way.
The dairy monopoly doesn't do anything for "a country ensuring it can feed itself". It's a regime that willfully constricts the size of the Canadian dairy industry in order to allow greater monetary returns on lower production. It's illegal to market dairy goods without buying into the quota system, precisely because if there were no such law *then there would be more Canadians willing to produce dairy at lower cost*.
The scandal with the dairy monopoly is not how it hurts foreign competition, but rather how it artificially eliminates dairy job opportunities in Canada. But every dairy farmer in the country defends the system because they're not the ones excluded from employment.
Genuis did NOT make a gay sex joke.
He might have, but I have also heard the rumors about Trudeau's current preferences...whatever. So I thought it was, if anything, a jibe at Trudeaus hypocrisies.
I continue to believe it was merely a swipe at the over-the-top opulence of the consular digs - no more, no less.
On handcrafted copper bathtubgate, I'll give the Conservatives this much: I think if the consul general were a woman, somebody might still have made the same joke about meetings in the bathtub. There would of course have been innuendo, but not gay innuendo.
However, politicians should have some self-awareness. Conservatives know, or ought to know, that people think a lot of them are anti-gay bigots (maybe with good reason, maybe with largely outdated reasons). When you offer up juvenile innuendo with a gay angle, it's going to be interpreted as motivated by homophobia, even if in the moment it was motivated by bathtubs and the gay part was situational. If the consul general were a woman and there were a far right conspiracy theory that Trudeau was having an affair with her, same thing and they'd need to know the dumb joke is going to sound more sinister than it otherwise would.
In a way it reminds me of that time Trudeau jokingly corrected somebody at a townhall for saying "mankind" and insisted that it should be "peoplekind". Ya, I'm sure he meant it as a joke but it's exactly the kind of thing a lot of people think he'd say so it didn't come across that way to them.
Its interesting that you say people think of Conservatives as anti-gay bigots and Jen and Matt think that only 40's and under accept gays. I wonder how all those on the left that support Palestine can find that compatible with the Islamic take on gays. And as an over 50 year old, I could care less about anyone else's sex life and as with most true conservatives, believe that no government should care either.
Ditto. I remember being accepting of gay people back in the early 1980s, before I knew any openly gay people. It’s never been an issue for me. I am pretty sure my gay friends would not have been offended by the bathtub comment. But whatever.
I am also a little over 50 and have a fair bit of experience with conservative politics and campaigns (mainly but not entirely in Ontario). I could say a lot about what in my experience is real, exaggerated, or false about prejudice among conservatives (slightly different answers for elected types, pros, and general activists). But I’ve seen enough qual research to know a lot of people think many conservatives are homophobic and otherwise prejudiced, whether or not it’s true.
I agree. The type of joke it is depends on a lot of things. It wasn't a particularly good joke, however (although I couldn't hear the entire thing), but conservatives should know better. They have to hold themselves to a higher standard.
Look at all the people rushing to justify and/or explain the comment. They very clearly do not need to hold themselves to a higher standard.
If someone in the Conservative Party had said “Mr Trudeau is wearing more make up than I am today,” as Freeland said to Poilievre, would that have been a gay joke or not a gay joke. I imagine the former would be true. There is indeed a double standard.
I’m not going to play move-the-goal-post here. You said they need to have a higher standard, so you grant that the comment that was actually made, not the hypothetical one you’re creating, wasn’t good. I am asserting that it wasn’t good but it won’t hurt them. Because, well, read the comments.
The “bunk” comment is the only “gay” joke in there, imo. Neither comment was particularly funny, though.
The bathtub comment was not homophobic. They ordered a Copper Tub. Therefore the comment was Authoritarian.
You write in part, "It wasn't a particularly good joke"
On the other hand, who ever said that Garnet Genuis or any Conservative MP was a comedian? They do not understand comedy and simply should try to stay away from trying to be funny. If I think back, perhaps the last funny MP was Eugene Whelan and his green Stetson but he was accidentally funny.
Fair point. I honestly don’t care either way about the comment in the house. It absolutely won’t change my vote in any way. House antics are house antics. I’m more concerned about how badly managed Canada is and for the first time in my life am afraid for the country’s future. I don’t think any party will be able to dig us out of this mess, but I certainly don’t think we can afford more Trudeau, financially, ethically, morally.
Dammit this was a bloody good podcast. "Grotesque hypocritical sanctimony" is the absolute perfect description for Junior and the rest of the clowns with whom he runs; well done, Matt.
And yes, God bless the Bloc! What a service they are doing for the Country by potentially shining a spotlight on supply management. In my experience, I'd bet that 75% of the population would look at you with a blank stare if you asked them what supply management even is - the Bloc doing their part to stimulate the populace to educate itself on this issue could be fantastic. If PP does not jump on this after his legitimate observation about oligolopys running amok in this Country he should never be taken seriously again (and this week's ludicrous hyperventilating about conspiracies in the upper levels of BCE is a data point already suggesting he ought not to be taken seriously).
I said this last week but it is again relevant. Per the Agriculture Canada website there are roughly 9,500 dairy farms in Canada (4,400 in Quebec, 3,300 in Ontario and fewer than 500 in every other Province). There are 29,000 jobs in the dairy manufacturing sector and 17,000 jobs in dairy farm ops. This small number of people is going to swing an election in Canada when over 17 million ballots were cast in the last election? I don't see it - what is the counter argument?
Indeed, if the impacts of supply management were actually explained to the population it seems likely that advocating for their abolition would prove wildly popular to literally millions of voters . For every voter employed in the dairy industry who, due to their apparent employment interest, switches a vote that would have otherwise gone to PP (and it won't be ALL of them) I'd bet there would be many, many more voters who would change their vote in the opposite direction. Again, what is the argument that advocating for the abolition of supply management would be a loser in a general election?
The milk marketing board spends many millions of our milk dollars to increase support for themselves. It is why very few politicians will even touch the issue. They see where the money, and the influence is.
I’m not too worried about making Canadians pay more for their dairy products to keep separatists whose only loyalty and allegiance is to the Quebec Nation and not Canada. But I will be extremely sad when the upcoming renegotiations on the free trade agreement between the three North American partners crash and burn because of the smallest country in the partnership being intransigent over the fate of Quebec farmers.
While true, I do not think that is responsive to my point. My hypothesis is that among the electorate at large (not voters in a leadership campaign), more voters if informed on the issue would prefer to see the abolition of supply management than its maintenance.
The financial contributions of which you speak are merely a means to an end and not not the end itself - the end being to win the election. In 2023 the Conservatives brought in $35.2 million, the most for any political party in Canadian history. As far as I could tell from a quick perusal of the Elections Canada website, dairy lobbyists did not make up any significant portion of this amount. (It is very possible I missed something and am happy to be corrected.)
I get that money matters. But where is the evidence that the dairy industry has the financial heft to make an actual difference in the outcome of a general election? In 2023 the Liberals raised $15 million and the gaps in contributions continue to grow in the CPC's favour in 2024. Were the Conservatives to come out against supply management do we think that the dairy cartel is going to throw $20 million-plus at the Liberals? Furthermore, even if the financial playing field were level (or even in the Liberals favour), it's hard to see how that would change the results in the next election. Junior is toast barring something insane occurring. And were that to occur, the event would be so insane as to be immune to the effects of financial contributions.
These bromides about how supply management is sacrosanct and a fatal third rail for anyone who goes near it simply do not stand up to scrutiny from what I can see. I want to see actual evidence and not declarative conclusions. This Country is royally fucked economically and requires major structural changes that only begin with dismantling supply management. In the absence of evidence that advocating for its abolition would cost someone an election it is utterly shameful for the entire political class in this Country to continue to protect these cartels.
Now, much to my dismay I learned today that the Bloc's bill in question (Bill C-282) was actually passed by the House of Commons in 2023 (with PP voting FOR IT) and is now in the Senate. So I think we can take that as definitive proof that supply management is here to stay - and that PP ain't coming to save us. But that does not answer the question of interest to me which is: what is the actual evidence supporting the conclusion that a party advocating for the abolition of supply management would suffer negative consequences at the ballot box?
The “dairy cartel” is the bovine equivalent of “abortion” only with big bucks attached from sources that are not all apparent. No one will touch it, but it comes up regularly.
Yes just imagine over quota milk going to food banks instead of down the drain or allowing more cheese, ice cream and other dairy products for prices that reflect the real market. That's what happens with beef, wheat, oil -- oh wait that is the prairies that are devoid of Liberals. Sure Harper, Mulroney et al should have disbanded this scam years ago but maybe...
I think it quite ironic that you both shit all over Poilievre for lashing out at CTV for far too long, when you spent far too long talking about the issue. Moreover, I think Jen was too quick to leap to the conclusion that Poilievre's primary motive concerning CTV was to influence them to provide him "positive" coverage. In short, he's being hypocritical. She seemed unwilling to consider that perhaps his motive was simply aimed at persuading CTV to provide him unbiased coverage. Coverage that wasn't manipulated to paint him in a negative light.
TBH I think you both misunderstand what Poilievre is doing. I think he is executing (not perfectly) a bad strategy, rather than showing horrible indiscipline in executing against the conventional goal of constantly using carrots and sticks to try to get more favorable media coverage.
CPC behavior under Poilievre looks to me like they are following the Ron DeSantis playbook, getting ultra combative at every opportunity on the theory that they are better off enduring bad coverage and laying down a storyline that it is biased, rather than attempting to get slightly better media coverage which this (right wing fever swamp) viewpoint says has been proven always to fail.
Matt asks rhetorically whether they want an intractable forever war. Yes. Yes they do. I think they want an intractable forever war.
What carrots do you envision that would garner positive media coverage for CPC? They are already on the dole. The media refuses to deal honestly and call out Trudeau. Where is the outrage over the lack of transparency, the enshittification of the Freedom of Information, the coverups of all things China, etc.?
I didn’t say I believed the usual approaches would work particularly well, just that Poilievre’s CPC appears to be very skeptical of this and to have gone a different direction. FWIW I don’t think it’s true that media don’t call out Trudeau; one can always quibble about whether the level of skepticism and challenge is as great as it ought to be, but it appears to me that he gets way less benefit of the doubt now than in 2013-16 and even during COVID.
Love the show but I think you may have gotten it wrong on the tub. Talk of the tub and ‘engagement’ preceded the comment which, if it had been ‘does he engage with them *from* the tub’ would have been just as funny (and for the same reason - just picture it) and to the point (why should taxpayers pay for a copper soaking tub). Smearing someone as homophobic should not be done lightly and certainly not to score political points. It’s as bad as what is being accused.
I don't think we smeared anybody as homophobic.
It's a gay joke. A relatively minor one. One can make a gay joke without necessarily being a homophobic bigot, and we all need to stop overreacting to juvenile humour. JG
Absolutely. The whole thing was a nothing-burger. The only reason this became a topic is because gay activists (some of them being hyper-activists) over a time period of a couple of decades systematically brainwashed the population to become frantic the moment the word 'gay' is mentioned. A permanent time-out on this topic, and related topics, is overdue.
Nah, it became a thing because of Trudeau's response. People on Twitter were questioning his mental health (take Twitter for what it's worth, though. lol)
I watched the video of the interaction. I didn’t hear the purportedly homophobic comment, but I believe there are some homophobes in the CPC & I was 100% ready to believe it was a homophobic comment.
Today I see the transcript and... I have a pretty sensitive homophobia-dar but, assuming the transcript is accurate, I really don’t see it here. I see a “disbelief you are justifying a $5k bathtub as ‘engaging with international leaders’” comment. I dunno — I’m neither male, nor a journo, and maybe my ability to picture of a humorous image of two government officials standing in a fancy bathtub, without picturing them having sex, is a rare and precious skill. But even if that is true, it is impossible to read the comment as a homophobic jibe *at the Prime Minister*, it only refers to the Ambassador & foreign leaders.
Can you copy and paste the full comment here? I couldn't decipher it on the video. A link to the transcript will do. I'll search for "bathtub" :-)
It’s at 14:55 in Thursday’s Hansard — it starts with Poilievre:
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I will comment on one spectacular social housing project of his and that is the brand-new, lavish apartment he bought his friend the new consul general to New York. It cost $9 million for his friend Tom Clark to have a “stunning powder room...finished in jewel onyx”, “Cristallo Gold quartzite countertops”, a handcrafted “copper soaking tub”, “custom bronze [bathroom] fixtures” and a $5,000 coffee machine.
Did the Prime Minister go and inspect this palace in the sky on his recent trip to New York?
Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, engaging with international leaders on fighting climate change, on solving global crises, on standing up unequivocally for Ukraine—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: Does he engage with them in the bathtub?
An hon. member: Did Tom get the top bunk?
————————-
To be honest, I think the “top bunk” comment is far more homophobic than the bathtub comment. I don’t know why the LPC didn’t run with that instead.
Yeah! The “top bunk” is the problem here. The bathtub comment is a joke of opportunity. The second part is targeted. Focusing on the first part is irresponsible of everyone, imo
The “top bunk” comment (commenter unidentified) is problematic - ignorant because of the homosexual inference, but not necessarily indicating “homophobia. The bathtub one, to which Genuis confessed to having made, has zero to do with sex, gay or otherwise. No NDP or Liberal will leave a single stone unturned in their hunt for the offending MP. This shit is just another contribution to an unserious country with an unserious government. Trudeau’s “US anti-abortion church” comment doesn’t rise to any higher level than this. It’s all crud.
Can I get Jen’s message to the Conservatives on a T-Shirt, please? 😂
This may not have to do 100% with the episode, but i was thinking today, that with the Bloc calling the shots, our country is now being led by a separatist party........let that sink in for a minute.
I hope that the Liberals are, with whatever they have left.
Great episode, did exactly as you guys said, pissed me off a little, but that's what reporters are supposed to do from time to time.
"with the Bloc calling the shots, our country is now being led by a separatist party"
No, that isn't true. For the government to fail both the Bloc and the NDP would need to vote non-confidence, and most observers think it's the latter who are more pliable despite the heavy-handed talk of "ripping up" the CASA. And, of course, the Conservatives could always choose to work with the government but simply choose not to. So even if the Bloc manages to wield some policy influence, that would only be possible if every major party chooses to create the necessary conditions for that to happen.
...... the Conservatives could always choose to work with the government but simply choose not to .... work with the Trudeauist Liebranos government which has been systematically destroying the viability of Canada.
Yeah, I'm glad at least someone is doing some opposing in a so-called minority government.
Even assuming that the Trudeau Liberals are in fact a terrible government, your logic is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the Conservatives are committed to never working with even a single other political party, then the incentive is for other parties to always work with other non-Conservative parties. Don't like the Liberals always leaning on the NDP for support? Conservatives should look in the mirror and see how they are to blame for that outcome.
It is NOT the Conservatives who are committed to never working with a single other political party…speaking of mirrors.
What are you even talking about? The Bloc, the NDP, and the Liberals are explicitly engaged in policy negotiations in the runup to coming confidence votes.
“Clownish rage farming” is in the eye of the beholder. Mirror. I’ll not accept your authority on any matter, as it is non-existent. Opinions only.
Hm. People who believe that the Trudeauist Liebranos ( a.k.a. Laurentian Corruptocrats) are a great government are the kind of people who will believe that the Sun is a golden snake eating its tail, and that mathematics is racist.
You are continuing to deflect the point. If a Liberal government is bad for not adopting Conservative policies, that's an argument *in favour* of Conservatives trying to negotiate policy changes from said government. That's not an argument for clownish rage-farming and assuring the Liberals that they better work with any other party to keep power.
Stefan, for anyone to negotiate (i.e. PP and his party) there has to be someone who is a counterparty to such negotiations. There is no such counterparty in the Parliament of Canada.
Stefan, it is my recollection that the job of the opposition was very succinctly summarized by the Right Honorable John George Diefenbaker: "The job of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is to oppose." [apologies if my memory got some of the words a bit out of order]
That is one way of looking at the job of the Opposition - and please understand that the minor parties are not officially the Opposition, i.e. PP is the leader of the Conservative Party and is the Leader of His Majesty's Official Opposition in Parliament for which he receives a house (Stornoway) and extra emoluments (pay and perks to us little people) for that role. Therefore, the minor parties can do as the wish.
Matt’s anecdote about MRI waits taking 8 weeks in Canada vs a couple of hours in Buffalo made me go weepy the instant I heard it. I have a good Ottawa buddy with cancer issues who was prepared to pay $500 US equivalent for a private MRI in Quebec or NY state rather than wait 3 months in Ottawa. Then he found out from the Ottawa medical establishment that they would or could not accept these private MRIs for whatever reason. What a fucking toilet Canada has become in so many areas. But when you get a government that explains lack of results on an issue by outlining how many resources they spent on it - like a teacher giving E for effort instead of even a C or D - it’s no wonder
While its changing slowly, many Canadians blanch at the thought of someone paying to get ahead of them in line even if it means the lines will get shorter. They refuse to recognize that we do have a two tiered system where the rich get the care the need outside of the Canadian system with money that could be directed directly to improving facilities and services in Canada.
Agree with you 100%. But you have to be quite rich or have lots of mortgageable equity to afford the cost of private health care. In my view It’s the poor and middle class who are being screwed by long wait times that they can’t escape.
In the US we get a lot of go fund me to help out. I don’t see much in Canada. Maybe it’s considered un patriotic.
Agree with you 100
Excellent episode. As a "I don't want to vote for any of these people" voter, I have no complaints about the across-the-board criticism.
You mentioned Nate Erskine-Smith's (correct IMO) assessment the Liberals needed to focus on effective governing, and it occurs to me that Nate may be the only Liberal left who doesn't come across as some combination of delusional, sanctimonious, out-of-touch, and/or totally dejected. He's actually willing to criticize previous Liberal choices and understands why Canadians are angry at them and talks about solutions. I don't agree with all of his politics, but he's the one person I could see actually making the Liberal brand relevant again (frankly, the NDP would also be wise to poach him as their leader).
And he wouldn’t even be there is he’d won the Ontario Liberal Leadership contest.
*if* he’d won, not *is*
What about The Big Doug?
(I'm trademarking that, BTW.)
I went with Bigger Dig but Big Doug is better.
Check out Lærdal Tunnel (There are over 900 road tunnels in Norway with total length exceeding 750 km), WestConnex or Yamate Tunnel.
Yes, BCE is part of an oligopoly. But the correct remedy is not to break up the oligopoly, at least not in the antitrust sense of forcing some divestitures. The correct remedy is to allow more competition, and specifically, to allow free entry by foreign providers. The reluctance of the Liberals to do that may be evidence of crony capitalism. But that would be credible only if it becomes CPC policy to allow said entry by foreigners. As for CTV being part of an organized anti-CPC campaign, that is just bonkers. Such a campaign, if it existed, would not limit itself to isolated incidents.
I am afraid that Matt and Jen are correct, the CPC and many of its supporters are out for revenge. But some of us think that they may also accomplish positive things. After all, Mr. Poilievre has stated his core principles repeatedly. in lengthy one-on-one interviews: smaller government, less identity politics, more seriousness in foreign affairs, and especially a focus on economic issues, something that the Liberals have never taken seriously.
So no, I am not offended by this podcast. I only hope that it is incomplete, focusing on tactics. I hope that there are strategies as well, which are being kept quiet so as not to offend affected voters. Serious reforms are bound to hurt some people, and perhaps announcements are being postponed. As Kim Campbell said, elections are no time to discuss policy. I would add, neither are the run-ups to elections.
I would have no problem with divestitures. This could be regionally as happened with AT&T and Standard Oil -- that worked out for everyone. Or divesting content from communications and communications from infrastructure. I would also consider foreign providers.
I would have no objection if BCE were obliged to divest Bell Media and associated ventures. There would be no do loss to the public. On the other hand, there may be no gain either. BCE has no particular power in the media space, and it is not leveraging activities in media to increase market power in telecommunications (or vice versa).
I would be worried at taking apart BCE's network. As you say, an analogous divestiture happened in the U.S. But noe AT&T and Verizon both have fully integrated networks, serving all parts of the U.S. There are very significant economies of network construction and operation. Integration across regions and across different services both lower costs and increase the quality of service for customers.
Ideally, competition should come from different end-to-end, fully integrated suppliers. Right now, we have two and a half such networks, and they don't compete much. Experience elsewhere has shown that it takes the presence of four providers to provide sufficient competition. So we need at least one more. Unlikely to come from Canadians, so we should encourage, not block, foreigners.