They all need a vacation. Also: Matt goes a-walkin' at the U of T encampment, Bill Blair casts a magic spell on cabinet, and the foreign interference report lands.
Good Evening Jen and Matt. Good podcast this evening.
Perhaps PP needs a holiday but more importantly, JT needs to understand that 'Question Period' is for the oppositiion to ask those annoying things called 'questions' which the recipient of said question is to provide, oh I don't know, an answer of some description. Wacko is a decent description of the drug policy in question. Wacko is a descriptor that could be used to describe JT or many others on any given day BUT PT (the 'father') was not ejected for his, some on and let's say it all together, 'fudle duddle' comment and, apparently it is OK for JT to describe PP as spineless and a right wing extreemist supporter (all of which could/should fall under the not calling a member's character into question) - double standard??
Oh, you seem to have missed the REAL issue this week in parliament and that is the, at this point, alleged alteration of 'the blues' to a final Hansard printout of a CPC member's retraction of a comment about the Speaker who then punts her out the door for not retracting. Strangely (well unless you like conspiracy theories or can see how things actually work) 'the blues' contain the retraction but ta, da Hansard doesn't which then means that the Speaker acted correctly. Go listen to Elizabeth May speak on the issue and she is NOT a conservative supporter but she makes it quite clear that if there was a deliberate change without 100% approval of the change from parliamentarians then the faith in Hansard and the folks behind the glass is called into question and if that goes ...
As to the military, I hear ya Matt. I am older than you but like history as you do adn the vast majority of the protesters likely have no idea what they are protesting in favour of when they support Hamas. It is too bad that ordinary folks are not allowed to walk up to a 'gays for Hamas/Palestine' and simply slap them for being stupid - wouldn't fix it but you'd get some satisfaction. Same reaction to women supporting Hamas/Palestine - really? who does Hamas push in front of themselves when attacked - women and children.
Ah well, here onthe back nine I don't have to whitness much more of this but I do fear for our grandchildren.
Good point - and not the first time they have tried to f around with Hansard. Karina Gould's disgusting motion to erase the fact of the H of C saluting someone who "fought the Russians in WW 2" should never be forgotten.
Completely agree that PP's otherwise good column means nothing if he doesn't take out the cartels when given the chance. With that in mind, I have a question for G&G: How do you think the electorate would respond to someone campaigning on doing just that? I get why you can't win a *leadership campaign* staking out that position (Andrew Scheer drinking milk etc.). But a general election? If it were explained to them (and it's not a tough concept to understand) what percentage of the electorate would want to keep supply management? Gotta' be less than 10%. doesn't it? Or am I completely missing the boat here?
Yes, taking on the dairy cartel was Bernier's one good idea. BUT, in Canada, our dairy regime is still held in the same regard as healthcare was until just recently. The minute you mention removing supply management, you get cries of "I don't want American milk with growth hormones in it." We're just not a serious country.
I feel like it's a minor issue for a lot of people, but a major issue for that 10%. It's like the Catholic school board in Ontario. If you ask most people they'd be in favour of getting rid of it, but won't change their vote on that issue. But the 10% (or fewer, probably) who support the school board are highly motivated voters.
I think your point about motivation is exactly right and the analogy to CDSBs in Ontario a good one so I checked some stats. According to Agriculture Canada, in 2023 there were 9,443 dairy farms in Canada with 4,384 of those in Quebec and 3,233 in Ontario. Just by way of comparison, according to the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario, in the 2021-2022 school year there were 630,000 students enrolled in Ontario Catholic schools. So, fair to say the dairy farmer voting block in Ontario is dwarfed by the CDSB voting block.
Of course, that doesn't end what is ultimately a discussion about political strategy but it does provide some helpful context. The next consideration is how likely it is that the dairy farmer block could swing any seats in Ontario and Quebec. Ontario is so blue in rural communities that it strikes me as very unlikely that they could swing a single seat but I am merely speculating - and also pre-disposed to wanting the impact to be negligible which is a dangerous combination. What I know about Quebec electoral politics couldn't fill a thimble so I would refrain from speculating at all about the impact there.
Ultimately, speaking practically, it may simply not be worth the risk for PP to try and make an issue of this during the campaign - he probably has it in the bag barring any screw-ups. So it's probably better to just campaign against inflation generally and then, upon winning a majority, announce that in order to fulfill his promise to fight inflation the cartels are being busted up. Of course, I will believe the cartels are gone when I see it and would bet against it ever happening. My kingdom for anyone who does it.
I'd love to hear a discussion between Matt and Justin Ling about the encampments and how to respond, because while they largely agree on their nature, they don't seem to agree on how to handle them.
So much here guys, thanks for this. Have fun in Edmonton... I'm in Ottawa. Sigh.
I'm going to anchor my comments around the defense spending issue... as usual, Canada comes at this topic, and all others, from the wrong place. While it is vital, VITAL, to do what we say when we make commitments to our selves and our allies, it is so much more important to define what we do in terms of our own interests. We don't need to increase defense spending to 2% because that is what we have been promising for DECADES... we need to increase defense spending because as things stand right now in this increasingly uncertain world, we can't defend ourselves. We have no eye on the coasts, any of them; we have limited ability to help ourselves on the water or in the air for any kind of need that we have be it from an outside force or fire/water or any other kind of natural disaster. Or a pro-Palestine campus ruckus that turns "unexpectedly" nasty. Or anything else for that matter. We need to figure out what exactly we need, how it will help us, how to balance that off against the other budgetary line items, and get going.
I have an eclectic background and have touched a number of topics in my 30+ years of work, and one prevasive theme that I have seen with my own eyes is that, at the federal level, we neither articulate nor build policy on what we as Canadians have defined as our needs. It's always about something else - will "they" like us? What do the lobbyists want? How do we get the votes? What does "big brother" want us to do? Who has done this before and did it go ok for them? (God forbid we should try something first... we used to go first you know. A side invitation here... should you visit Ottawa, go walk around the National Museum of Science and Technology, or whatever they've called it this week, and just look at all the old inventions that came out of the National Research Council ie. the telephone; the pacemaker; Archie, the first internet search engine; Java programming... lots and lots) that Canadian scientists have made over time... we used to do this kind of "out of the box" thinking, and I believe we still can... we just need some clear thinking and a little courage to have vision.)
Imagine how things could be different if we did centre federal government policy on our needs... we'd have a robust Coast Guard for a start. We'd have effective and targeted immigration that worked hand-in-hand with the provinces who do the heavy lifting of resettlement. We'd be able to see foreign bad actors in our midst, threatening citizens and Parliamentarians alike, not to mention distorting our democratic institutions, and push them out, back to their own countries. We'd have better two-way understanding and acceptance of Quebec's uniqueness and the gifts it brings us as a nation, and they would understand ROC in return. These are just a few of the things I think could be different... Do the thought experiement yourself and you'll see how different policy could be if we worked it from what we need instead of how we can be liked by "insert the blank here - the USA, the voter blocks we think we can appeal to, lobbyists etc".
Jen and Matt... Thanks for what you do... Keep going.
Interesting choice of first Cartel to be dismantled. The supply management control of dairy, eggs, chicken and cheese is relatively low cost for Canadian consumers compared to the Oil Cartel that controls fuel and home heating, the Grocery Cartel that affects the retail price of all food stuffs and the Telecommunications Cartel that controls the internet and cell phone networks.
Eliminating supply management for dairy, eggs, chicken and cheese will set the stage for what exists in the beef industry where two international meat packing corporations, Cargill and JBS control 85% of the beef slaughter in Canada. Their meat products then are sold to Canadian consumers through the large grocery stores chains, a Cartel in their own right.
Does anyone really believe a Pierre Poilievre led Federal Government will really address the lack of competition in Canada? Corporate consolidation that continues to increase in many sectors in Canada?
Supply management is a highly visible target whose dismantling will likely happen, but will also simply set the stage for more corporate consolidation that will acquire the producers who form supply management.
He already said at least twice during the leadership race that he won't touch supply management. I'd love for him to backpedal on that but I don't see it happening.
As for the Toronto encampment, all indications are that these are NOT U of T student for the most part. I do not understand why U of T would NOT be decamping this with the aid of the Toronto police if this is indeed the case, not makes absolutely no sense to me.
Looking forward to seeing some discussion on the apparent falsification of Hansard by this speaker/Parliament. It really is time for this government to fall.
Also thanks for the great Calgary event a few weeks back!
The winter semester is over and the finals are done. Every high-functioning engineering or science student is off on coop, internship or otherwise coping with finals-induced PTSD until at least June. When you say that the protestors who are there are chasing another 1960's moment, it's because that could be all they have.
Keven Bryan being told to "watch his back" for reporting on the non-students at the protests. This is something that many have noted in the U.S....hmm, I wonder who these non-students are?
Matt, help me understand your visit to the UofT encampment. There were students holding a flag, polite, and when you did not meet their criteria, they denied you entry. You did not identify as a journalist. You proceeded to walk up and down, taking pictures, and clearly scared the hell out of a few of them. Why? Then you note that the fence could easily be broken down. My perspective: regardless of who is funding them, these were students who appeared to be sincerely protesting something they believe in at a university sanctioned protest. The fence defined the perimeter of the protest; it was not intended as a military barrier. Your response to them likely felt pretty threatening, and I would not have assumed you were a cop, had I been them. If these were your kids, would you have wanted an adult to respond differently? Maybe engage them in some dialogue?
They aren’t protesting a war anymore … they are protesting the existence of Jewish people anywhere on this planet, including here . And most of them couldn’t even tell you historical info even as simple as something like Gaza was part of Egypt until 1967. I checked out the one at ubc and the level of ignorance and blind hate is shocking . So “engaging them In dialogue “ isn’t even possible due to this . It’s also being overrun with the usual “ protest Everything in the west” crowd with makes it worse . The apathetic majority needs to realize how serious this is . Most of the students at these campouts will look back 20 years from now and be embarrassed they participated in. The rest will scurry into a life in academia .
2 things: With regards to recapturing the rebel spirit of the 60s, I’m currently reading an excellent and fascinating book called Days of Rage about the radical movements in the US in the 60s-80s. I highly recommend it
On a totally separate note, is there anyone I could tag along with for the Edmonton show? I can’t comment under the show’s announcement.
Neutral to the morality of the U of T protest, did they incorrectly identify Gurney as a cop or did they correctly identify him as an unsympathetic party reconnoitering their encampment while gameplanning how to assault it?
Also neutral to the morality of the U of T protest, I'm not convinced this stuff is entirely ineffectual. They often have focused objectives that are within the power of the university administration to grant, e.g. divestment of endowment funds from Israeli businesses, and I'm hearing that some of these encampments are forcing concessions in exchange for packing up, so I don't think we can put them in the same category as Occupy Wall Street.
Matt, they may have thought you were some kind of provocateur. From the other encampment there does seem to be a lot more consciousness about messaging and the fact plenty of people will be hunting for a sound bite.
Good Evening Jen and Matt. Good podcast this evening.
Perhaps PP needs a holiday but more importantly, JT needs to understand that 'Question Period' is for the oppositiion to ask those annoying things called 'questions' which the recipient of said question is to provide, oh I don't know, an answer of some description. Wacko is a decent description of the drug policy in question. Wacko is a descriptor that could be used to describe JT or many others on any given day BUT PT (the 'father') was not ejected for his, some on and let's say it all together, 'fudle duddle' comment and, apparently it is OK for JT to describe PP as spineless and a right wing extreemist supporter (all of which could/should fall under the not calling a member's character into question) - double standard??
Oh, you seem to have missed the REAL issue this week in parliament and that is the, at this point, alleged alteration of 'the blues' to a final Hansard printout of a CPC member's retraction of a comment about the Speaker who then punts her out the door for not retracting. Strangely (well unless you like conspiracy theories or can see how things actually work) 'the blues' contain the retraction but ta, da Hansard doesn't which then means that the Speaker acted correctly. Go listen to Elizabeth May speak on the issue and she is NOT a conservative supporter but she makes it quite clear that if there was a deliberate change without 100% approval of the change from parliamentarians then the faith in Hansard and the folks behind the glass is called into question and if that goes ...
As to the military, I hear ya Matt. I am older than you but like history as you do adn the vast majority of the protesters likely have no idea what they are protesting in favour of when they support Hamas. It is too bad that ordinary folks are not allowed to walk up to a 'gays for Hamas/Palestine' and simply slap them for being stupid - wouldn't fix it but you'd get some satisfaction. Same reaction to women supporting Hamas/Palestine - really? who does Hamas push in front of themselves when attacked - women and children.
Ah well, here onthe back nine I don't have to whitness much more of this but I do fear for our grandchildren.
Yeah, we didn't get into that in the podcast, but will address in the written. JG
Good point - and not the first time they have tried to f around with Hansard. Karina Gould's disgusting motion to erase the fact of the H of C saluting someone who "fought the Russians in WW 2" should never be forgotten.
I note here and elsewhere that positive feedback on Sean Fraser on housing seem never to consider his past performance as minister of immigration
He’s good at “communications” and unfortunately, that’s all that matters when evaluating cabinet ministers.
Completely agree that PP's otherwise good column means nothing if he doesn't take out the cartels when given the chance. With that in mind, I have a question for G&G: How do you think the electorate would respond to someone campaigning on doing just that? I get why you can't win a *leadership campaign* staking out that position (Andrew Scheer drinking milk etc.). But a general election? If it were explained to them (and it's not a tough concept to understand) what percentage of the electorate would want to keep supply management? Gotta' be less than 10%. doesn't it? Or am I completely missing the boat here?
Yes, taking on the dairy cartel was Bernier's one good idea. BUT, in Canada, our dairy regime is still held in the same regard as healthcare was until just recently. The minute you mention removing supply management, you get cries of "I don't want American milk with growth hormones in it." We're just not a serious country.
I feel like it's a minor issue for a lot of people, but a major issue for that 10%. It's like the Catholic school board in Ontario. If you ask most people they'd be in favour of getting rid of it, but won't change their vote on that issue. But the 10% (or fewer, probably) who support the school board are highly motivated voters.
I think your point about motivation is exactly right and the analogy to CDSBs in Ontario a good one so I checked some stats. According to Agriculture Canada, in 2023 there were 9,443 dairy farms in Canada with 4,384 of those in Quebec and 3,233 in Ontario. Just by way of comparison, according to the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario, in the 2021-2022 school year there were 630,000 students enrolled in Ontario Catholic schools. So, fair to say the dairy farmer voting block in Ontario is dwarfed by the CDSB voting block.
Of course, that doesn't end what is ultimately a discussion about political strategy but it does provide some helpful context. The next consideration is how likely it is that the dairy farmer block could swing any seats in Ontario and Quebec. Ontario is so blue in rural communities that it strikes me as very unlikely that they could swing a single seat but I am merely speculating - and also pre-disposed to wanting the impact to be negligible which is a dangerous combination. What I know about Quebec electoral politics couldn't fill a thimble so I would refrain from speculating at all about the impact there.
Ultimately, speaking practically, it may simply not be worth the risk for PP to try and make an issue of this during the campaign - he probably has it in the bag barring any screw-ups. So it's probably better to just campaign against inflation generally and then, upon winning a majority, announce that in order to fulfill his promise to fight inflation the cartels are being busted up. Of course, I will believe the cartels are gone when I see it and would bet against it ever happening. My kingdom for anyone who does it.
I'd love to hear a discussion between Matt and Justin Ling about the encampments and how to respond, because while they largely agree on their nature, they don't seem to agree on how to handle them.
So much here guys, thanks for this. Have fun in Edmonton... I'm in Ottawa. Sigh.
I'm going to anchor my comments around the defense spending issue... as usual, Canada comes at this topic, and all others, from the wrong place. While it is vital, VITAL, to do what we say when we make commitments to our selves and our allies, it is so much more important to define what we do in terms of our own interests. We don't need to increase defense spending to 2% because that is what we have been promising for DECADES... we need to increase defense spending because as things stand right now in this increasingly uncertain world, we can't defend ourselves. We have no eye on the coasts, any of them; we have limited ability to help ourselves on the water or in the air for any kind of need that we have be it from an outside force or fire/water or any other kind of natural disaster. Or a pro-Palestine campus ruckus that turns "unexpectedly" nasty. Or anything else for that matter. We need to figure out what exactly we need, how it will help us, how to balance that off against the other budgetary line items, and get going.
I have an eclectic background and have touched a number of topics in my 30+ years of work, and one prevasive theme that I have seen with my own eyes is that, at the federal level, we neither articulate nor build policy on what we as Canadians have defined as our needs. It's always about something else - will "they" like us? What do the lobbyists want? How do we get the votes? What does "big brother" want us to do? Who has done this before and did it go ok for them? (God forbid we should try something first... we used to go first you know. A side invitation here... should you visit Ottawa, go walk around the National Museum of Science and Technology, or whatever they've called it this week, and just look at all the old inventions that came out of the National Research Council ie. the telephone; the pacemaker; Archie, the first internet search engine; Java programming... lots and lots) that Canadian scientists have made over time... we used to do this kind of "out of the box" thinking, and I believe we still can... we just need some clear thinking and a little courage to have vision.)
Imagine how things could be different if we did centre federal government policy on our needs... we'd have a robust Coast Guard for a start. We'd have effective and targeted immigration that worked hand-in-hand with the provinces who do the heavy lifting of resettlement. We'd be able to see foreign bad actors in our midst, threatening citizens and Parliamentarians alike, not to mention distorting our democratic institutions, and push them out, back to their own countries. We'd have better two-way understanding and acceptance of Quebec's uniqueness and the gifts it brings us as a nation, and they would understand ROC in return. These are just a few of the things I think could be different... Do the thought experiement yourself and you'll see how different policy could be if we worked it from what we need instead of how we can be liked by "insert the blank here - the USA, the voter blocks we think we can appeal to, lobbyists etc".
Jen and Matt... Thanks for what you do... Keep going.
Interesting choice of first Cartel to be dismantled. The supply management control of dairy, eggs, chicken and cheese is relatively low cost for Canadian consumers compared to the Oil Cartel that controls fuel and home heating, the Grocery Cartel that affects the retail price of all food stuffs and the Telecommunications Cartel that controls the internet and cell phone networks.
Eliminating supply management for dairy, eggs, chicken and cheese will set the stage for what exists in the beef industry where two international meat packing corporations, Cargill and JBS control 85% of the beef slaughter in Canada. Their meat products then are sold to Canadian consumers through the large grocery stores chains, a Cartel in their own right.
Does anyone really believe a Pierre Poilievre led Federal Government will really address the lack of competition in Canada? Corporate consolidation that continues to increase in many sectors in Canada?
Supply management is a highly visible target whose dismantling will likely happen, but will also simply set the stage for more corporate consolidation that will acquire the producers who form supply management.
He already said at least twice during the leadership race that he won't touch supply management. I'd love for him to backpedal on that but I don't see it happening.
As for the Toronto encampment, all indications are that these are NOT U of T student for the most part. I do not understand why U of T would NOT be decamping this with the aid of the Toronto police if this is indeed the case, not makes absolutely no sense to me.
Looking forward to seeing some discussion on the apparent falsification of Hansard by this speaker/Parliament. It really is time for this government to fall.
Also thanks for the great Calgary event a few weeks back!
I just had a thought re the student protests:
The winter semester is over and the finals are done. Every high-functioning engineering or science student is off on coop, internship or otherwise coping with finals-induced PTSD until at least June. When you say that the protestors who are there are chasing another 1960's moment, it's because that could be all they have.
Before even listening, I can say I agree with: Go Leafs, Go!
...you know what else are "Magical numbers"?
NetZero by 2050 and reducing our emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.
Those are completely magical numbers, completely made up and arbitrary.
Funny that the Liberals have ZERO issues with emptying the bank in service to hitting those "magical" numbers.
Regarding the U of T encampment:
https://twitter.com/afinetheorem/status/1786445005445272060?s=46&t=YU9_X-aTPkSssaSFwoPecA
Keven Bryan being told to "watch his back" for reporting on the non-students at the protests. This is something that many have noted in the U.S....hmm, I wonder who these non-students are?
Matt, help me understand your visit to the UofT encampment. There were students holding a flag, polite, and when you did not meet their criteria, they denied you entry. You did not identify as a journalist. You proceeded to walk up and down, taking pictures, and clearly scared the hell out of a few of them. Why? Then you note that the fence could easily be broken down. My perspective: regardless of who is funding them, these were students who appeared to be sincerely protesting something they believe in at a university sanctioned protest. The fence defined the perimeter of the protest; it was not intended as a military barrier. Your response to them likely felt pretty threatening, and I would not have assumed you were a cop, had I been them. If these were your kids, would you have wanted an adult to respond differently? Maybe engage them in some dialogue?
They aren’t protesting a war anymore … they are protesting the existence of Jewish people anywhere on this planet, including here . And most of them couldn’t even tell you historical info even as simple as something like Gaza was part of Egypt until 1967. I checked out the one at ubc and the level of ignorance and blind hate is shocking . So “engaging them In dialogue “ isn’t even possible due to this . It’s also being overrun with the usual “ protest Everything in the west” crowd with makes it worse . The apathetic majority needs to realize how serious this is . Most of the students at these campouts will look back 20 years from now and be embarrassed they participated in. The rest will scurry into a life in academia .
2 things: With regards to recapturing the rebel spirit of the 60s, I’m currently reading an excellent and fascinating book called Days of Rage about the radical movements in the US in the 60s-80s. I highly recommend it
On a totally separate note, is there anyone I could tag along with for the Edmonton show? I can’t comment under the show’s announcement.
Thanks, Matt. History has meaning.
Neutral to the morality of the U of T protest, did they incorrectly identify Gurney as a cop or did they correctly identify him as an unsympathetic party reconnoitering their encampment while gameplanning how to assault it?
Also neutral to the morality of the U of T protest, I'm not convinced this stuff is entirely ineffectual. They often have focused objectives that are within the power of the university administration to grant, e.g. divestment of endowment funds from Israeli businesses, and I'm hearing that some of these encampments are forcing concessions in exchange for packing up, so I don't think we can put them in the same category as Occupy Wall Street.
Matt, they may have thought you were some kind of provocateur. From the other encampment there does seem to be a lot more consciousness about messaging and the fact plenty of people will be hunting for a sound bite.