I would have liked nothing better in my (very few) high-earning years 20-30yrs ago to have opted out of OAS and CPP. I couldn't. I was willy-nilly FORCED to contribute in fat years and lean years. I was not allowed to take those $$ to start a business, or finish my degree, or take off a year to 'find myself'. Darn tootin', I'm going to cash my OAS and CPP cheque (okay, Direct deposit. So sue me) with a BIG smile. I, ME, Myself *earned* that $2500. It could have been MUCH more, but hey. I'll take it.
I agree with you. In my case, I did not trust myself with consistently setting money aside for retirement, so I was OK with that OAS and CPP setup. I can be a risk-taker, and my pretty much net-zero gains from running my own businesses prove that as a businessman I am not great, especially when the general economy goes for a dump. However the experience I got from running my own businesses made me a very good supervisor and analyst when I went to work for - gubmint ! - for a steady paycheque. Yes, I, ME, Myself *earned* that OAS and CPP, and I am taking it with a sense of accomplishment.
And Markie Carnie the GodEmperor of Greenology Grifting is doing his best to devalue that amount, by selling us to his owners the CCP, among other snaky moves he has in the works.
OAS is a weird program: it's not a true pension like CPP, but it's also not pitched exactly as a "helping less fortunate" program like GIS. It has clawbacks, but many wealthy people can limit or avoid them pretty easily.
So I kind of understand both sides. Young people feel like it's just transferring money from (on average) poorer Canadians to richer Canadians who may not need the money (OAS isn't a pension with invested assets and payments based on contributions, so young Canadians aren't wrong about that). But I also understand seniors who feel like they funded the system for their working years and assumed they'd get payments out in return (even though that's not how we think of most non-pension social safety net programs).
With that said, today's seniors were funding OAS when life expectancy was lower, so some reductions could be justified. Alternatively, we could look at revenue options that would disproportionately hit wealthy seniors like taxing principal residences or removing income splitting (currently only available to seniors) to help fund OAS.
I am a retired accountant and I explained it to my late father this way: I said, "OAS is welfare for seniors; everyone is entitled to receive if they need it but if they don't need it they have to give it back."
My father heard only the word "welfare" and snapped, "I don't get welfare; I don't need it." Of course, that was a year in which he was dinged for a small but noticeable amount and he was pissed! At the government and at me for telling him he was receiving welfare.
CPP was originally a pay as you go program and didn't really have any savings element; a dollar an employee paid was immediately paid out by the government to some recipient. In later years it was changed so that there is now a very, very large pool of cash for future retirees; some folks say that it will run out but the CPP folks insist that it is fully funded. Me? I'm glad I will be dead before they find out. OAS has always, always, always been funded out of general revenues in a particular year. To say that you paid into it for, oh, thirty or forty years is nonsense. There is no OAS pool of cash held by the government.
CPP isn't even really a pension either... it's not entirely "pay as you go" like OAS is, but it's still partially "pay as you go"... which means it's not really a pension.
(If your employer had a pension for you that would go bust during your retirement if new employees didn't continuously join your plan, that's not a real pension plan.)
CPP is a "partial" system... it has invested assets, but it also absolutely needs the young to keep funding the old because it has NEVER had enough assets to do without transferring money that way.
You and your generation are a big reason why we're in this mess. The worst generation.
You voted for policies that jacked up asset prices sky high through historically low interest rates and similar policies. So you made those with houses and other assets rich and prevented new building.
You didn't fully fund the retirement obligations you're now taking out.
You ate the young and you're proud of it. I hope you don't get a red cent.
This division between generations is crap. And I resent Jen for keeping it going.
It wasn't fair to the PM to lay all our problems at the feet of the young. And it isn't helping anyone who raised a family, and are still supporting their own in various ways bc we were "lucky" enough to be born when we were. We all deal the best we can with the cards we are dealt. Yes I am a boomer. I'd also never vote Liberal or NDP. So forgive me if my shackles are up. I just want common sense and fiscal prudence. And shovels in the ground. We have been waiting far too long for the damn "plan"!
It’s not crap. It is simply unrealistic with the current budgets being what they are for the retirement programs to remain in place as they are. It is simply not realistic ask younger Canadians to take the massive hit while older Canadians do nothing.
Politically, it is also suicide. Demographics show that by the next election, the younger cohorts will outnumber the older ones. The liberals are not going to make themselves unelectable for a generation.
The sooner the boomers realize that it’s over and it’s better to come to a rational compromise, the better off everyone’s going to be. But it’s going to happen, either the easy way or the hard way.
PP already sees the opening. Why do you think his speech about the budget said that the young Canadians have sacrificed enough? The generational battle is coming, but the young ones are going to win it by voting numbers.
Yes I agree with you! I am sorry for the confusion. I am not arguing the issue or the solutions. What I am saying is that the division/attack being made between generations is crap. Is it bc I am from the West (AB)? The boomers here voted overwhelmingly Conservative/PP! as per usual. We get it. WE did not put the Libs back in for a do over. So.....lets stop saying boomers et al and just discuss the solutions without blame. The austerity pain will have to be spread around. It doesn't help the young either to encourage a victim mentality. Their vote carries as much power as mine, and as a Westerner, I know how much that is worth. Personally, I can't handle much more of this division everywhere at every level.
(Hats off to Jen and Matt for always clarifying every point they want to make bc it isn't clear without context is it?)
I didn't see Jen's argument being an attempt to divide/attack so much as highlighting a real problem.
The problem I see is a lot of Boomers seem to be out of touch, not realizing how heavily skewed a lot of government policy is towards them. Take the tax system: income splitting only for seniors, capital gains inclusion rate that will tend to benefit savers over workers, safety-net claw-backs at higher rates than similar programs for younger Canadians, generous benefit programs, etc. Or take the TFW program that helped keep prices down while hurting workers (no surprise recent polling showed support for program highest among Boomers). Or take housing policy and government's vowing to protect prices. Or take the general trend of today's seniors not realizing how wealthy they are (those Globe & Mail columns where wealthy 65 year olds ask if they have enough to retire are always eye-opening).
Your take is right that we'll all need to sacrifice, but I also agree with Jen that hat based on how Canada operates, it's not a stretch to think many Boomers will make excuses for why that sacrifice shouldn't fall on them.
There are some sacrifices that have to be borne by one group disportionately. War is one. Even the pandemic lockdown took much more important years from the young than those done education and stable in (or even retired from) careers, and for a response that had little direct benefit to them at that.
Monetary sacrifice is mostly fungible, and it’s still… going to be piled on the young. Try pulling the in it together crap ever again after asking young people who are both poorer and bore a larger share of pandemic sacrifice by necessity to sacrifice so wealthy old people sacrifice less.
I'm sorry but you're only saying that because you're a boomer.
Your generation benefited from one of the strongest and most peaceful periods in human history. During that, you created intentional policies that drove asset prices like housing up through historically low interest rates. You then enacted policies that have prevented this from being changed.
The current generational divide was caused by intentional policy decisions to enrich boomers at the expense of future generations. Your generation hasn't even funded their own liabilities.
And you did all this not during times of war, which would be somewhat understandable. You did it during times at peace.
I guess bc we didn't have a crystal ball and couldn't see the ruination of the world as we seemingly orchestrated it? As a parent of three, who has been told on occasion, what I could have done better as a parent ... there comes a time when after saying, I can see that now and I am truly sorry, the next question is: what will you do now? I agree with some of your points, but I really don't think I need to be told I am now a hinderance to society bc I was born at a certain time and apologize for it. I don't know how old you are but I'd like to read one day how your generation got it all wrong in that days current purview. This shouldn't be a divisive matter between generations is all I'm saying. Maybe I am the only one taking it personal. Anyways. I am exhausted now and too old. (61 is not that old and am I even a boomer?)
Yes the youth should assert themselves and take over. But not as victims, as thoughtful leaders.
CPP was mostly fixed because all of this was predictable. It’s wild that boomers act like it would have taken a crystal ball to understand OAS and healthcare needed the same pre funding. They knew. They just didn’t care because they thought they’d get away with burdening their kids.
You don't need a crystal ball - it was INCREDIBLY obvious because it's Econ 101. If you push interest rates to zero or negative in real terms then you will see lots of borrowing pushing up asset prices and increasing
This wasn't a shock - it was predicted. And it's been going on for 25 years and no one has done anything about it. We can't even TALK about seriously reducing housing prices because of boomer voters. Or reducing liabilities boomers didn't fully fund.
It's about responsibility and boomers refuse to take it - or do anything about it. They have to protect their own wealth even as it hurts their children and grandchildren.
That is indeed the right question, except it's "what will WE do now"?
And I think that's what Jen was talking about in the podcast. If what "we" will do now is to ask the young to "sacrifice another decade" to protect the most fortunate generation, I agree with her, that is going to lead to problems.
What we *should* be doing is fixing the problems and Canadians (supposedly) believe that the responsibility to foot the bill increases as one's wealth an fortune have increased. That's not "make the boomers pay" as much as it is going where the money is. A boomer who never made enough to own his own home and just got by isn't going to be footing this bill. A gen-X who has done extremely well? Yeah, he's going to be footing the bill. But the boomers ARE still the richest cohort, so when you look at which cohort is going to need to pay the most for all the solutions... it's going to be boomers. Not because they're boomers, but because "fair share" means the richest generation is going to pay more.
So as long as the government continues to insist that being retired magically excludes someone for footing their share of the bill, then the "screw the boomers" attitude is going to continue.
Right now the government insists that the retirement age can never be raised as healthy lifetimes have increased... and a retirees assets aren't considered when looking at government funded long term care assistance.... and that capital gains on homes are tax-exempt... and that straight up bribes to voting boomers are great in the form "here's a cheque just because you're old and we want to be re-elected".
Came to Calgary in '83 for a job interview. Taxi driver was an unemployed engineer trying to keep his house. My guess, he didn't.
Boomers are the most disgusting of generations, but not for the reasons you describe. This mess is a consequence of environmentalism, their construct, but your baby. You believed this drivel, so own up.
I share your decrepitude but I do believe that we boomers have to take a major hit financially. Our young folk are hurting far more than we did at that age and we, as a generation, have had it pretty damned good.
My CPP and my OAS are an important part of my income, along with my savings. I worked until I was 68 and didn't start OAS until 70. That year I was extraordinary lucky and my income was sufficient that my OAS was entirely clawed back - a one time thing, for sure. Now my income is less than the median but we are okay.
Now, having said all of that, I repeat, we need to take less because the young folk are really hurting. My recommendation is that the clawback start at a noticeably lower figure and be calculated on joint income. It may hurt me, it may not, but we as seniors are taking far too much as a group. Allow the higher income folks to contribute.
You paid for half as many seniors and left the next generation with a pile of debt. You didn’t earn anywhere near your full OAS, and this is a sad excuse for piling twice the burden on younger generations.
Nothing defines Canada's incompetence in crafting US relationships than the thoughtless Ford "Regan advertising" gesture. Utter, sheer stupidity--and on the world stage.
$75 MILLION of Ontario taxpayer money spent on a likely less than useless American ad campaign is on its own an arguably immoral abuse and waste of public money that could be spent more wisely in so many ways.
The only entities benefiting from the expenditure of those public funds are Americans and (theoretically) whoever within the Ford team who received kickbacks.
That this incredibly wasteful expense is considered in any way 'justified' or morally correct is a tragic statement on how far we've fallen as a civil society.
And yes, I do realize it's a drop in the bucket.
That drop of public funds could have done a lot more good in so many other ways, perhaps chiefly by not spending it at all.
I think that you underestimate just how shallow Trump is. I find it entirely plausible that he was triggered by the ads featuring Reagan. Apparently, two different sources have told reporters that his intemperate (and stupid) reaction was to the ads, not to other factors. Having seen how he has reacted to other perceived personal affronts, I can well believe it. A supporting observation is that this man is totally incompetent, and cannot plan his way out of a paper bag. To suggest that his reaction was part of a strategy (e.g. to weaken Canada so that he can take it over) gives him entirely too much credit.
There is some evidence that, when faced with a bully such as Trump, the best tactic is to not draw his attention. Keep as low a profile as you can, flatter him (even as distasteful as that may be), and hope that other shiny objects will distract him. I believe that this is the path being followed by the United Kingdom, and to some extent, Mexico, with some success.
Ford is certainly expressing public opinion, and perhaps his intervention will boost morale. It certainly will not lead the Americans to change course, perhaps even the contrary. But be that as it may, I do hope that he is coordinating with Carney and the feds. The worst of all worlds is a divided Canadian response, with Carney trying to follow one approach and a provincial premier going off in another direction.
> I find it entirely plausible that he was triggered by the ads featuring Reagan.
It's plausible, but it's not true at all. He wasn't triggered in the slightest by the ads.
The "triggering" is entirely for show. He's faking the anger and the outrage.
Proof:
The blow-up with Trump (supposedly) pissed off over the ad happened on his "Truth" social on October 23rd... but two days prior to that on October 21st, he delivered this speech just outside the white house in which he was not triggered or angry, just calmly saying that he would have run the ad "if he were Canada". He just calmly said that tariffs were good for the USA and that of course other countries don't want them.
The "triggering" and anger are fake posturing. It follows that he's doing what he often does... find an excuse to put the screws to someone to extract a concession. And if anyone wants to find an excuse to be pretend to be angry, they will always find one.. or even invent one.
You guys talked a big game about “asshole Canada”, but when Doug Ford goes out and does that, Matt doesn’t like it?
I think one possible audience for that ad is Republicans who would prefer to ignore the fact that Trump’s policies such as they are shit all over the policies of the President who was until Trump the closest the Republican Party got to a god. (Won the Cold War, broke unions, etc. etc.)
Running that ad in the US is poking them in the eye… maybe just to be a dick.
“Hey remember Republican Jesus? Remember how he was a friend to Canada and all Western allies? Remember how his policies made you the richest you’ve ever been and the most powerful you’ve ever been? Good thing you elected a guy that does the opposite of all that and would make Reagan puke eh? PS, fuck you!”
Will they suddenly admit they were wrong? Of course not, but the point was to be an asshole!”
Now, I don’t know if that’s good value for money, but it does seem a lot like what you prescribed
This isn't Asshole Canada. This is desperately appeasing to a dying breed of sidelined GOPer who aren't in a position to save us. I'd love some actual Asshole Canada. This is Ford being stuck in 1993.
I don't even think it's accomplishing that. I think it's again primarily for domestic consumption as you guys have said.
You can't be an asshole without any cards on the table. And we how refusing to play the many cards we have.
If we were aggressively building projects, removing trade barriers, etc etc etc then not only would this ad be meaningless, but we could actually be an asshole.
You're right that the people who look back fondly on the Reagan years or admire Reganism are a "dying breed of sidelined GOPer who aren't in a position to save us", but while they can't "save us", they do still exist.
Perhaps one aim is to get under their skin and drive that wedge a little deeper. The thing about nostalgic boomers is that they vote. And they're the ones who vote reliably in the mid-term US elections when voter participation drops.... (especially among the young who don't care about Reagan). Will they save us? Definitely not! They're a sidelined minority.. .but the thing about minorities within a big tent is that you still need them to win.
If you didn't see Matt Yglesias' "Bigots in the Tent", I recommend it... sidelined minorities within your party are still essential. Yglesias' example is anti-gay Democrats. They have no power in the party, but if they don't show up to vote Democrat, the GOP will win power every time. So I think it's notable that Trump chose to lie about Reagan rather than insult Reagan. Both come naturally to him, but it's still interesting that insulting Regan isn't a thing he will do.
Most "asshole Canada" actions will fail. NONE of the minority of successful ones are going to save us on their own. Maybe this achieves nothing at all. Maybe this shaves too little off boomer voter participation to change anything in the mid-terms. Maybe it shaves just enough to have some effect.
Or maybe the point is to piss in the Americans pool by going to TV to say "Eff you America, GOP Jesus would vomit if he saw you!". As a guy who will never vote in an Ontario election... I kind of like that part. If it also shaves a point or two off a close race in the mid-terms? I'll LOVE that part and why not try?
But of course... don't just do this.. try other things too.
I’ll go one step further. We’re misplaying this all completely by being nice. Asshole Nation was and is the right approach. Doug Ford was on the right path when he cut the electricity off. Now instead we’re going to bleed ourselves out until we have no leverage. No manufacturing base, and a destroyed consumer market the US can’t export to anyways - because we have no money. If we hit them hard, come over the top, Trump will be pissed - but he’ll respect it. The US pop. isn’t prepared to sacrifice for a trade war with Canada. China maybe? Canada no.. but we’re making it too easy right now. The pain and tariffs are one directional. If Carney is asking for sacrifice, I believe he’d get it if the framing was right. I also believe we’d get actual buy in on a true National economy and the National export infrastructure were going to need to survive. Instead we’re pretending everything can go back to the way it was… it’s not going to, and the longer we pretend it is, the more dangerously precarious a position we are leaving ourselves in.
There is no justification — zero — for a provincial government to be conducting its own foreign policy and international trade policy.
It doesn't matter whether it's a good policy, whether it's well executed, whether it's popular, or whether it's arguably complementary to the actual legitimate federal government's approach. It is NONE OF A PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT'S PROPER BUSINESS.
For years, we have had federal governments that largely want to make policy in exclusive provincial jurisdiction, usually by abusing the spending power. Dental insurance, drug insurance, daycare, school lunches, etc. etc. Since 1993, public works in exclusive provincial jurisdiction can't get built without federal-provincial-municipal funding and approval. You can see all the logos on the back of a TTC bus.
It is rarer for provinces to invade federal jurisdiction, but it's just as wrong. And the same bad arguments get made. Ontario is affected by international trade! It needed to be done! It's popular! No, no, no, no. Federalism in Canada is desperately broken, and it's our fault for putting up with it.
Good discussion. As a parent of a 25 year old, the bit about the 'kids' will not be alright for a decade and brain drain was particularly hard to listen to, though likely very true. The PM could have made a far stronger appeal to those 20 year olds, rather than trotting out campaign slogans and urging "keep calm and Carney on." Time has come to specify the sacrifices and hard times ahead.
Nobina, I am 75 so I fall within the Boomer category. [Damn, I dislike that appellation!]
The truth is that we old people have taken and taken and taken and are still taking. I am not suggesting that we throw people on the street but I do believe that the OAS clawback threshold should decline markedly and the calculation for the clawback should consider joint income and therefore joint OAS.
FYI. We live (literally) across the street from a Montessori school. The children are playing, laughing and screaming in the schoolyard. They are LEARNING inside and outside the building. The $$$ does (as it should) follow the child.
Neither Matt nor Jen pointed out that our Constitution provides that the federal government is responsible for international trade. Doug Ford has neither the expertise nor the authority to be spouting off in this area. Why can’t politicians stay in their lane? Did this honestly lead to the suspension of talks? As Matt and Jen said: doubtful. But when Doig Ford pisses in the wind, the rest of Canada gets wet.
Kevin Hassett said that the frustration is out of ¨leftover habits of the Trudeau folks¨. This is much more plausible and is further proof that the Elbows Up gang continue to beclown themselves with their tired strategies. The Conservatives are far from perfect, but would have been a fresh face.
This whole weekend shows just how silly the vast majority of Canadian leaders are acting.
There never was going to be a trade deal. It’s going to be a mercantilist deal where the US gets free access to our markets while in return, we get limited access to areas where they will permit us.
In this view, there is nothing stupider than things like the Keystone pipeline. The pipeline allows the Americans to buy oil at a discount and take the profit. Why in the world would you want to do this? i’m not saying I’m a fan of pipelines, but if BC and Quebec can’t see this, then we are a huge trouble. We need to be able to sell that on the world markets. We need to be able to sell our rare earth elements on the global markets.
Right now, Canada has written cheques for programs and services that the economy cannot cash. It is highly likely that OAS will need to be cancelled in the next few years. It is highly likely that Medicare will have significant co-pays. None of the leaders seemed to be concerned about how to raise money. This country needs a lot of it and we need to get serious about making it. It may be too late.
The ad discussion here and elsewhere misses the point.
The ad is irrelevant and boring in every way. The PROBLEM is that Ford (and Canada) has done NOTHING to strengthen Canadian power and negotiating position.
That is a massive problem with this ad. It reflects Canadian powerlessness and fecklessness.
Ford deserves to be blamed because of how useless he is. This is just another version of the medium is the message. The content doesn't matter but the container does.
Enjoyed to pod, especially the different take on Doug Ford’s ad ploy. Jen, (Comrade Gerson???) I think your characterization of boomers is touch unfair. I and my wife were not handed anything starting out. My student loan was 13% and car loan at 19%, we both had steady jobs starting but they were entry level. We both worked hard, we moved away from friends and family to pursue better opportunities when available. I’m sure there are many others who started out the same way. The only difference between us starting out and today’s youth starting out is that we could eventually buy a starter home (a pre war fixer upper). Agree the youth cannot afford to get into the housing market but i wouldn’t say its because of boomers depriving others. I would argue it is, in part, due to policies of governments of recent times. JT and I’m sure most of his cabinet and policy staffers along with others at the various provincial and municipal level were not all boomers (gen-x anyone). Ironically, even this home owning boomer cannot afford to move back to my home city because I’m priced out of market due to the housing boom of the last 6 years.
If I were to guess what the sacrifices Carney means for the youth, it would be a form of an inheritance tax so boomer kids will not be getting all of the inter generational wealth from boomer parents. Add to this no more opportunities with the federal government or related programs. Just a guess of course.
I enjoy that Doug Ford was admittedly a Trump supporter as recently as the last US election, but nobody really even made much noise about that, and it's now forgotten - he's Captain Canada now! "Oops, just a mistake, aw shucks I know better now."
Can you imagine the permanent hounding a certain federal Conservative leader would face if he admitted to ever having actively agreed with Donald Trump on anything, much less wished that he be elected? He'd essentially have to resign.
This is because media and those with real backroom power in Canada don't really care who is premier of Ontario. They do care who is PM, and it must always be the Liberals without even a momentary gap or they risk losing everything. Provincial elections are treated with bored eye-rolling in the media, federal ones like a fucking existential blood sport where nothing is off the table to make sure one party wins.
We've tried all the stupid responses to the tariffs. Now promise to close our border for southbound fentanyl and criminal migrants. If it doesn't appease Trump, it will at least benefit Canadians.
The Line Editors discussed the relevance of Ronald Reagan in the political discourse in the States today, and that perhaps he is not much of a factor to young Americans who weren't around for his Presidency.
That's fair. But, in the big picture he does have an iconic direct link to important international events of his era, events that cemented his reputation as an ambassador and keeper of the flame of democracy throughout the world. This kind of stature in the American psyche shouldn't be underestimated by Canadian politicians who should know better.
The Canadian equivalent would be for scheming American politicians to run ads in Canada using exerts of a speech Pierre Trudeau gave. (Western Canadians might laugh but there is still a nostalgia for Trudeau amongst the chattering class in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa.)
A good living example is Jean Chretien, who is trotted out by the Liberal Party establishment to remind Canadians what a wonderful Prime Minister he was in an era of tremendous economic growth. Would Canadians, or especially the Laurentianites tolerate Americans using Chretien as a wedge in our domestic affairs?
A little off-topic but I'm getting sick of the ongoing hagiography for Jean Chretien.
I lived through his term. He was an "ok" PM in the sense that you didn't feel like government was actively trying to make life worse for as many people as possible with his every decision, so I understand why there is nostalgia.
He balanced the budget because he was forced to, and did it using the one-time trick of 'downloading' on provinces which is to say cutting payments for things like healthcare and transportation. Since the provinces would have had to raise taxes a huge and politically untenable amount to make up the difference, they declined to do that. The result is that the 90's saw those famous gleaming socialist Canadian public services start to buckle as all the hospitals got overcrowded and the schools and subways started to fall apart.
Harper was considerably better and ruled over a more prosperous time. We barely noticed the Great Recession. But he's the boogeyman and we are all constantly primed to think badly of him because he wasn't nice enough or something. In my view 2015 was the most recent high water mark in Canada by just about any quality of life metric and I challenge anyone to try to prove otherwise.
You are right. The truth is Harper and Chrétien weren’t that different. Harper’s problem was he wasn’t that personable and voters repeatedly go for style over substance.
(Hand up) Boomer here.
I would have liked nothing better in my (very few) high-earning years 20-30yrs ago to have opted out of OAS and CPP. I couldn't. I was willy-nilly FORCED to contribute in fat years and lean years. I was not allowed to take those $$ to start a business, or finish my degree, or take off a year to 'find myself'. Darn tootin', I'm going to cash my OAS and CPP cheque (okay, Direct deposit. So sue me) with a BIG smile. I, ME, Myself *earned* that $2500. It could have been MUCH more, but hey. I'll take it.
I agree with you. In my case, I did not trust myself with consistently setting money aside for retirement, so I was OK with that OAS and CPP setup. I can be a risk-taker, and my pretty much net-zero gains from running my own businesses prove that as a businessman I am not great, especially when the general economy goes for a dump. However the experience I got from running my own businesses made me a very good supervisor and analyst when I went to work for - gubmint ! - for a steady paycheque. Yes, I, ME, Myself *earned* that OAS and CPP, and I am taking it with a sense of accomplishment.
And Markie Carnie the GodEmperor of Greenology Grifting is doing his best to devalue that amount, by selling us to his owners the CCP, among other snaky moves he has in the works.
You are aware you never wrote a OAS cheque? CPP absolutely but OAS comes out of general revenue.
OAS is a weird program: it's not a true pension like CPP, but it's also not pitched exactly as a "helping less fortunate" program like GIS. It has clawbacks, but many wealthy people can limit or avoid them pretty easily.
So I kind of understand both sides. Young people feel like it's just transferring money from (on average) poorer Canadians to richer Canadians who may not need the money (OAS isn't a pension with invested assets and payments based on contributions, so young Canadians aren't wrong about that). But I also understand seniors who feel like they funded the system for their working years and assumed they'd get payments out in return (even though that's not how we think of most non-pension social safety net programs).
With that said, today's seniors were funding OAS when life expectancy was lower, so some reductions could be justified. Alternatively, we could look at revenue options that would disproportionately hit wealthy seniors like taxing principal residences or removing income splitting (currently only available to seniors) to help fund OAS.
Graeme, you say that "OAS is a weird program..."
I am a retired accountant and I explained it to my late father this way: I said, "OAS is welfare for seniors; everyone is entitled to receive if they need it but if they don't need it they have to give it back."
My father heard only the word "welfare" and snapped, "I don't get welfare; I don't need it." Of course, that was a year in which he was dinged for a small but noticeable amount and he was pissed! At the government and at me for telling him he was receiving welfare.
CPP was originally a pay as you go program and didn't really have any savings element; a dollar an employee paid was immediately paid out by the government to some recipient. In later years it was changed so that there is now a very, very large pool of cash for future retirees; some folks say that it will run out but the CPP folks insist that it is fully funded. Me? I'm glad I will be dead before they find out. OAS has always, always, always been funded out of general revenues in a particular year. To say that you paid into it for, oh, thirty or forty years is nonsense. There is no OAS pool of cash held by the government.
CPP isn't even really a pension either... it's not entirely "pay as you go" like OAS is, but it's still partially "pay as you go"... which means it's not really a pension.
(If your employer had a pension for you that would go bust during your retirement if new employees didn't continuously join your plan, that's not a real pension plan.)
CPP is a "partial" system... it has invested assets, but it also absolutely needs the young to keep funding the old because it has NEVER had enough assets to do without transferring money that way.
Sorry mislinked comments. The one above was the reply.
Is OK, useful info for me anyway. I paid whatever was coming off my paycheque, and never really cared about the details.
You and your generation are a big reason why we're in this mess. The worst generation.
You voted for policies that jacked up asset prices sky high through historically low interest rates and similar policies. So you made those with houses and other assets rich and prevented new building.
You didn't fully fund the retirement obligations you're now taking out.
You ate the young and you're proud of it. I hope you don't get a red cent.
This division between generations is crap. And I resent Jen for keeping it going.
It wasn't fair to the PM to lay all our problems at the feet of the young. And it isn't helping anyone who raised a family, and are still supporting their own in various ways bc we were "lucky" enough to be born when we were. We all deal the best we can with the cards we are dealt. Yes I am a boomer. I'd also never vote Liberal or NDP. So forgive me if my shackles are up. I just want common sense and fiscal prudence. And shovels in the ground. We have been waiting far too long for the damn "plan"!
It’s not crap. It is simply unrealistic with the current budgets being what they are for the retirement programs to remain in place as they are. It is simply not realistic ask younger Canadians to take the massive hit while older Canadians do nothing.
Politically, it is also suicide. Demographics show that by the next election, the younger cohorts will outnumber the older ones. The liberals are not going to make themselves unelectable for a generation.
The sooner the boomers realize that it’s over and it’s better to come to a rational compromise, the better off everyone’s going to be. But it’s going to happen, either the easy way or the hard way.
PP already sees the opening. Why do you think his speech about the budget said that the young Canadians have sacrificed enough? The generational battle is coming, but the young ones are going to win it by voting numbers.
Seniors show up to vote. Young people, not so much.
Yes I agree with you! I am sorry for the confusion. I am not arguing the issue or the solutions. What I am saying is that the division/attack being made between generations is crap. Is it bc I am from the West (AB)? The boomers here voted overwhelmingly Conservative/PP! as per usual. We get it. WE did not put the Libs back in for a do over. So.....lets stop saying boomers et al and just discuss the solutions without blame. The austerity pain will have to be spread around. It doesn't help the young either to encourage a victim mentality. Their vote carries as much power as mine, and as a Westerner, I know how much that is worth. Personally, I can't handle much more of this division everywhere at every level.
(Hats off to Jen and Matt for always clarifying every point they want to make bc it isn't clear without context is it?)
I didn't see Jen's argument being an attempt to divide/attack so much as highlighting a real problem.
The problem I see is a lot of Boomers seem to be out of touch, not realizing how heavily skewed a lot of government policy is towards them. Take the tax system: income splitting only for seniors, capital gains inclusion rate that will tend to benefit savers over workers, safety-net claw-backs at higher rates than similar programs for younger Canadians, generous benefit programs, etc. Or take the TFW program that helped keep prices down while hurting workers (no surprise recent polling showed support for program highest among Boomers). Or take housing policy and government's vowing to protect prices. Or take the general trend of today's seniors not realizing how wealthy they are (those Globe & Mail columns where wealthy 65 year olds ask if they have enough to retire are always eye-opening).
Your take is right that we'll all need to sacrifice, but I also agree with Jen that hat based on how Canada operates, it's not a stretch to think many Boomers will make excuses for why that sacrifice shouldn't fall on them.
There are some sacrifices that have to be borne by one group disportionately. War is one. Even the pandemic lockdown took much more important years from the young than those done education and stable in (or even retired from) careers, and for a response that had little direct benefit to them at that.
Monetary sacrifice is mostly fungible, and it’s still… going to be piled on the young. Try pulling the in it together crap ever again after asking young people who are both poorer and bore a larger share of pandemic sacrifice by necessity to sacrifice so wealthy old people sacrifice less.
And who is willing to change any of those entitlements?
I'm sorry but you're only saying that because you're a boomer.
Your generation benefited from one of the strongest and most peaceful periods in human history. During that, you created intentional policies that drove asset prices like housing up through historically low interest rates. You then enacted policies that have prevented this from being changed.
The current generational divide was caused by intentional policy decisions to enrich boomers at the expense of future generations. Your generation hasn't even funded their own liabilities.
And you did all this not during times of war, which would be somewhat understandable. You did it during times at peace.
The worst generation.
I guess bc we didn't have a crystal ball and couldn't see the ruination of the world as we seemingly orchestrated it? As a parent of three, who has been told on occasion, what I could have done better as a parent ... there comes a time when after saying, I can see that now and I am truly sorry, the next question is: what will you do now? I agree with some of your points, but I really don't think I need to be told I am now a hinderance to society bc I was born at a certain time and apologize for it. I don't know how old you are but I'd like to read one day how your generation got it all wrong in that days current purview. This shouldn't be a divisive matter between generations is all I'm saying. Maybe I am the only one taking it personal. Anyways. I am exhausted now and too old. (61 is not that old and am I even a boomer?)
Yes the youth should assert themselves and take over. But not as victims, as thoughtful leaders.
CPP was mostly fixed because all of this was predictable. It’s wild that boomers act like it would have taken a crystal ball to understand OAS and healthcare needed the same pre funding. They knew. They just didn’t care because they thought they’d get away with burdening their kids.
You don't need a crystal ball - it was INCREDIBLY obvious because it's Econ 101. If you push interest rates to zero or negative in real terms then you will see lots of borrowing pushing up asset prices and increasing
This wasn't a shock - it was predicted. And it's been going on for 25 years and no one has done anything about it. We can't even TALK about seriously reducing housing prices because of boomer voters. Or reducing liabilities boomers didn't fully fund.
Look at this graph, insanity: https://i.redd.it/b7iea0atkcw61.jpg
It's about responsibility and boomers refuse to take it - or do anything about it. They have to protect their own wealth even as it hurts their children and grandchildren.
After all, you "earned" it.
> what will you do now?
That is indeed the right question, except it's "what will WE do now"?
And I think that's what Jen was talking about in the podcast. If what "we" will do now is to ask the young to "sacrifice another decade" to protect the most fortunate generation, I agree with her, that is going to lead to problems.
What we *should* be doing is fixing the problems and Canadians (supposedly) believe that the responsibility to foot the bill increases as one's wealth an fortune have increased. That's not "make the boomers pay" as much as it is going where the money is. A boomer who never made enough to own his own home and just got by isn't going to be footing this bill. A gen-X who has done extremely well? Yeah, he's going to be footing the bill. But the boomers ARE still the richest cohort, so when you look at which cohort is going to need to pay the most for all the solutions... it's going to be boomers. Not because they're boomers, but because "fair share" means the richest generation is going to pay more.
So as long as the government continues to insist that being retired magically excludes someone for footing their share of the bill, then the "screw the boomers" attitude is going to continue.
Right now the government insists that the retirement age can never be raised as healthy lifetimes have increased... and a retirees assets aren't considered when looking at government funded long term care assistance.... and that capital gains on homes are tax-exempt... and that straight up bribes to voting boomers are great in the form "here's a cheque just because you're old and we want to be re-elected".
Interest rates in the '80s were...
Came to Calgary in '83 for a job interview. Taxi driver was an unemployed engineer trying to keep his house. My guess, he didn't.
Boomers are the most disgusting of generations, but not for the reasons you describe. This mess is a consequence of environmentalism, their construct, but your baby. You believed this drivel, so own up.
I share your decrepitude but I do believe that we boomers have to take a major hit financially. Our young folk are hurting far more than we did at that age and we, as a generation, have had it pretty damned good.
My CPP and my OAS are an important part of my income, along with my savings. I worked until I was 68 and didn't start OAS until 70. That year I was extraordinary lucky and my income was sufficient that my OAS was entirely clawed back - a one time thing, for sure. Now my income is less than the median but we are okay.
Now, having said all of that, I repeat, we need to take less because the young folk are really hurting. My recommendation is that the clawback start at a noticeably lower figure and be calculated on joint income. It may hurt me, it may not, but we as seniors are taking far too much as a group. Allow the higher income folks to contribute.
You paid for half as many seniors and left the next generation with a pile of debt. You didn’t earn anywhere near your full OAS, and this is a sad excuse for piling twice the burden on younger generations.
Nothing defines Canada's incompetence in crafting US relationships than the thoughtless Ford "Regan advertising" gesture. Utter, sheer stupidity--and on the world stage.
That is Canada's hallmark since 2015, and Trudeau's legacy.
$75 MILLION of Ontario taxpayer money spent on a likely less than useless American ad campaign is on its own an arguably immoral abuse and waste of public money that could be spent more wisely in so many ways.
The only entities benefiting from the expenditure of those public funds are Americans and (theoretically) whoever within the Ford team who received kickbacks.
That this incredibly wasteful expense is considered in any way 'justified' or morally correct is a tragic statement on how far we've fallen as a civil society.
And yes, I do realize it's a drop in the bucket.
That drop of public funds could have done a lot more good in so many other ways, perhaps chiefly by not spending it at all.
They should have used that money to evacuate the belugas. That would have been a morale boost at least.
Nothing against the belugas, but just add that $75 million to the projected 14.6 billion dollar deficit and 460.8 billion dollar Ontario debt.
Fine Ford Fiscal Management.
Good thing the good people of Ontari-owe elected the OPC party to a third term!
I think that you underestimate just how shallow Trump is. I find it entirely plausible that he was triggered by the ads featuring Reagan. Apparently, two different sources have told reporters that his intemperate (and stupid) reaction was to the ads, not to other factors. Having seen how he has reacted to other perceived personal affronts, I can well believe it. A supporting observation is that this man is totally incompetent, and cannot plan his way out of a paper bag. To suggest that his reaction was part of a strategy (e.g. to weaken Canada so that he can take it over) gives him entirely too much credit.
There is some evidence that, when faced with a bully such as Trump, the best tactic is to not draw his attention. Keep as low a profile as you can, flatter him (even as distasteful as that may be), and hope that other shiny objects will distract him. I believe that this is the path being followed by the United Kingdom, and to some extent, Mexico, with some success.
Ford is certainly expressing public opinion, and perhaps his intervention will boost morale. It certainly will not lead the Americans to change course, perhaps even the contrary. But be that as it may, I do hope that he is coordinating with Carney and the feds. The worst of all worlds is a divided Canadian response, with Carney trying to follow one approach and a provincial premier going off in another direction.
"I do hope that he is coordinating with Carney and the feds." In your dreams.
We already have ample evidence of a divided Canadian response. The "Team Canada" was just a brief comical sketch.
> I find it entirely plausible that he was triggered by the ads featuring Reagan.
It's plausible, but it's not true at all. He wasn't triggered in the slightest by the ads.
The "triggering" is entirely for show. He's faking the anger and the outrage.
Proof:
The blow-up with Trump (supposedly) pissed off over the ad happened on his "Truth" social on October 23rd... but two days prior to that on October 21st, he delivered this speech just outside the white house in which he was not triggered or angry, just calmly saying that he would have run the ad "if he were Canada". He just calmly said that tariffs were good for the USA and that of course other countries don't want them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY8feOdV4TU
Jump to 6:45
The "triggering" and anger are fake posturing. It follows that he's doing what he often does... find an excuse to put the screws to someone to extract a concession. And if anyone wants to find an excuse to be pretend to be angry, they will always find one.. or even invent one.
You guys talked a big game about “asshole Canada”, but when Doug Ford goes out and does that, Matt doesn’t like it?
I think one possible audience for that ad is Republicans who would prefer to ignore the fact that Trump’s policies such as they are shit all over the policies of the President who was until Trump the closest the Republican Party got to a god. (Won the Cold War, broke unions, etc. etc.)
Running that ad in the US is poking them in the eye… maybe just to be a dick.
“Hey remember Republican Jesus? Remember how he was a friend to Canada and all Western allies? Remember how his policies made you the richest you’ve ever been and the most powerful you’ve ever been? Good thing you elected a guy that does the opposite of all that and would make Reagan puke eh? PS, fuck you!”
Will they suddenly admit they were wrong? Of course not, but the point was to be an asshole!”
Now, I don’t know if that’s good value for money, but it does seem a lot like what you prescribed
This isn't Asshole Canada. This is desperately appeasing to a dying breed of sidelined GOPer who aren't in a position to save us. I'd love some actual Asshole Canada. This is Ford being stuck in 1993.
I don't even think it's accomplishing that. I think it's again primarily for domestic consumption as you guys have said.
You can't be an asshole without any cards on the table. And we how refusing to play the many cards we have.
If we were aggressively building projects, removing trade barriers, etc etc etc then not only would this ad be meaningless, but we could actually be an asshole.
I don't know, it sure looks like it.
You're right that the people who look back fondly on the Reagan years or admire Reganism are a "dying breed of sidelined GOPer who aren't in a position to save us", but while they can't "save us", they do still exist.
Perhaps one aim is to get under their skin and drive that wedge a little deeper. The thing about nostalgic boomers is that they vote. And they're the ones who vote reliably in the mid-term US elections when voter participation drops.... (especially among the young who don't care about Reagan). Will they save us? Definitely not! They're a sidelined minority.. .but the thing about minorities within a big tent is that you still need them to win.
If you didn't see Matt Yglesias' "Bigots in the Tent", I recommend it... sidelined minorities within your party are still essential. Yglesias' example is anti-gay Democrats. They have no power in the party, but if they don't show up to vote Democrat, the GOP will win power every time. So I think it's notable that Trump chose to lie about Reagan rather than insult Reagan. Both come naturally to him, but it's still interesting that insulting Regan isn't a thing he will do.
Most "asshole Canada" actions will fail. NONE of the minority of successful ones are going to save us on their own. Maybe this achieves nothing at all. Maybe this shaves too little off boomer voter participation to change anything in the mid-terms. Maybe it shaves just enough to have some effect.
Or maybe the point is to piss in the Americans pool by going to TV to say "Eff you America, GOP Jesus would vomit if he saw you!". As a guy who will never vote in an Ontario election... I kind of like that part. If it also shaves a point or two off a close race in the mid-terms? I'll LOVE that part and why not try?
But of course... don't just do this.. try other things too.
I’ll go one step further. We’re misplaying this all completely by being nice. Asshole Nation was and is the right approach. Doug Ford was on the right path when he cut the electricity off. Now instead we’re going to bleed ourselves out until we have no leverage. No manufacturing base, and a destroyed consumer market the US can’t export to anyways - because we have no money. If we hit them hard, come over the top, Trump will be pissed - but he’ll respect it. The US pop. isn’t prepared to sacrifice for a trade war with Canada. China maybe? Canada no.. but we’re making it too easy right now. The pain and tariffs are one directional. If Carney is asking for sacrifice, I believe he’d get it if the framing was right. I also believe we’d get actual buy in on a true National economy and the National export infrastructure were going to need to survive. Instead we’re pretending everything can go back to the way it was… it’s not going to, and the longer we pretend it is, the more dangerously precarious a position we are leaving ourselves in.
I’m not sure there is a right approach because there isn’t a solution. That’s why what you said at the end is so infuriating. There isn’t team Canada.
There is no justification — zero — for a provincial government to be conducting its own foreign policy and international trade policy.
It doesn't matter whether it's a good policy, whether it's well executed, whether it's popular, or whether it's arguably complementary to the actual legitimate federal government's approach. It is NONE OF A PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT'S PROPER BUSINESS.
For years, we have had federal governments that largely want to make policy in exclusive provincial jurisdiction, usually by abusing the spending power. Dental insurance, drug insurance, daycare, school lunches, etc. etc. Since 1993, public works in exclusive provincial jurisdiction can't get built without federal-provincial-municipal funding and approval. You can see all the logos on the back of a TTC bus.
It is rarer for provinces to invade federal jurisdiction, but it's just as wrong. And the same bad arguments get made. Ontario is affected by international trade! It needed to be done! It's popular! No, no, no, no. Federalism in Canada is desperately broken, and it's our fault for putting up with it.
Good discussion. As a parent of a 25 year old, the bit about the 'kids' will not be alright for a decade and brain drain was particularly hard to listen to, though likely very true. The PM could have made a far stronger appeal to those 20 year olds, rather than trotting out campaign slogans and urging "keep calm and Carney on." Time has come to specify the sacrifices and hard times ahead.
Notice though he said nothing about the boomers, like older Canadians will sacrifice with you.
Nobina, I am 75 so I fall within the Boomer category. [Damn, I dislike that appellation!]
The truth is that we old people have taken and taken and taken and are still taking. I am not suggesting that we throw people on the street but I do believe that the OAS clawback threshold should decline markedly and the calculation for the clawback should consider joint income and therefore joint OAS.
FYI. We live (literally) across the street from a Montessori school. The children are playing, laughing and screaming in the schoolyard. They are LEARNING inside and outside the building. The $$$ does (as it should) follow the child.
Good to see this.
Neither Matt nor Jen pointed out that our Constitution provides that the federal government is responsible for international trade. Doug Ford has neither the expertise nor the authority to be spouting off in this area. Why can’t politicians stay in their lane? Did this honestly lead to the suspension of talks? As Matt and Jen said: doubtful. But when Doig Ford pisses in the wind, the rest of Canada gets wet.
Kevin Hassett said that the frustration is out of ¨leftover habits of the Trudeau folks¨. This is much more plausible and is further proof that the Elbows Up gang continue to beclown themselves with their tired strategies. The Conservatives are far from perfect, but would have been a fresh face.
This whole weekend shows just how silly the vast majority of Canadian leaders are acting.
There never was going to be a trade deal. It’s going to be a mercantilist deal where the US gets free access to our markets while in return, we get limited access to areas where they will permit us.
In this view, there is nothing stupider than things like the Keystone pipeline. The pipeline allows the Americans to buy oil at a discount and take the profit. Why in the world would you want to do this? i’m not saying I’m a fan of pipelines, but if BC and Quebec can’t see this, then we are a huge trouble. We need to be able to sell that on the world markets. We need to be able to sell our rare earth elements on the global markets.
Right now, Canada has written cheques for programs and services that the economy cannot cash. It is highly likely that OAS will need to be cancelled in the next few years. It is highly likely that Medicare will have significant co-pays. None of the leaders seemed to be concerned about how to raise money. This country needs a lot of it and we need to get serious about making it. It may be too late.
The ad discussion here and elsewhere misses the point.
The ad is irrelevant and boring in every way. The PROBLEM is that Ford (and Canada) has done NOTHING to strengthen Canadian power and negotiating position.
That is a massive problem with this ad. It reflects Canadian powerlessness and fecklessness.
Ford deserves to be blamed because of how useless he is. This is just another version of the medium is the message. The content doesn't matter but the container does.
Enjoyed the episode, thank you.
Enjoyed to pod, especially the different take on Doug Ford’s ad ploy. Jen, (Comrade Gerson???) I think your characterization of boomers is touch unfair. I and my wife were not handed anything starting out. My student loan was 13% and car loan at 19%, we both had steady jobs starting but they were entry level. We both worked hard, we moved away from friends and family to pursue better opportunities when available. I’m sure there are many others who started out the same way. The only difference between us starting out and today’s youth starting out is that we could eventually buy a starter home (a pre war fixer upper). Agree the youth cannot afford to get into the housing market but i wouldn’t say its because of boomers depriving others. I would argue it is, in part, due to policies of governments of recent times. JT and I’m sure most of his cabinet and policy staffers along with others at the various provincial and municipal level were not all boomers (gen-x anyone). Ironically, even this home owning boomer cannot afford to move back to my home city because I’m priced out of market due to the housing boom of the last 6 years.
If I were to guess what the sacrifices Carney means for the youth, it would be a form of an inheritance tax so boomer kids will not be getting all of the inter generational wealth from boomer parents. Add to this no more opportunities with the federal government or related programs. Just a guess of course.
I enjoy that Doug Ford was admittedly a Trump supporter as recently as the last US election, but nobody really even made much noise about that, and it's now forgotten - he's Captain Canada now! "Oops, just a mistake, aw shucks I know better now."
Can you imagine the permanent hounding a certain federal Conservative leader would face if he admitted to ever having actively agreed with Donald Trump on anything, much less wished that he be elected? He'd essentially have to resign.
This is because media and those with real backroom power in Canada don't really care who is premier of Ontario. They do care who is PM, and it must always be the Liberals without even a momentary gap or they risk losing everything. Provincial elections are treated with bored eye-rolling in the media, federal ones like a fucking existential blood sport where nothing is off the table to make sure one party wins.
We've tried all the stupid responses to the tariffs. Now promise to close our border for southbound fentanyl and criminal migrants. If it doesn't appease Trump, it will at least benefit Canadians.
The Line Editors discussed the relevance of Ronald Reagan in the political discourse in the States today, and that perhaps he is not much of a factor to young Americans who weren't around for his Presidency.
That's fair. But, in the big picture he does have an iconic direct link to important international events of his era, events that cemented his reputation as an ambassador and keeper of the flame of democracy throughout the world. This kind of stature in the American psyche shouldn't be underestimated by Canadian politicians who should know better.
The Canadian equivalent would be for scheming American politicians to run ads in Canada using exerts of a speech Pierre Trudeau gave. (Western Canadians might laugh but there is still a nostalgia for Trudeau amongst the chattering class in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa.)
A good living example is Jean Chretien, who is trotted out by the Liberal Party establishment to remind Canadians what a wonderful Prime Minister he was in an era of tremendous economic growth. Would Canadians, or especially the Laurentianites tolerate Americans using Chretien as a wedge in our domestic affairs?
A little off-topic but I'm getting sick of the ongoing hagiography for Jean Chretien.
I lived through his term. He was an "ok" PM in the sense that you didn't feel like government was actively trying to make life worse for as many people as possible with his every decision, so I understand why there is nostalgia.
He balanced the budget because he was forced to, and did it using the one-time trick of 'downloading' on provinces which is to say cutting payments for things like healthcare and transportation. Since the provinces would have had to raise taxes a huge and politically untenable amount to make up the difference, they declined to do that. The result is that the 90's saw those famous gleaming socialist Canadian public services start to buckle as all the hospitals got overcrowded and the schools and subways started to fall apart.
Harper was considerably better and ruled over a more prosperous time. We barely noticed the Great Recession. But he's the boogeyman and we are all constantly primed to think badly of him because he wasn't nice enough or something. In my view 2015 was the most recent high water mark in Canada by just about any quality of life metric and I challenge anyone to try to prove otherwise.
You are right. The truth is Harper and Chrétien weren’t that different. Harper’s problem was he wasn’t that personable and voters repeatedly go for style over substance.
Since the Liberals are a Boomer party, Chrétien is a perfect spokesman. He has no pull at all on millennials.