I had to stop and comment after your first segment on Trudeau/Trump dinner.
- I agree with Jen that Trudeau, Leblanc, and Telford meeting with Trump was an improvement over what had come before.
- I agree with Matt that Trump & Co. completely (and rightly) disrespect Trudeau & Co., that the dinner invite was a ploy, and that the knives will find their backs.
However, I don't think the dinner and subsequent annex Canada propaganda was simply a troll for US/Canada audiences alone.
Canada is far more important in world affairs than we think it is, and let's just say it's not because of hockey or Timbits or gender-neutral bathrooms or that we're so nice. It's because we have several things most places in the world would love to have - a lot of space, a lot of (relatively) fresh water, a lot of oil & gas, a lot of minerals, and amazing strategic and trade proximity to the hyperpower of the USA.
Oh yes, we matter, just not how most Canadians think we matter.
I suggest that Trump's invitation to Canada via Trudeau and the dinner photo and 'annex Canada' riffs that followed specifically were also messages to others.
- As (especially) Sam Cooper and (occasionally) the G&M continue to report, Beijing has strategic and natural resource interests in Canada, and don't think the Trump Team (if not Trump himself) know that Justin is one of the facilitators (willing AND unwitting) of the Giant Panda's government and business influence in Canada, and in fact, has been key to their federal government influence peddling strategy since the end of Harper's last term. It was a clear message from the Trump Team to CCP's leadership that their key Canuck Quisling was now on their fish hook.
- This was also a message to the globalist leaders across the globe that one of their poster boys / water carriers was now on their fish hook.
- Given the news after your podcast dropped today that we are essentially an unofficial American Protectorate (North American Arctic, anyone - AKA Puerto Helado), I think this was a signal to Russia and by association, China that the polar bears and Canada's 150 snow machine riding soliders were going to be getting a bit of an upgrade and some reinforcements in Canada's True Great White North, and soon.
- I'm less confident in this one, but I think it might even be a message to Iran and their proxies that Trump's team knows the Iranian-Islamist-Palestinian influence in Canada is very strong (thinking about Melanie and Justin for no particular reason), and they want to send a message to that Axis that they're going to, shall we say, begin to discourage that activity in the USA and Canada.
Of course, I could be mistaken. It might be just a troll job by Trump's team on Trudeau specifically and Canada in general. Or not.
Good post CoolPro. Late at night when conspiracy theories go through my head I think of Canada as a very large country with very little population and a great deal of natural wealth. I think of China needing the aforementioned and I see Trudeau giving it to them.
Right on. Canada is seen as a collection of resources and an already occupied beachhead for the 2024 Axis of Evil - Iran, China, and Russia. As an example, Canada ‘s second symbol (next to Tim Horton’s) Canadian is a purveyor of cheap Chinese goods.
You assume that they are smarter and more organized than they are. That might be how it would work if everyone was competent, but they are not. Canada will just stumble along and become some sort of ante room for nations.
Agree that many (most) on that team, especially the public faces, are not that competent and organized. They almost never are. I would bet that a select few, and perhaps no one obvious on that team, or in the limelight, are that smart and organized. They beat a billion dollar Dem machine with a weaponized media and government against them. Some are not dumb.
I don’t see quoting Singh in a no confidence motion an asshole move. I see it as a way to call BS on the NDP who keep trying to eat their cake and have it too.
Jagmeet is allowing the Liberals to run the country into the ground. I would fully support asshole moves against Jagmeet for his asshold moves against the will of the voters.
I will absolutely laugh if the government falls the day after everyone gets their pensions. I wouldn't be surprised though, since when have Canada's elites even not been entitled and featherbedding clowns?
Yes it was. Blacklocks Reporter: "MPs have agreed to drop a proposed change to the next fixed election date that would have guaranteed pensions for Liberal and New Democrat two-termers. Members of the House affairs committee yesterday said they would delete the clause in an elections bill: 'This was cynical.' "
Also true. Extracurricular (and/or post-term of office) income seems to be a fact of life in Canada where more than half of the gross domestic product is controlled by government. All you can hope for is that theft, corruption and loss of freedom are kept to a minimum.
FDR, who legalized the right to strike in the United States, did not feel that that right should belong to the public sector because the public sector has no skin in the game. In the private sector, if the union pushes too hard, the company goes under. There’s also a limit to how much can be paid in the private sector. None of this is true with the public sector.
Although I do think that in this case, Canada Post is indeed screwing itself with this strike. But, yeah, had they been a private corp, they'd be calculating differently.
John, you make a great point. A private sector union has to consider the success of the private companies its members work for. Ask for too much money and everyone loses their job. Also, the private company has to consider how much money it can give its employees before the company fails. There are no such constraints in the public sector. If they get a 10% raise, it is just more money the government has to borrow to pay them. And does management in the public sector have to worry about their "company" failing if they give their employees too much money? No!
The November issue of The Walrus Magazine has an article written by Paul Wells. His article mentions an interview with A Montreal Gazette reporter given by Poilievre where he states" I think compassion is measured in results, not in words or gestures," Poilievre said. So it's not about, you know, standing up, putting your hand on your heart and bursting into tears to plead with people, to make them believe that you care more than the other guy.
It's about: what do you actually deliver?
Hopefully Canada gets good governance delivered. We certainly need it.
You are correct. On a local radio talk show this am, in a discussion on the latest gun control confusion, a caller said he is doing absolutely nothing with his guns as he is positively sure the Conservatives will scrap the law once in power.
I notice that all the assault like rifle prohibitions do not apply to Indians - or whatever -and Inuit. It’s fascinating that the libs are allowing these so called weapons of war to 1.5 million (? ) people that they have been fucking over for generations via the Indian Act while denying these same self defense tools to those who could use them to protect themselves. FWIW
We are at the stage in Canada where with a bit of elite persuasion you could see a province, probably Alberta and not Quebec (home of the neverendum) be convinced to ask to join the US. It's astounding how much more people in Alberta at least are talking about how the US would be better than Canada for them and their families.
Canada has to be worth it, and the competition is and has always been the US from 1867. Canada can't just be better for the feckless and underachieving, it needs to be better at things that Americans want to be good at for everyone.
For most provinces we aren't there anymore, and for BC and Alberta I can't honestly think of a benefit for them being part of Canada vs the US. Other than good feelings and avoiding confrontation I suppose.
The Canadian experiment, all the way back from the United Empire Loyalists to build a superior country to the US is failing. We still have time to bring it back, but Canada needs a reboot. New Constitution, gutting our Laurentian Elite and institutions, resolving the "worst of English and French culture mixed together" governance, all of it.
Time is running out. Alberta is one Elon Musk type throwing around money from having "a join the US" referendum. (Separatism is a pipe dream, Albertans don't have the balls for that). Quebec is going into another referendum.
Very good ...... New Constitution, gutting our Laurentian UnElites griftocracy and institutions, gutting Laurentian UnElites coruptocratic octopus economy, gutting Laurentian UnElites corruptocratic stranglehold on middle and senior ranks of federal civil service, ....... there is more items to add, be my guest. Over time as I learned more in detail how Canada is governed, I came to utterly detest the Laurentian UnElites.
A miss .... with more abuse from the current crop of the feds, AND with the right kind of provincial leadership, I think Albertans do have balls for separatism. If the Liebranodips and Troodas were to win another turn at the misgovernmenting, I think Alberta would be ready and actually have a referendum on separation/joining US. In this turn Albertans are just waiting for the Troodas The Judas and Liebranodips to be turfed to see if there is any improvement, meaning a whole bunch of kill-the-economy bullshit laws (from 2015 onward) being cancelled.
There obviously can’t be a team Canada approach when Trudeau takes the approach that the premiers have to listen to him.
Guilbeault immediately doubled down on his emission cap unilateral decree. Doug Ford will engage with the US as he does not believe that Trudeau will do anything positive. Not a good start to a team Canada approach.
I am more about the Team Alberta approach, and it is up to the lib/dips to prove me wrong – so far, they are not succeeding.
I'm astounded that no one has done an extensive national survey on "would you mind joining the US?" I think the powers that be are afraid of what the results would be, especially from immigrants.
Milo, if I truly had my druthers I would vote for a truly independent Alberta but that is not the way of a long term solution: a land-locked country of 5,000,000 people? Not a long term realistic solution; a much desired solution but not a realistic one so, ultimately, joining up with the US is more practical and therefore more desirable.
Switzerland, Austria and Czechia are all landlocked. Joining the US makes more sense though since Albertans foolishly haven't hedged their interests against Canada.
Yes, those countries are landlocked but they also have larger populations. Our mere (almost) five million of a not particularly homogeneous population is pretty insignificant for a separate country. To my sorrow. So, yes, joining the US is the best option.
I just keep thinking about all the benefits Alberta would gain. Our oil would get to water, our dollar would be worth something and perhaps, best of all, no more french on all the labels. :-)
"no more french on all the labels ..." Set up housekeeping with the US and it could be Spanish on the labels. The real difference, however, is that the manufacturer could CHOOSE to do or to not do make that change rather than be mandated by law and choice is absolutely to the good.
The other part is that Alberta hasn't really taken the time to set up its own independent institutions, like a provincial police service, or even attempted to have its own APP. You're going to need them to join the US.
Things have changed politically but most haven’t figured it out yet. Quebec no longer matters. The west and Ontario will be calling it the shots going forward. If Quebec wants to mess around with the Bloc so be it. It just further reduces their political power.
Quebec still matters. In many ways we live in a Francophone country culturally and politically, just with a minority pushing their values onto a majority.
Jen calls it a "griftocracy." It isn't that, it's just Quebec Inc in Ottawa.
Despite being a unionized federal public servant myself, I totally agree with Jen's comments on public sector unions. I believe that government should only be doing essential things (defence, infrastructure, policing, courts, etc.) and if it is not an essential thing then government should step back and let the private sector do it.
It logically follows, therefore, that all public sector workers should be "essential" and should not have the ability to withdraw their services without being terminated for being absent.
When the federal public service struck a few years ago, I had voted against going on strike (I was happy with my pay and benefits at the time). I had lost lots of spending power due to inflation, but I was still grateful to have a good job with all of the attendant benefits.
The free labour market should operate. If someone is not happy with their pay and benefits, they can leave for another job elsewhere. This isn't hard.
That isn't how Quebec views the world therefore that isn't the way it works in Canada. Plus you have the old master and servant laws from common law that have precidence.
Canada's economy would be much closer in competitiveness if we just brought in at-will work laws and defended them with the non withstanding clause.
Her new word is right up there with "kleptocracy" which is an apt description often used to describe the Russian government. So, if Canada is a "griftocracy" is that a junior version of a "kleptocracy"? And, if so, does that make Canada a junior version of Russia? Hmmmm...... have to consider that carefully.
Expanded my vocabulary ! And the book is an excellent idea. Go Jen go !
Think of the book as teaching material for expanding the civic knowledge and strengthening the ability for critical thinking of both current and future Canadian youngsters and ....... a good portion of the voters.
Jean Chrétien wasn’t popular when he was elected the first time. That was definitely a protest vote. He is now regarded as one of the most popular PMs in the past 50 years and he clearly did a good job in power. We need to keep that in mind. It’s knowledge about policy that leads to good government. Chrétien understood policy as he was a cabinet minister in a number of key portfolios prior to becoming PM. PP has an understanding of policy as well. That’s the thing that stands out to me compared to the other options.
I can assure you Chretien isn't considered one of the most popular PMs in the last 50 years west of Toronto. Just goes to show how different Canada is region to region.
The Liberals got a full quarter of the Alberta vote in the election that made him Prime Minister and that was their worst peformance in the west. They got nearly half the popular vote in Manitoba.
Some of his behaviour verged on thuggery. There was no need to grab that protester by the throat, he was peaceful . Don’t remember the protest, though. That said, he was ok until he and his government became mired in corruption.
I have never been a big fan, but he was far more likeable in the late 70s and into the 80s I think.
The choked person came back and screwed Quebec gun owners later on by getting an injunction preventing Stephen Harper from destroying the long gun registry so Quebec could retain info on Quebec gun owners.
In 1995 the Chretien government was forced to fix Canada’s economy (broken by Trudeau the first). He cut 45,000 federal jobs (14% of the federal payroll), cut dairy subsidies 30%, he cut transfers to the CBC and cut foreign aid by 21%.
AND…He closed 73 federal agencies.
When/if (hopefully) Poilievre decides to clean up Ottawa, and the opposition starts whining, he can use this information along with the but, but, but Chretien line.
Chretien had no choice. Canada was about to lose its favorable credit rating because of excessive debt and would have had to join Greece, Spain and others into the World Bank run purgatory for deadbeat nations. Ironic that Chretien was Trudeau’s Finance Minister when his administration drove Canada into the financial toilet. Any political party would have faced the same choice. Reform at least had a clue as to what to do unlike the civil servants who were in power at the time.
Looking at the current situation on purely economic grounds the Bank of Canada interest rate setting behavior has been driving the value of the Canadian dollar down drastically and making Canadian exports cheaper. This amounts to dumping and indirect subsidies of the type which the Chinese have been doing for years. If I were the US I definitely would be applying tariffs and penalties because of this interest rate driven Canadian dollar depreciation. It has nothing to do with illegal drugs or the terrorists on US watch lists living in Canada with easy access to the US etc.
Chrétien and Poilievre are similar insofar as they are both career politicians who began their political career in their 20s. But they otherwise have little in common. I struggle to think of a single Bill introduced by Chretien that was constructed with as much willful ignorance as Poilievre's "Fair Elections" Act.
Poilievre is arguably a more divisive figure than Chretien ever was, in terms of reception by partisans of other parties. Of course, every politician inevitably becomes despised and mocked by at least some partisans of some other parties, but I think that there are devout Dippers and Conservatives who like and respect Chretien, whereas devout Liberals, DIppers, or Bloc members who actually like Poilievre seem to be far and few between.
Part of the reason PP appears more divisive is the media. I’m not trying to get into a media rant here but the amount of the opinion articles today dwarf of the amount of opinion articles in the 1990s. I think that is a big difference. We read opinion now and that helps shape how we see things.
My own early negative impressions of Poilievre were not primarily based on opinion pieces. I remember the years of the Harper majority era before Poilievre became a Cabinet minister, when he enthusiastically made himself available to the CBC and other media to uncritically defend any and all divisive government legislation and to mock each and every single critic of virtually every now-repealed government bill. I was able to see for myself directly how the man disgraced himself with a level of sycophancy that most other Conservatives simply have never matched.
Just to nitpick... but "lefties despise Poilievre more than righties despised Chrétien" doesn't mean that Poilievre is more divisive... it could mean that lefties have become absolutely intolerant of political disagreement.
In any case, the tone of politics has changed so what you're saying really just comes down to "the 90s were less nasty".
But consider that the left wing parties just spent a decade or more shoving the overtone window to the extreme left and claiming that anyone not on board with that was basically David Duke. "Far right" used to mean "skin head neo-Nazi liable to beat up Jews". Now several of Chretien's policies own are "far right". (I'm thinking of his opposition to legal marriage between people of the same sex).
I don't think that "leftists" as a group are relevant to this conversation. No political party in recent history has solely achieved majority support among the Canadian population, so political agendas shared by coalitions of parties representing a majority of Canadians are obviously less ideological than political agendas exclusive to a single political party. And the Conservatives under both Harper and Poilievre have united all the other parties to vote unfavourably to the Conservative cause on confidence votes.
Although the Conservatives have a huge commanding lead in terms of plurality support, it remains the case that at least a simple majority of Canadians are planning to vote for parties who are least willing to support a Conservative government. Legally, the NDP and Bloc could choose to vote down the Trudeau government in favour of testing a minority Conservative government, but they would be extremely averse to doing so. That says something about Poilievre's cross-partisan popularity, or lack thereof.
So is humour. Someone asked in a comment if a Polar Bear was going to the the northern ambassador. Someone replied that Boissonnault could always identify as a polar bear and take the job. Not everyone thought it was funny.
Does not matter in which sense? Getting short-term power and control? Sure. But there are different ways to measure popularity, and Poilievre is highly popular by some measures but not by others.
Objective or subjective assessments of popularity aside, similarly to what Matt and Jen are saying I think some number of people have missed the difference between "telling it like it is" to the point of not being nice versus being ignorant as a result of negative spite. (Though I consider Trump a more extreme example of this confusion than Poilievre.)
That's subjective though. "Cut the CBC." "Doesn't he understand the value CBC provides in keeping Canada together!" No agreeing it provides value doesn't mean he doesn't understand what the CBC is about, he just thinks the value is negative.
It is one thing to have a unionized GM plant as compared to a non-union Honda plant. It's an entirely different thing to impose a California-style ban on Uber's independent contractor model in order to force it into an old timey fixed pay-and-benefits employment template. Calling both "private sector unions" obscures more than it illuminates.
If some Uber drivers want to create a union, good for them. If Uber doesn't want to do business with those drivers, good for them too. The problem comes when a bunch of meddling politicians pander for votes by putting their thumb on the scale for the union drivers, and use the force of law to say that model must and will prevail.
Sorry, I prefer freedom. If somebody wants to spend a few hours driving passengers or delivering takeout for modest but non-zero money, the government should butt out.
The answer to crime is law enforcement, not bending economic policy to appease the criminals.
Beyond legal preferences for unions, the taxi industry has been lavished with all kinds of policies that historically harmed consumers (and sometimes drivers), most notoriously artificial restrictions on licensing that drove the value of licenses to astronomical levels. Will they respond with violence if those preferences are relaxed? Will dairy farmers riot if supply management is changed? Will nurses go on a murderous rampage if we ease occupational licensing restrictions on foreign-trained health workers? Probably not, but even if they would, that's no sound basis for giving them policy payoffs.
Sure... no problem. Your security cameras will show two guys in dark coloured hoodies. Good luck "law enforcing" that.
So perhaps you can have alarms and confront them in the act... well that's a great way to get beaten into a hospital bed, so you'd better come armed... well guess what.. so will they. You can keep going of course. The arms race has a pit stop in modern day South Africa, but the destination is worse if you keep going.
That's the thing about peaceful Canadian society.. it depends on mass agreement with the whole thing. It's not simply "law enforcement". Lose the mass buy-in and you've got a deeply violent society with the people most willing to be the most brutal most quickly having the upper hand. And unless you happen to be an enforcer for a cartel who likes substack in your spare time, that isn't you.
That's one of the big reasons why we created the legal structure for unions. The previous arrangement (which you seem to be proposing we go back to) wasn't working. It led to violence when people decided they were being exploited and decided violence was their only option to end that exploitation. So we created the legal structure for unions to give them a better option.
Don't assume that "nice" people won't respond with violence if they perceive themselves to be exploited with no other options. History tells us they will. I don't believe Canadians have suddenly become the first inherent good human beings in all of history.
I am well aware that mid-20th century elites, including politicians, judges, and judges acting as arbitrators, had an appallingly patronizing view of paid work as a contest between the interests of capital and the collective, undifferentiated interests of labor.
From this flowed the idea that a young, productive worker necessarily benefitted from the very trade union that demanded he be forbidden from being paid extra for his productivity, that he receive the worst shifts because of his lack of seniority, and that he be the first to go in any layoff. And from that flowed the idea that if he did not wish to pay the union, it was not because he was exercising his individual economic liberty, but because he was freeloading on what the learned elites pigheadedly insisted was the "benefit" of union representation. The worker's judgement about his interest would be set aside, in favor of the armchair elite reckoning that he was receiving a benefit whether he recognized it or not. If he wanted anything different he must persuade a majority of his brothers, his comrades, the other sheep in the undifferentiated herd.
We should long ago have left behind such foolishness. Most private sector workers have done so, rejecting unionization even in the face of absurd government preferences for it. The idea that workers' interests are collective belongs with the idea that a family's interests are only collective, so the husband alone should vote and a wife and mother should have no opportunity to make an independent political choice. I hope one day we are enlightened enough to view both ancient beliefs with equal shame.
You say all that, but you're handwaving away the problem of labour violence. Just saying "law enforcement"... as if this wasn't exactly what was tried and which failed before isn't an answer so much as it's just hoping that doing exactly the same thing won't produce exactly the same results.
You're also ignoring the fact that the drop in unionization coincided with strict labour laws that gave workers much of the benefits of unionization without having to be in a union AND this all happened in a period where every generation could expect to be richer than the generation before.
The second is DEFINITELY not true anymore. Are you suggesting that we preserve the first by enshrining more labour gains in law so that unions are less necessary?
My point on labor violence is that there are many, many policy matters that may upset people, and indeed many that may upset them with respect to their employment.
Occupational licensing, corporate welfare subsidies, trade agreements, competition law, tax rates and structures, and a hundred other things may cause people to lose their jobs, or to have lower wages, worse working conditions, or fewer hours than they otherwise would.
And yet because we maintain this weird notion that all work is a variation of a 19th Century Welsh coal mine, somehow on union-related labor policies, and only on these policies, the idea of worker violence is supposed to be a persuasive factor influencing policy. If somebody said we shouldn't sign NAFTA because of the threat of worker violence, or we must give Chrysler a giant subsidy lest we face worker violence, we'd tell them to f*** right off. I see no reason why this line of argument on union-related policies should be viewed any differently.
On the dinner. There was a decent segment on The Remnant podcast this week. Quoting from a discussion with Indian pundits and government members:
Indian: “What do you think of Canada?”
Jonah Goldberg: “We don’t.”
Our editors comments that we want to be forgotten is true. The worst thing that the American government can do to you, as a citizen or country, is focus their attention on you.
It's interesting how people in the big cities underestimate the effect of the strike. I live in a small city in BC. I have several orders held up in various places because Canada Post handles the delivery to my home. I agree with mostly everything else you say about the strike, but I do feel its effect.
I was thinking about where people live can make a huge difference in how they feel about the Canada Post strike. I live in downtown Toronto and basically am just not getting the junk mail that normally fills my mailbox. I can appreciate those living in more remote areas are feeling differently.
As a younger voter I'm not opposed to blowing everything up like America has decided to do. We can't get any worse off. However, I share Jen and matt's concern... it's going to be all talk and just more political bs. Stop talking and do something great again.
I don't understand the obsession to have high voter turnouts and the scolding of those who don't vote. Maybe they don't care. Maybe they have other things to do. Maybe they have studied the options and don't find anyone worth voting for. Also, the research I have seen shows that if voter turnout increased, the results would be pretty much the same.
1 Liberal government is simply irrelevant, but they can still do a lot of damage until there is an election.
2 I can only imagine a Trump advisor telling Katie Telford as she’s about to get into the limo after the dinner, “make sure boy wonder doesn’t try to upstage Trump like the last time, and don’t try any new trade deals with the Chinese. Have a safe flight back….”
3 Troll or not, the Maritime provinces have historically strong traditional ties with New England - culturally, socially and economically long before and after Confederation. It would be interesting to see any survey/poll results on the Atlantic provinces willingness to be part of the States compared to the same question posed to other provinces.
1 If they can still do a lot of damage until there is an election, then they are extremely relevant.
2 Correct, and I'm sure there were a few additional items to those two.
3 I'm sure they would, but they USA would not be interested in statehood for them, as they would reliably vote Democrat, as would most Canadians. The best we can hope for is what we are about to get into with our rechristened 'North American Arctic' - de facto if unofficial status as an American Protectorate. Puerto Helado.
When people say that Canadians would reliably vote Democrat, I want to remind them that the Republicans were never supposed to win an election again because non-whites would reliably vote Democrat. That doesn't seem to have come true after all.
I had to stop and comment after your first segment on Trudeau/Trump dinner.
- I agree with Jen that Trudeau, Leblanc, and Telford meeting with Trump was an improvement over what had come before.
- I agree with Matt that Trump & Co. completely (and rightly) disrespect Trudeau & Co., that the dinner invite was a ploy, and that the knives will find their backs.
However, I don't think the dinner and subsequent annex Canada propaganda was simply a troll for US/Canada audiences alone.
Canada is far more important in world affairs than we think it is, and let's just say it's not because of hockey or Timbits or gender-neutral bathrooms or that we're so nice. It's because we have several things most places in the world would love to have - a lot of space, a lot of (relatively) fresh water, a lot of oil & gas, a lot of minerals, and amazing strategic and trade proximity to the hyperpower of the USA.
Oh yes, we matter, just not how most Canadians think we matter.
I suggest that Trump's invitation to Canada via Trudeau and the dinner photo and 'annex Canada' riffs that followed specifically were also messages to others.
- As (especially) Sam Cooper and (occasionally) the G&M continue to report, Beijing has strategic and natural resource interests in Canada, and don't think the Trump Team (if not Trump himself) know that Justin is one of the facilitators (willing AND unwitting) of the Giant Panda's government and business influence in Canada, and in fact, has been key to their federal government influence peddling strategy since the end of Harper's last term. It was a clear message from the Trump Team to CCP's leadership that their key Canuck Quisling was now on their fish hook.
- This was also a message to the globalist leaders across the globe that one of their poster boys / water carriers was now on their fish hook.
- Given the news after your podcast dropped today that we are essentially an unofficial American Protectorate (North American Arctic, anyone - AKA Puerto Helado), I think this was a signal to Russia and by association, China that the polar bears and Canada's 150 snow machine riding soliders were going to be getting a bit of an upgrade and some reinforcements in Canada's True Great White North, and soon.
- I'm less confident in this one, but I think it might even be a message to Iran and their proxies that Trump's team knows the Iranian-Islamist-Palestinian influence in Canada is very strong (thinking about Melanie and Justin for no particular reason), and they want to send a message to that Axis that they're going to, shall we say, begin to discourage that activity in the USA and Canada.
Of course, I could be mistaken. It might be just a troll job by Trump's team on Trudeau specifically and Canada in general. Or not.
Back to the rest of your podcast!
Good post CoolPro. Late at night when conspiracy theories go through my head I think of Canada as a very large country with very little population and a great deal of natural wealth. I think of China needing the aforementioned and I see Trudeau giving it to them.
Now we're talking. 💯
Right on. Canada is seen as a collection of resources and an already occupied beachhead for the 2024 Axis of Evil - Iran, China, and Russia. As an example, Canada ‘s second symbol (next to Tim Horton’s) Canadian is a purveyor of cheap Chinese goods.
Quidling indeed!
You assume that they are smarter and more organized than they are. That might be how it would work if everyone was competent, but they are not. Canada will just stumble along and become some sort of ante room for nations.
Agree that many (most) on that team, especially the public faces, are not that competent and organized. They almost never are. I would bet that a select few, and perhaps no one obvious on that team, or in the limelight, are that smart and organized. They beat a billion dollar Dem machine with a weaponized media and government against them. Some are not dumb.
I don’t see quoting Singh in a no confidence motion an asshole move. I see it as a way to call BS on the NDP who keep trying to eat their cake and have it too.
Jagmeet is allowing the Liberals to run the country into the ground. I would fully support asshole moves against Jagmeet for his asshold moves against the will of the voters.
"Asshold" was a typo, but it seems totally apt. Jen, feel free to borrow the term 🤣
I will absolutely laugh if the government falls the day after everyone gets their pensions. I wouldn't be surprised though, since when have Canada's elites even not been entitled and featherbedding clowns?
I thought the request to change the election date was denied.
Yes it was. Blacklocks Reporter: "MPs have agreed to drop a proposed change to the next fixed election date that would have guaranteed pensions for Liberal and New Democrat two-termers. Members of the House affairs committee yesterday said they would delete the clause in an elections bill: 'This was cynical.' "
I do find it quite humorous and a fun troll job . I wonder how Jagmeet spins all of this in his head when looking in the mirror .
The main thing spinning in Jagmeet’s head is the date he qualifies for an MP’s pension and whether he can keep the Liberals alive until then.
I think Singh likes/stays in the position he is in because he can aid his Khalistani ‘friends’ (gang members) and get way more money than his pension.
Also true. Extracurricular (and/or post-term of office) income seems to be a fact of life in Canada where more than half of the gross domestic product is controlled by government. All you can hope for is that theft, corruption and loss of freedom are kept to a minimum.
FDR, who legalized the right to strike in the United States, did not feel that that right should belong to the public sector because the public sector has no skin in the game. In the private sector, if the union pushes too hard, the company goes under. There’s also a limit to how much can be paid in the private sector. None of this is true with the public sector.
Although I do think that in this case, Canada Post is indeed screwing itself with this strike. But, yeah, had they been a private corp, they'd be calculating differently.
John, you make a great point. A private sector union has to consider the success of the private companies its members work for. Ask for too much money and everyone loses their job. Also, the private company has to consider how much money it can give its employees before the company fails. There are no such constraints in the public sector. If they get a 10% raise, it is just more money the government has to borrow to pay them. And does management in the public sector have to worry about their "company" failing if they give their employees too much money? No!
FDR was right on this!
Re; Nice but not good
The November issue of The Walrus Magazine has an article written by Paul Wells. His article mentions an interview with A Montreal Gazette reporter given by Poilievre where he states" I think compassion is measured in results, not in words or gestures," Poilievre said. So it's not about, you know, standing up, putting your hand on your heart and bursting into tears to plead with people, to make them believe that you care more than the other guy.
It's about: what do you actually deliver?
Hopefully Canada gets good governance delivered. We certainly need it.
You are correct. On a local radio talk show this am, in a discussion on the latest gun control confusion, a caller said he is doing absolutely nothing with his guns as he is positively sure the Conservatives will scrap the law once in power.
I notice that all the assault like rifle prohibitions do not apply to Indians - or whatever -and Inuit. It’s fascinating that the libs are allowing these so called weapons of war to 1.5 million (? ) people that they have been fucking over for generations via the Indian Act while denying these same self defense tools to those who could use them to protect themselves. FWIW
We are at the stage in Canada where with a bit of elite persuasion you could see a province, probably Alberta and not Quebec (home of the neverendum) be convinced to ask to join the US. It's astounding how much more people in Alberta at least are talking about how the US would be better than Canada for them and their families.
Canada has to be worth it, and the competition is and has always been the US from 1867. Canada can't just be better for the feckless and underachieving, it needs to be better at things that Americans want to be good at for everyone.
For most provinces we aren't there anymore, and for BC and Alberta I can't honestly think of a benefit for them being part of Canada vs the US. Other than good feelings and avoiding confrontation I suppose.
The Canadian experiment, all the way back from the United Empire Loyalists to build a superior country to the US is failing. We still have time to bring it back, but Canada needs a reboot. New Constitution, gutting our Laurentian Elite and institutions, resolving the "worst of English and French culture mixed together" governance, all of it.
Time is running out. Alberta is one Elon Musk type throwing around money from having "a join the US" referendum. (Separatism is a pipe dream, Albertans don't have the balls for that). Quebec is going into another referendum.
Very good ...... New Constitution, gutting our Laurentian UnElites griftocracy and institutions, gutting Laurentian UnElites coruptocratic octopus economy, gutting Laurentian UnElites corruptocratic stranglehold on middle and senior ranks of federal civil service, ....... there is more items to add, be my guest. Over time as I learned more in detail how Canada is governed, I came to utterly detest the Laurentian UnElites.
A miss .... with more abuse from the current crop of the feds, AND with the right kind of provincial leadership, I think Albertans do have balls for separatism. If the Liebranodips and Troodas were to win another turn at the misgovernmenting, I think Alberta would be ready and actually have a referendum on separation/joining US. In this turn Albertans are just waiting for the Troodas The Judas and Liebranodips to be turfed to see if there is any improvement, meaning a whole bunch of kill-the-economy bullshit laws (from 2015 onward) being cancelled.
There obviously can’t be a team Canada approach when Trudeau takes the approach that the premiers have to listen to him.
Guilbeault immediately doubled down on his emission cap unilateral decree. Doug Ford will engage with the US as he does not believe that Trudeau will do anything positive. Not a good start to a team Canada approach.
I am more about the Team Alberta approach, and it is up to the lib/dips to prove me wrong – so far, they are not succeeding.
As an Albertan I know how I would vote in such a notional referendum and it wouldn't be to remain in Canada.
I'm astounded that no one has done an extensive national survey on "would you mind joining the US?" I think the powers that be are afraid of what the results would be, especially from immigrants.
Milo, if I truly had my druthers I would vote for a truly independent Alberta but that is not the way of a long term solution: a land-locked country of 5,000,000 people? Not a long term realistic solution; a much desired solution but not a realistic one so, ultimately, joining up with the US is more practical and therefore more desirable.
Switzerland, Austria and Czechia are all landlocked. Joining the US makes more sense though since Albertans foolishly haven't hedged their interests against Canada.
Yes, those countries are landlocked but they also have larger populations. Our mere (almost) five million of a not particularly homogeneous population is pretty insignificant for a separate country. To my sorrow. So, yes, joining the US is the best option.
I just keep thinking about all the benefits Alberta would gain. Our oil would get to water, our dollar would be worth something and perhaps, best of all, no more french on all the labels. :-)
Welllllll ........
"no more french on all the labels ..." Set up housekeeping with the US and it could be Spanish on the labels. The real difference, however, is that the manufacturer could CHOOSE to do or to not do make that change rather than be mandated by law and choice is absolutely to the good.
Good point. How about no more equalization payments?
Ahhhhh....
Now, you are making my day!
There is still equalization in the US, but it isn't codified in law, and that is a huge difference.
The other part is that Alberta hasn't really taken the time to set up its own independent institutions, like a provincial police service, or even attempted to have its own APP. You're going to need them to join the US.
Things have changed politically but most haven’t figured it out yet. Quebec no longer matters. The west and Ontario will be calling it the shots going forward. If Quebec wants to mess around with the Bloc so be it. It just further reduces their political power.
I would like to think you are correct but Ontario and Quebec have been in bed with each other forever. Or so it appears to this British Columbian.
Quebec still matters. In many ways we live in a Francophone country culturally and politically, just with a minority pushing their values onto a majority.
Jen calls it a "griftocracy." It isn't that, it's just Quebec Inc in Ottawa.
Despite being a unionized federal public servant myself, I totally agree with Jen's comments on public sector unions. I believe that government should only be doing essential things (defence, infrastructure, policing, courts, etc.) and if it is not an essential thing then government should step back and let the private sector do it.
It logically follows, therefore, that all public sector workers should be "essential" and should not have the ability to withdraw their services without being terminated for being absent.
When the federal public service struck a few years ago, I had voted against going on strike (I was happy with my pay and benefits at the time). I had lost lots of spending power due to inflation, but I was still grateful to have a good job with all of the attendant benefits.
The free labour market should operate. If someone is not happy with their pay and benefits, they can leave for another job elsewhere. This isn't hard.
That isn't how Quebec views the world therefore that isn't the way it works in Canada. Plus you have the old master and servant laws from common law that have precidence.
Canada's economy would be much closer in competitiveness if we just brought in at-will work laws and defended them with the non withstanding clause.
LOL Griftocracy - Jen - that is gold! Write a book on Canada with that title. Perfect!
Her new word is right up there with "kleptocracy" which is an apt description often used to describe the Russian government. So, if Canada is a "griftocracy" is that a junior version of a "kleptocracy"? And, if so, does that make Canada a junior version of Russia? Hmmmm...... have to consider that carefully.
Expanded my vocabulary ! And the book is an excellent idea. Go Jen go !
Think of the book as teaching material for expanding the civic knowledge and strengthening the ability for critical thinking of both current and future Canadian youngsters and ....... a good portion of the voters.
Jean Chrétien wasn’t popular when he was elected the first time. That was definitely a protest vote. He is now regarded as one of the most popular PMs in the past 50 years and he clearly did a good job in power. We need to keep that in mind. It’s knowledge about policy that leads to good government. Chrétien understood policy as he was a cabinet minister in a number of key portfolios prior to becoming PM. PP has an understanding of policy as well. That’s the thing that stands out to me compared to the other options.
I can assure you Chretien isn't considered one of the most popular PMs in the last 50 years west of Toronto. Just goes to show how different Canada is region to region.
He is in many circles west of Toronto. Not all, but he is well regarded by many, including people who didn't necessarily vote for him at the time.
One of the most popular things he did was manhandle that protestor that got past the RCMP.
I wasn't referring to London, ON even though that is west of Toronto. You're right. Let's say "west of Winnipeg."
Same comment.
The Liberals got a full quarter of the Alberta vote in the election that made him Prime Minister and that was their worst peformance in the west. They got nearly half the popular vote in Manitoba.
The man was popular. Still is for the most part.
And the thing that should be remembered. Jean Chretien had balls and was a leader as a result. So does President Trump…
Some of his behaviour verged on thuggery. There was no need to grab that protester by the throat, he was peaceful . Don’t remember the protest, though. That said, he was ok until he and his government became mired in corruption.
I have never been a big fan, but he was far more likeable in the late 70s and into the 80s I think.
There is a good review - 25 years hindsight - in the below https://nationalpost.com/news/its-been-25-years-since-jean-chretien-choked-a-protester
The choked person came back and screwed Quebec gun owners later on by getting an injunction preventing Stephen Harper from destroying the long gun registry so Quebec could retain info on Quebec gun owners.
In 1995 the Chretien government was forced to fix Canada’s economy (broken by Trudeau the first). He cut 45,000 federal jobs (14% of the federal payroll), cut dairy subsidies 30%, he cut transfers to the CBC and cut foreign aid by 21%.
AND…He closed 73 federal agencies.
When/if (hopefully) Poilievre decides to clean up Ottawa, and the opposition starts whining, he can use this information along with the but, but, but Chretien line.
And a fair amount of the austerity policies of Chrétien were straight from the Reform Party. Occasionally this gets acknowledged by journalists.
Chretien had no choice. Canada was about to lose its favorable credit rating because of excessive debt and would have had to join Greece, Spain and others into the World Bank run purgatory for deadbeat nations. Ironic that Chretien was Trudeau’s Finance Minister when his administration drove Canada into the financial toilet. Any political party would have faced the same choice. Reform at least had a clue as to what to do unlike the civil servants who were in power at the time.
Looking at the current situation on purely economic grounds the Bank of Canada interest rate setting behavior has been driving the value of the Canadian dollar down drastically and making Canadian exports cheaper. This amounts to dumping and indirect subsidies of the type which the Chinese have been doing for years. If I were the US I definitely would be applying tariffs and penalties because of this interest rate driven Canadian dollar depreciation. It has nothing to do with illegal drugs or the terrorists on US watch lists living in Canada with easy access to the US etc.
Chrétien and Poilievre are similar insofar as they are both career politicians who began their political career in their 20s. But they otherwise have little in common. I struggle to think of a single Bill introduced by Chretien that was constructed with as much willful ignorance as Poilievre's "Fair Elections" Act.
Poilievre is arguably a more divisive figure than Chretien ever was, in terms of reception by partisans of other parties. Of course, every politician inevitably becomes despised and mocked by at least some partisans of some other parties, but I think that there are devout Dippers and Conservatives who like and respect Chretien, whereas devout Liberals, DIppers, or Bloc members who actually like Poilievre seem to be far and few between.
Part of the reason PP appears more divisive is the media. I’m not trying to get into a media rant here but the amount of the opinion articles today dwarf of the amount of opinion articles in the 1990s. I think that is a big difference. We read opinion now and that helps shape how we see things.
My own early negative impressions of Poilievre were not primarily based on opinion pieces. I remember the years of the Harper majority era before Poilievre became a Cabinet minister, when he enthusiastically made himself available to the CBC and other media to uncritically defend any and all divisive government legislation and to mock each and every single critic of virtually every now-repealed government bill. I was able to see for myself directly how the man disgraced himself with a level of sycophancy that most other Conservatives simply have never matched.
Just to nitpick... but "lefties despise Poilievre more than righties despised Chrétien" doesn't mean that Poilievre is more divisive... it could mean that lefties have become absolutely intolerant of political disagreement.
In any case, the tone of politics has changed so what you're saying really just comes down to "the 90s were less nasty".
But consider that the left wing parties just spent a decade or more shoving the overtone window to the extreme left and claiming that anyone not on board with that was basically David Duke. "Far right" used to mean "skin head neo-Nazi liable to beat up Jews". Now several of Chretien's policies own are "far right". (I'm thinking of his opposition to legal marriage between people of the same sex).
I don't think that "leftists" as a group are relevant to this conversation. No political party in recent history has solely achieved majority support among the Canadian population, so political agendas shared by coalitions of parties representing a majority of Canadians are obviously less ideological than political agendas exclusive to a single political party. And the Conservatives under both Harper and Poilievre have united all the other parties to vote unfavourably to the Conservative cause on confidence votes.
Although the Conservatives have a huge commanding lead in terms of plurality support, it remains the case that at least a simple majority of Canadians are planning to vote for parties who are least willing to support a Conservative government. Legally, the NDP and Bloc could choose to vote down the Trudeau government in favour of testing a minority Conservative government, but they would be extremely averse to doing so. That says something about Poilievre's cross-partisan popularity, or lack thereof.
It doesn't matter in our system though. Our country is also very bifurcated, more so fundamentally than even in the US.
Pierre isn't a nice guy. Boomer women don't like that while Gen Z guys can't get enough. We are in an age where "grin fucking" is out of style.
So is humour. Someone asked in a comment if a Polar Bear was going to the the northern ambassador. Someone replied that Boissonnault could always identify as a polar bear and take the job. Not everyone thought it was funny.
Does not matter in which sense? Getting short-term power and control? Sure. But there are different ways to measure popularity, and Poilievre is highly popular by some measures but not by others.
Objective or subjective assessments of popularity aside, similarly to what Matt and Jen are saying I think some number of people have missed the difference between "telling it like it is" to the point of not being nice versus being ignorant as a result of negative spite. (Though I consider Trump a more extreme example of this confusion than Poilievre.)
That's subjective though. "Cut the CBC." "Doesn't he understand the value CBC provides in keeping Canada together!" No agreeing it provides value doesn't mean he doesn't understand what the CBC is about, he just thinks the value is negative.
Sorry guys. Canada is polite. Nice, no. Good, even less. There are no Samaritans here.
I'm not even sure we're polite. We're smug.
Thanks for the more accurate description. Especially when pointing to the Americans. I think Canada’s national character is schadenfreude.
It is one thing to have a unionized GM plant as compared to a non-union Honda plant. It's an entirely different thing to impose a California-style ban on Uber's independent contractor model in order to force it into an old timey fixed pay-and-benefits employment template. Calling both "private sector unions" obscures more than it illuminates.
If some Uber drivers want to create a union, good for them. If Uber doesn't want to do business with those drivers, good for them too. The problem comes when a bunch of meddling politicians pander for votes by putting their thumb on the scale for the union drivers, and use the force of law to say that model must and will prevail.
Sorry, I prefer freedom. If somebody wants to spend a few hours driving passengers or delivering takeout for modest but non-zero money, the government should butt out.
One thing to keep in mind.... the reason we have a lot of rules about unions is that the alternative is... unpleasant.
Taxi drivers could solve the problem of uber drivers undercutting them... by following them home and torching their cars.
That's the kind of labour violence that used to happen. It wasn't just pinkertons.
The answer to crime is law enforcement, not bending economic policy to appease the criminals.
Beyond legal preferences for unions, the taxi industry has been lavished with all kinds of policies that historically harmed consumers (and sometimes drivers), most notoriously artificial restrictions on licensing that drove the value of licenses to astronomical levels. Will they respond with violence if those preferences are relaxed? Will dairy farmers riot if supply management is changed? Will nurses go on a murderous rampage if we ease occupational licensing restrictions on foreign-trained health workers? Probably not, but even if they would, that's no sound basis for giving them policy payoffs.
Sure... no problem. Your security cameras will show two guys in dark coloured hoodies. Good luck "law enforcing" that.
So perhaps you can have alarms and confront them in the act... well that's a great way to get beaten into a hospital bed, so you'd better come armed... well guess what.. so will they. You can keep going of course. The arms race has a pit stop in modern day South Africa, but the destination is worse if you keep going.
That's the thing about peaceful Canadian society.. it depends on mass agreement with the whole thing. It's not simply "law enforcement". Lose the mass buy-in and you've got a deeply violent society with the people most willing to be the most brutal most quickly having the upper hand. And unless you happen to be an enforcer for a cartel who likes substack in your spare time, that isn't you.
That's one of the big reasons why we created the legal structure for unions. The previous arrangement (which you seem to be proposing we go back to) wasn't working. It led to violence when people decided they were being exploited and decided violence was their only option to end that exploitation. So we created the legal structure for unions to give them a better option.
Don't assume that "nice" people won't respond with violence if they perceive themselves to be exploited with no other options. History tells us they will. I don't believe Canadians have suddenly become the first inherent good human beings in all of history.
I am well aware that mid-20th century elites, including politicians, judges, and judges acting as arbitrators, had an appallingly patronizing view of paid work as a contest between the interests of capital and the collective, undifferentiated interests of labor.
From this flowed the idea that a young, productive worker necessarily benefitted from the very trade union that demanded he be forbidden from being paid extra for his productivity, that he receive the worst shifts because of his lack of seniority, and that he be the first to go in any layoff. And from that flowed the idea that if he did not wish to pay the union, it was not because he was exercising his individual economic liberty, but because he was freeloading on what the learned elites pigheadedly insisted was the "benefit" of union representation. The worker's judgement about his interest would be set aside, in favor of the armchair elite reckoning that he was receiving a benefit whether he recognized it or not. If he wanted anything different he must persuade a majority of his brothers, his comrades, the other sheep in the undifferentiated herd.
We should long ago have left behind such foolishness. Most private sector workers have done so, rejecting unionization even in the face of absurd government preferences for it. The idea that workers' interests are collective belongs with the idea that a family's interests are only collective, so the husband alone should vote and a wife and mother should have no opportunity to make an independent political choice. I hope one day we are enlightened enough to view both ancient beliefs with equal shame.
You say all that, but you're handwaving away the problem of labour violence. Just saying "law enforcement"... as if this wasn't exactly what was tried and which failed before isn't an answer so much as it's just hoping that doing exactly the same thing won't produce exactly the same results.
You're also ignoring the fact that the drop in unionization coincided with strict labour laws that gave workers much of the benefits of unionization without having to be in a union AND this all happened in a period where every generation could expect to be richer than the generation before.
The second is DEFINITELY not true anymore. Are you suggesting that we preserve the first by enshrining more labour gains in law so that unions are less necessary?
My point on labor violence is that there are many, many policy matters that may upset people, and indeed many that may upset them with respect to their employment.
Occupational licensing, corporate welfare subsidies, trade agreements, competition law, tax rates and structures, and a hundred other things may cause people to lose their jobs, or to have lower wages, worse working conditions, or fewer hours than they otherwise would.
And yet because we maintain this weird notion that all work is a variation of a 19th Century Welsh coal mine, somehow on union-related labor policies, and only on these policies, the idea of worker violence is supposed to be a persuasive factor influencing policy. If somebody said we shouldn't sign NAFTA because of the threat of worker violence, or we must give Chrysler a giant subsidy lest we face worker violence, we'd tell them to f*** right off. I see no reason why this line of argument on union-related policies should be viewed any differently.
On the dinner. There was a decent segment on The Remnant podcast this week. Quoting from a discussion with Indian pundits and government members:
Indian: “What do you think of Canada?”
Jonah Goldberg: “We don’t.”
Our editors comments that we want to be forgotten is true. The worst thing that the American government can do to you, as a citizen or country, is focus their attention on you.
It's interesting how people in the big cities underestimate the effect of the strike. I live in a small city in BC. I have several orders held up in various places because Canada Post handles the delivery to my home. I agree with mostly everything else you say about the strike, but I do feel its effect.
I was thinking about where people live can make a huge difference in how they feel about the Canada Post strike. I live in downtown Toronto and basically am just not getting the junk mail that normally fills my mailbox. I can appreciate those living in more remote areas are feeling differently.
As a younger voter I'm not opposed to blowing everything up like America has decided to do. We can't get any worse off. However, I share Jen and matt's concern... it's going to be all talk and just more political bs. Stop talking and do something great again.
I am concerned that not only are a number of Canadians done with the Liberal government, but they are also done with politics in general.
In the recent Nova Scotia provincial election, voter turnout was around 45 percent.
This is just simply bad for our democracy.
All depends how angry people are. The next Federal turnout will be huge.
I hope you are right
I don't understand the obsession to have high voter turnouts and the scolding of those who don't vote. Maybe they don't care. Maybe they have other things to do. Maybe they have studied the options and don't find anyone worth voting for. Also, the research I have seen shows that if voter turnout increased, the results would be pretty much the same.
Couple of comments/thoughts
1 Liberal government is simply irrelevant, but they can still do a lot of damage until there is an election.
2 I can only imagine a Trump advisor telling Katie Telford as she’s about to get into the limo after the dinner, “make sure boy wonder doesn’t try to upstage Trump like the last time, and don’t try any new trade deals with the Chinese. Have a safe flight back….”
3 Troll or not, the Maritime provinces have historically strong traditional ties with New England - culturally, socially and economically long before and after Confederation. It would be interesting to see any survey/poll results on the Atlantic provinces willingness to be part of the States compared to the same question posed to other provinces.
1 If they can still do a lot of damage until there is an election, then they are extremely relevant.
2 Correct, and I'm sure there were a few additional items to those two.
3 I'm sure they would, but they USA would not be interested in statehood for them, as they would reliably vote Democrat, as would most Canadians. The best we can hope for is what we are about to get into with our rechristened 'North American Arctic' - de facto if unofficial status as an American Protectorate. Puerto Helado.
When people say that Canadians would reliably vote Democrat, I want to remind them that the Republicans were never supposed to win an election again because non-whites would reliably vote Democrat. That doesn't seem to have come true after all.
The US political alignment is changing anyway.
They are only revelant because Jagmeet is letting them be relevant. He also needs to go.