Right. Time for a tow out of the ditch, or drydock.
Paul Wells did some legwork on that video: “To borrow a naval term, it’s quite a broadside.” After watching the video Paul interviewed Vice Admiral Angus Topshee, the Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, and provided an edited for length transcript. Paul’s on Substack. The video’s on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuD6Q1HXsKw
Your handle says you’re a soon to be retired naval officer who reads Paul Wells. If it doesn’t put you into a ditch, or drydock, maybe you are in a position to comment further? Richard Gimblett may also volunteer his help to give Matt the vacation he clearly craves and earned.
All I can add is that it's a template for other Canadian issues.
Thanks for the shoutout Tom, and for pointing to Paul Wells’ incisive interview. I commented there, so don’t need to add-on here, other than underscore that Matt has done his bit over the years pre-Line watching this shipwreck taking place in slow motion.
So on the link tax, I did some reading on how to place an ad campaign on Google and it’s complicated AF even including a probabilistic element of having the ad shown. Why would any legislation want to get tangled up in that unholy decision matrix?
Similarly I’m perplexed why these Bills were not aimed at the advertisers who are placing the ad campaigns instead of the middlemen platforms. Want to place $1,000 ad campaign on Google? Put $10 in the tip jar for news media when making the transaction. I pay fees on my airline tickets to fund the airport or save the environment, so get advertisers to pay the tax to run news media. As I understand it, news was originally funded by advertisers in the first place before CraigsList showed up, so just return to where you once came? Ok rant over, great job as usual Jen & Matt.
What’s the last law or regulation that you think was actually well formed and targeted by the feds? I’m assuming there is one since the GST, but that’s the one that comes to mind.
Who is going to ATIP if the ministers office requested the total google is currently paying out to know if they were doing a good job of getting net new money?
I very much agree with the comment about how the center hasn’t held. I’ve watched people end long term friendships based on rumours and misinformation or not posting for or against any specific cause (from both directions - this is non partisan because both sides have done it)
And yes, I agree that many people have really become insane about supporting their points of view at all cost regardless of whether it’s reasonable and rational. Almost like feelings have become more important than facts and the ability to distinguish opinion from fact has been lost. (And in some cases facts are represented in a dishonest way just to try to spare feelings.)
Great conversation this week G2. I especially liked your thoughtful exchange on your different but similar reactions to the polarized and hateful behaviour we are seeing from some of our fellow Canadians. I am a nurse so not letting other humans die in a ditch is one of my core values too!
Thank you for everything you do, and you deal with daily. I was in the hospital for 3 weeks just before COVID, and it was a little nuts then. I can only imagine the nightmare it has been since. Again, thank you.
Great discussion this week guys..thanks. A while ago I read “life is too short to argue with strangers on the internet”. I agree with you both and appreciate the reminder
Much food for thought on the various issues. Your discussion on the Israeli-Hamas War, and specifically the state of the hostages being held by the Palestinians, triggered one aspect we don’t hear about and deeply bothers me -- where has the Red Cross / Crescent been in getting access to them? If they have chosen not to get involved, or been denied access by one side or the other, that would be very useful information.
I am not necessarily in love with the idea of a privatized CBC - I think some kinds of broadcasting services, much like some mail-delivery services, are net positive for society despite being commercially unviable - but the Google deal sure spotlights how unreasonable their current position is.
It's weird for a 70% government-funded service to compete with private news outlets for customers on news stories that private media is covering just fine. Small towns need somebody covering action at the local courthouse at a loss; Supreme Court decisions are not at risk of going unreported.
It's exceptionally weird that a 70% government-funded service competes with private media companies for subscription revenue (CBC Gem), which is a static pool of consumer dollars that CBC's entry into the space does not enlarge.
It's exceptionally weird and kind of alarming that a 70% government-funded service competes with private media companies for ad spend, which is a static pool of commercial dollars that is evaporating at an infamously unsustainable rate.
"By the way, we are also going to absorb the lion's share of the emergency funds earmarked for saving private Canadian journalism" strikes me as beyond absurd and approaching offensive.
The CBC needs to pick a lane. Either it's a free government service with no ads or subscription fees, provided to Canadians via our tax dollars because it provides a necessity the free market will not or cannot, or it's a private company and it needs to live or die by its wits in the free market just like everybody else.
CBC executives playing dress-up as titans of commercial broadcasting while a lovingly-juiced trust fund keeps the ship afloat feels increasingly unsustainable. On a moral level, certainly. Hopefully also on a political level.
It was fun to hear you both take what I think of a "love your enemies" Christian view of your fellow Canadians who are racist, Jew-hating dick heads... treat them kindly and help them shovel their driveway.
But this is a political podcast and it's a lot harder for the Prime Minister to get away with doing that and you didn't talk about that.
I doubt he (or Polievre is listening to the line for advice on what to do there, but I'd be interested. I don't see how anything would work except taking a firm "moral clarity" view of Israel's right of self defence, the nature of Hamas and the impossibility of avoiding mass civilian death, the simultaneous horror of that mass civilian death and coupling that with just doing the regular job of fixing all our domestic problems.
Andrew, I remember an early The Line podcast at a time when Jen was under the weather and Matt was the glue guy. Matt told Jen something along the lines of that the Liberals read all of our stuff. They make a great team. Both are never “flat” at the same time and they take turns pulling each other out of the ditch.
If fixing our domestic problems was an easy regular job then shouldn’t we have far fewer long lasting domestic problems? Or, if your premise is true doesn’t that indicate the hired (elected) help is coasting? There are many other words that start with “c” that could be substituted for “coasting”, me thinks.
> If fixing our domestic problems was an easy regular job then shouldn’t we have far fewer long lasting domestic problems?
I have a friend who used to jokingly say "if they don't put me in charge soon, even I'm not going to be able to fix this mess". He doesn't say that anymore. Now he just jokes that it's too late and even he can't fix it.
Matt crystallized my thoughts on it well. In theory it's all fairly easy or at least not impossible... but can you imagine anyone in our political class actually DOING it?
I don't know if they're coasting or giving us exactly what the crucial base voters want. Either way, I'm not happy.
"I am put off by any expectation that I should have a dog in a fight from which the only thing I can ever observe is necessarily propaganda.
Even when outright lies are not being told, I can only get partial truths, and I am expected to take someone's word for it, or someone else's. Neither of which have any particular affinity for me."
Oof. Often you guys are bang on but your take on the Rachel Thomas thing could not be more off. Did ya’ll gut check this with a Quebecois journalist? Or at least someone who speaks French? This incident was a big deal to Francophones - “nobody cares” is definitely not the case. And the comparison to Ministers repeating answers in both languages during press scrums is not really the same thing as testifying at a parliamentary committee, which has simultaneous translation. Furthermore, Thomas wasn’t asking for an answer to be repeated - she was asking for St Onge to respond to her in English, rather than French. Which is a big no-no, and Thomas knew it. Anywho - give your Franco colleagues a call. This incident played directly into the hands of the ascendant Parti Quebecois (who, by the way, have promised to bring foreword a third referendum if they win the next provincial election).
Jen and Mat, I was with you, for the most part, up until you started to talk about the 'Otttawa bubble' issues. From what I have read, the Minister was answering questions from committee members in the language that they were asked in BUT she refused to answer in English to the one femal Conservative on multiple occassions. Apparently she took the bait and asked for the answer to be in English and THAT is when the accusations flew. Was it a deliberate provocation - very likely but the media will spin it as a conservative who demands English answers.
The other point is the one you both seemed to make, though Jen reluctantly, that the Conservative vote agaisnt the Ukranian trade deal was a 'dog whistle' to pro Russians and pro Putin folks - what, wait a second, beep beep, back up the bus. you think what????? It is my understanding, from reading the media, that the Conservaties voted against because there was language requiring a carbon tax be imposed ON A COUNTRY AT WAR for cryin out loud!!!! I don't care if there was language in the agreement before that references carbon tax, or carbon pricing but in the middle of a war our 'dear leader' needs to strike a pose again?!
As to whetehr the Conservaties have a coherent policy or, rather, policies, take a look at 'get rid of the carbon tax', cut funding to the CBC, balance the budget, get out of the way of business and folks building houses and so on. Seems pretty sound policy to me.
You decry the split between supporters of various political positions (Israel/Hamas for example) and blame that on COVID and the issues raised then. Well, lets take a look at what the issues are and where they originated shall we? Our PM now claims that he didn't 'require' folks be immunized but the truth is oposite (see vaccine passports for example). Who has divided the population of Canada along lines of 'us vs them - see it is understandable to burn churches, terrorize pipeline workers, block railways and highways but woe to you who stage a protest against vaccine mandates in Ottawa. I have heard word zero on arrests of those who protested in the first group but the trial is on for those who led the second. Who stood up, well took a knee, in support of BLM in the US adn talkls fo 'systemic racisim in Canada'? Who has a hard time supporting Israel in their current battle but swooped into the Ukraine on a regular basis? Divide into groups and encouraging a belief in victim hood has been this federal governments MO. So explain to me, you fine small 'l' liberals, where is the liberality in all of that? Protest is good if you are protesting something I'm against but I'll declare a National Emergency when you blow your horns in Ottawa.
> It is my understanding, from reading the media, that the Conservaties voted against because there was language requiring a carbon tax be imposed ON A COUNTRY AT WAR for cryin out loud!!!!
With respect, your understanding is wrong and you should probably blame the media you're reading for giving you that false understanding.
It's what Mr. Poilievre is claiming, but he's wrong. Flat wrong. Wrong in every way. Which means he's either ignorant or lying.
1. Ukraine already has a carbon tax. (It's a condition of being in the EU.) Ukraine's push to be in the EU long predates this deal and is WAY more important to Ukraine than a deal with Canada.
2. The language is legally empty. It's aspirational bullshit without any weight whatsoever. You can read it yourself, trust the trade law experts or just listen to the Ukrainians. They all say the same thing... the language does NOTHING.
Mr. Poilievre was virtue signalling how much he opposes the Canadian carbon tax.
I forget which MP it was, but one of them admitted as such insisting it wasn't a big deal because the deal was going to pass with NDP support so it wasn't a problem if the Conservatives voted against it as a statement about carbon taxes.
I disagree, but then I also strongly dislike virtue signalling and I think it says something negative about the person doing it.
You spoke about hostages, but only the ones held by Hamas, You never mentioned the hostage swap, or that some Hamas hostages were released unconditionally. You never mentioned that the hostages Israel released were all women or children, or that almost all held were never charged with anything.
Nor did you mention that the IDF raided the West Bank homes of the families of the hostages released by Israel and were warned not to have any public displays of celebration. The first hostage released who shook the hands of her captors and said 'Shalom' as they parted must have made your heads explode. Brain worms everywhere.
Hey Jen & Matt, is there any appetite for including time stamps in the podcast to, say (totally off the top of my head) be able to skip over talk on C-18?
No comment of the CRCN video on the sad state of the Navy?
Right. Time for a tow out of the ditch, or drydock.
Paul Wells did some legwork on that video: “To borrow a naval term, it’s quite a broadside.” After watching the video Paul interviewed Vice Admiral Angus Topshee, the Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, and provided an edited for length transcript. Paul’s on Substack. The video’s on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuD6Q1HXsKw
Your handle says you’re a soon to be retired naval officer who reads Paul Wells. If it doesn’t put you into a ditch, or drydock, maybe you are in a position to comment further? Richard Gimblett may also volunteer his help to give Matt the vacation he clearly craves and earned.
All I can add is that it's a template for other Canadian issues.
Thanks for the shoutout Tom, and for pointing to Paul Wells’ incisive interview. I commented there, so don’t need to add-on here, other than underscore that Matt has done his bit over the years pre-Line watching this shipwreck taking place in slow motion.
So on the link tax, I did some reading on how to place an ad campaign on Google and it’s complicated AF even including a probabilistic element of having the ad shown. Why would any legislation want to get tangled up in that unholy decision matrix?
Similarly I’m perplexed why these Bills were not aimed at the advertisers who are placing the ad campaigns instead of the middlemen platforms. Want to place $1,000 ad campaign on Google? Put $10 in the tip jar for news media when making the transaction. I pay fees on my airline tickets to fund the airport or save the environment, so get advertisers to pay the tax to run news media. As I understand it, news was originally funded by advertisers in the first place before CraigsList showed up, so just return to where you once came? Ok rant over, great job as usual Jen & Matt.
What’s the last law or regulation that you think was actually well formed and targeted by the feds? I’m assuming there is one since the GST, but that’s the one that comes to mind.
Who is going to ATIP if the ministers office requested the total google is currently paying out to know if they were doing a good job of getting net new money?
I very much agree with the comment about how the center hasn’t held. I’ve watched people end long term friendships based on rumours and misinformation or not posting for or against any specific cause (from both directions - this is non partisan because both sides have done it)
And yes, I agree that many people have really become insane about supporting their points of view at all cost regardless of whether it’s reasonable and rational. Almost like feelings have become more important than facts and the ability to distinguish opinion from fact has been lost. (And in some cases facts are represented in a dishonest way just to try to spare feelings.)
Great conversation this week G2. I especially liked your thoughtful exchange on your different but similar reactions to the polarized and hateful behaviour we are seeing from some of our fellow Canadians. I am a nurse so not letting other humans die in a ditch is one of my core values too!
Thank you for everything you do, and you deal with daily. I was in the hospital for 3 weeks just before COVID, and it was a little nuts then. I can only imagine the nightmare it has been since. Again, thank you.
Great discussion this week guys..thanks. A while ago I read “life is too short to argue with strangers on the internet”. I agree with you both and appreciate the reminder
Much food for thought on the various issues. Your discussion on the Israeli-Hamas War, and specifically the state of the hostages being held by the Palestinians, triggered one aspect we don’t hear about and deeply bothers me -- where has the Red Cross / Crescent been in getting access to them? If they have chosen not to get involved, or been denied access by one side or the other, that would be very useful information.
Final thought -- Battlestar Galactica.
I am not necessarily in love with the idea of a privatized CBC - I think some kinds of broadcasting services, much like some mail-delivery services, are net positive for society despite being commercially unviable - but the Google deal sure spotlights how unreasonable their current position is.
It's weird for a 70% government-funded service to compete with private news outlets for customers on news stories that private media is covering just fine. Small towns need somebody covering action at the local courthouse at a loss; Supreme Court decisions are not at risk of going unreported.
It's exceptionally weird that a 70% government-funded service competes with private media companies for subscription revenue (CBC Gem), which is a static pool of consumer dollars that CBC's entry into the space does not enlarge.
It's exceptionally weird and kind of alarming that a 70% government-funded service competes with private media companies for ad spend, which is a static pool of commercial dollars that is evaporating at an infamously unsustainable rate.
"By the way, we are also going to absorb the lion's share of the emergency funds earmarked for saving private Canadian journalism" strikes me as beyond absurd and approaching offensive.
The CBC needs to pick a lane. Either it's a free government service with no ads or subscription fees, provided to Canadians via our tax dollars because it provides a necessity the free market will not or cannot, or it's a private company and it needs to live or die by its wits in the free market just like everybody else.
CBC executives playing dress-up as titans of commercial broadcasting while a lovingly-juiced trust fund keeps the ship afloat feels increasingly unsustainable. On a moral level, certainly. Hopefully also on a political level.
It was fun to hear you both take what I think of a "love your enemies" Christian view of your fellow Canadians who are racist, Jew-hating dick heads... treat them kindly and help them shovel their driveway.
But this is a political podcast and it's a lot harder for the Prime Minister to get away with doing that and you didn't talk about that.
I doubt he (or Polievre is listening to the line for advice on what to do there, but I'd be interested. I don't see how anything would work except taking a firm "moral clarity" view of Israel's right of self defence, the nature of Hamas and the impossibility of avoiding mass civilian death, the simultaneous horror of that mass civilian death and coupling that with just doing the regular job of fixing all our domestic problems.
That last part should be easy...
Andrew, I remember an early The Line podcast at a time when Jen was under the weather and Matt was the glue guy. Matt told Jen something along the lines of that the Liberals read all of our stuff. They make a great team. Both are never “flat” at the same time and they take turns pulling each other out of the ditch.
If fixing our domestic problems was an easy regular job then shouldn’t we have far fewer long lasting domestic problems? Or, if your premise is true doesn’t that indicate the hired (elected) help is coasting? There are many other words that start with “c” that could be substituted for “coasting”, me thinks.
> If fixing our domestic problems was an easy regular job then shouldn’t we have far fewer long lasting domestic problems?
I have a friend who used to jokingly say "if they don't put me in charge soon, even I'm not going to be able to fix this mess". He doesn't say that anymore. Now he just jokes that it's too late and even he can't fix it.
Matt crystallized my thoughts on it well. In theory it's all fairly easy or at least not impossible... but can you imagine anyone in our political class actually DOING it?
I don't know if they're coasting or giving us exactly what the crucial base voters want. Either way, I'm not happy.
Joe Norman put it best:
"I am put off by any expectation that I should have a dog in a fight from which the only thing I can ever observe is necessarily propaganda.
Even when outright lies are not being told, I can only get partial truths, and I am expected to take someone's word for it, or someone else's. Neither of which have any particular affinity for me."
https://images.app.goo.gl/qouQyqNCjZrKNsRSA
The sound quality was awful.
Yup. We apologize. My microphone died entirely mid-podcast, which is suboptimal. Will have a replacement by tomorrow.
Oof. Often you guys are bang on but your take on the Rachel Thomas thing could not be more off. Did ya’ll gut check this with a Quebecois journalist? Or at least someone who speaks French? This incident was a big deal to Francophones - “nobody cares” is definitely not the case. And the comparison to Ministers repeating answers in both languages during press scrums is not really the same thing as testifying at a parliamentary committee, which has simultaneous translation. Furthermore, Thomas wasn’t asking for an answer to be repeated - she was asking for St Onge to respond to her in English, rather than French. Which is a big no-no, and Thomas knew it. Anywho - give your Franco colleagues a call. This incident played directly into the hands of the ascendant Parti Quebecois (who, by the way, have promised to bring foreword a third referendum if they win the next provincial election).
Jen and Mat, I was with you, for the most part, up until you started to talk about the 'Otttawa bubble' issues. From what I have read, the Minister was answering questions from committee members in the language that they were asked in BUT she refused to answer in English to the one femal Conservative on multiple occassions. Apparently she took the bait and asked for the answer to be in English and THAT is when the accusations flew. Was it a deliberate provocation - very likely but the media will spin it as a conservative who demands English answers.
The other point is the one you both seemed to make, though Jen reluctantly, that the Conservative vote agaisnt the Ukranian trade deal was a 'dog whistle' to pro Russians and pro Putin folks - what, wait a second, beep beep, back up the bus. you think what????? It is my understanding, from reading the media, that the Conservaties voted against because there was language requiring a carbon tax be imposed ON A COUNTRY AT WAR for cryin out loud!!!! I don't care if there was language in the agreement before that references carbon tax, or carbon pricing but in the middle of a war our 'dear leader' needs to strike a pose again?!
As to whetehr the Conservaties have a coherent policy or, rather, policies, take a look at 'get rid of the carbon tax', cut funding to the CBC, balance the budget, get out of the way of business and folks building houses and so on. Seems pretty sound policy to me.
You decry the split between supporters of various political positions (Israel/Hamas for example) and blame that on COVID and the issues raised then. Well, lets take a look at what the issues are and where they originated shall we? Our PM now claims that he didn't 'require' folks be immunized but the truth is oposite (see vaccine passports for example). Who has divided the population of Canada along lines of 'us vs them - see it is understandable to burn churches, terrorize pipeline workers, block railways and highways but woe to you who stage a protest against vaccine mandates in Ottawa. I have heard word zero on arrests of those who protested in the first group but the trial is on for those who led the second. Who stood up, well took a knee, in support of BLM in the US adn talkls fo 'systemic racisim in Canada'? Who has a hard time supporting Israel in their current battle but swooped into the Ukraine on a regular basis? Divide into groups and encouraging a belief in victim hood has been this federal governments MO. So explain to me, you fine small 'l' liberals, where is the liberality in all of that? Protest is good if you are protesting something I'm against but I'll declare a National Emergency when you blow your horns in Ottawa.
OK, rant is over.
> It is my understanding, from reading the media, that the Conservaties voted against because there was language requiring a carbon tax be imposed ON A COUNTRY AT WAR for cryin out loud!!!!
With respect, your understanding is wrong and you should probably blame the media you're reading for giving you that false understanding.
It's what Mr. Poilievre is claiming, but he's wrong. Flat wrong. Wrong in every way. Which means he's either ignorant or lying.
1. Ukraine already has a carbon tax. (It's a condition of being in the EU.) Ukraine's push to be in the EU long predates this deal and is WAY more important to Ukraine than a deal with Canada.
2. The language is legally empty. It's aspirational bullshit without any weight whatsoever. You can read it yourself, trust the trade law experts or just listen to the Ukrainians. They all say the same thing... the language does NOTHING.
Mr. Poilievre was virtue signalling how much he opposes the Canadian carbon tax.
I forget which MP it was, but one of them admitted as such insisting it wasn't a big deal because the deal was going to pass with NDP support so it wasn't a problem if the Conservatives voted against it as a statement about carbon taxes.
I disagree, but then I also strongly dislike virtue signalling and I think it says something negative about the person doing it.
You spoke about hostages, but only the ones held by Hamas, You never mentioned the hostage swap, or that some Hamas hostages were released unconditionally. You never mentioned that the hostages Israel released were all women or children, or that almost all held were never charged with anything.
Nor did you mention that the IDF raided the West Bank homes of the families of the hostages released by Israel and were warned not to have any public displays of celebration. The first hostage released who shook the hands of her captors and said 'Shalom' as they parted must have made your heads explode. Brain worms everywhere.
Hey Jen & Matt, is there any appetite for including time stamps in the podcast to, say (totally off the top of my head) be able to skip over talk on C-18?
No. Joy shared is doubled and pain shared is halved. You must share our pain.