Watching the show live yesterday, I just realized that there is actually no other show in all of Canada that provides a platform for people like your guests who can speak relatively freely. Yes I do wish there was a lot less interruptions from all, but the quality of the conversations was there to see. I sincerely hope that the idiotic laws that prevent The Line making themselves known on Facebook are revoked at the earliest by CPC.
Thanks guys, that was awesome! I really appreciate the time and effort it takes to pull something like that together. I also liked the guests... informative and to the point. Good work.
Two things I'd like to note though... despite the irreverent and relaxed tone of things, and in a landscape of limited objective coverage of Canadian politics, this is a serious business. And so, and I say this with a light tone and full support of what you do, it doesn't serve your efforts or your paying subscribers if you get drunk on air. That's not what I'm there to experience. Jokes about Jen's alcohol intolerance aside, you undermine your program when drinking and jokes get in the way of making your points. I count on you to bring your A game to your work, and yes, with irrevernce and humour, but your critical insight is your strenght and you are awesome at it. But it's not a drinking game, and when that gets in the way of holding your own in a debate, well, that's a concern.
Which leads me to my second point... I did not appreciate the exchange with Michelle Rempel Garner... MRG came across as a bully and as someone who is not willing to listen to others. Yes, of course, pocketbook matters are a significant focus of many if not all Canadians, but I felt the point that Jen was making was on the nose too - after almost a decade of trying to eradicate what it means to be Canadian, we need someone who will build it back up, and MRG did not listen to this relevant point but stayed in her partisan lane and did not listen. The vision for the country right now matters, and matters big. It sets the tone and underpins the decisions made going forward. MRG, whom I don't know well but have been reading her SubStack (and I'll say this same partisan flavour is in her writing, to it's detriment) appeared to me to be the same as the Libs at not listening. She's got legit points, but the uber partisan fervour is hard to take. I feel the same about their leader.
And if that is the kind of government that they will be, then we are all truly lost. Political leadership should not be a game of "tit for tat" but, especially these days, politics is a serious business. Just because the Liberals put this thing, insert policy here, doesn't mean it is bad. The bully approach of "just talk louder" does not give me confidence, as a voter who has voted for basically all the options over time, that the Conservatives under this current leader have the ability, the willingness, to listen to other voices than their own.
Thanks again for last night. I've caught all The Line's lives, as well as those done by Paul Wells. You guys rock. Thank you.
Although it made me a little uncomfortable at times, I actually really enjoyed the exchange between Jen and MRG. I thought it was more heated than we are used to in Canada but in a good way - active engaged debate and calling each other on points. Well done!
I understood the point each was making. I think if there had been a different way to ask the question beyond the word “vision” we might have gotten some more out of MRG but most likely not. MRG probably could have addressed this by expanding upon what freedom means, what the party means when it says “Canada first” etc. but I get that no senior CPC member is going to go on “air” and say things that they think could be potentially disruptive to the party’s chances. I would encourage the CPC to think about the question here and be prepared to provide an expanded answer as I think this could show the party in a positive, compelling light.
The guests on the show were excellent and it would be great to include guests on the pod too!
Vision is a tricky thing... I take your point quite well. What I'd like to hear the Conservatives tell us is: if we can agree that this adventure in a "post-national state" has gone sideways, how would they as Conservatives define Canada? I always thought of us as a people who would push one another out of a snowbank if needed, strangers and friends alike. I don't know if we're there anymore...
This Live was a great opportunity to "garden" with a senior member of the Conservative party... plant seeds for thought about the kinds of things that average Canadians would like to hear from the party, things that would compel non-Conservatives who are currently undecided to have confidence and vote for them. How will we develop pride in who we are again? What does having pride in Canada even mean anymore? Good think pieces like this... I just didn't feel the MRG was even listening.
And yes, we tend to be a little less heated in our exchanges, but I really don't like it when people railroad over each other and don't listen.
Jen$Matt: you did a great job last night. All three guests weee worthwhile. When Matt started his closing was the first moment where I noted the time - yes, I’m one of the 999+ who were with you start to finish. Please keep doing these when and as needed.
Was sorry to have to sign off early -- really enjoyed Jamie Carroll's perspectives and John's insights. A pity to miss MRG live; will try to catch up on the stream tonight.
P.S. The Stand is my favourite King novel, too -- a timely reminder of what it takes to stand up for the good.
Hogue is to provide her reports to cabinet, not parliament, so the prorogation shouldn't have an impact. Note though, that Hogue doesn't make her public report to the public - but to cabinet and the cabinet "may", not "shall", make it public. The French version uses the word "puisse" which I understand, and my French is rusty, connotes even more aspects of discretion and uncertainty.
The initial Order in Council (since amended to push back the deadlines) says that Hogue is to (spacings and square brackets inserted to make it less jumbled, the French is a lot clearer and uses dashes):
"submit to the Governor in Council, in both official languages and in an accessible format,
[1] a classified report containing any relevant classified content, if required, and
[2] a report suitable for disclosure to the public with findings and recommendations,
so as to ensure that the Governor in Council may
[1] make available to the leaders of all recognized parties in the House of Commons who have the requisite security clearance, any classified reports as soon as feasible after their receipt, and
[2] make the public report available to the public as soon as feasible after its receipt[.]"
I watched the portion of the live cast with James and found the discussion you had after he left to be very interesting. Jen said (and Matt agreed) that “one of the big things we did to our democracy in this country is that we hybridized a (leadership selection) system between a UK Westminster based system and the US Presidential system”.
I disagree.
In the US primary system it is the registered voters in each state who vote directly for the Presidential candidates. This determines the number of delegates that each candidate gets from each state. These are regular voters, the vote is open to all and is not restricted to party members, as is the case here.
In the UK the leadership selection process varies somewhat by party but in all cases MPs are directly involved either by voting for or nominating the initial slate of candidates. After that, the final selection of party leader is made through a voting process that is open only to party members, as it is here.
IMO our parties don’t have a hybrid UK- US system, rather they have a bastardized version of the UK system that has removed the role of MPs from the process and leaves the selection of the leader entirely in the hands of party members. It’s worth noting that our parties have also bastardized the Westminster Parliamentary system by centralizing power in the PMO and removing MPs ability to have an independent voice in Parliament, rendering them (to use Matt’s word) gormless.
Boy oh boy, did Rempel-Garner ever get defensive when Jen critiqued her on the beyond-tiring "Axe the Tax" line! I found myself screaming at the screen to let Jen speak!!!
First thing - great discussion that I listened to last evening and again this morning. I really enjoyed the insights of the first guest (Jamie?) and the back and forth from Michelle Rempel Garner.
Matt, you are a generous human being if you can generate sympathy for JT at this point. This is all self inflicted on his part. I feel sorry for the country, our children and grandchildren who will have to be paying for the debt generated in just a few short years. I feel sorry for the next PM who will have to open the books and see how much worse things are likely to be and then have to deal with all the issues incumbent - the PM that deals with the issues will not be popular during the term in office but history will smile on them eventually. We, as a country, are in for a world of hurt in the next twenty years as we dig ourselves out of the hole that has been dug for us finacially, politically, internationally and as a fine country that did not deserve to be treated as it has been for the last nine years. Even during his 'resignation' speech JT blew smoke at us in claiming that he was proud of the reduction in poverty and that he regretted not changing our electoral system - REALLY???
Jen, you mused aloud about the possibility that JT delayed his (sort of) departure deliberately to create as much havoc as possible. I have commented a couple of times that you should think back to Hitler in the dying months of WWII when he reaqlized that the war was lost but instead of taking any personal responsibility he decided that the country was unworthy of victory - his vision. Like Hitler, JT has decided that the country and party lack the necesary dedication to his vision of the world adn therefore have no reason to exist and must burn for our and their sins respectively. His dedication to burdening the next PM with a massive debt to deal with is just one example. He has allowed this current situation (now 24 hours old) to be created while he smirked in our faces. he could have left a year ago or even six months ago and he wouldnot have left as much damage to the LPC and Canada but he decided that both must be punished and here we are.
We will survive this and come out the other end and not as the 51st state - I like the one time conversion to CDN peso to greenback but I DO NOT WANT ITO BE AN AMERICAN!!!!
Great commentary, guests and analysis. Informative and entertaining. So many possible ways this could play itself out. In the long run this might be the lesson Canadians need to choose our governments more carefully and not be so complacent in gifting mandates over and over to empty suit "brand" names (parties and individuals included). We're going to suffer some real pain in the short term though and a recession may be the least of it.
Now my question is -given how utterly depraved, cynical and devoid of principle the Liberals have become, what are the chances that their new leader runs and wins on a platform to kill the carbon tax prior to its increase on April 1, immediately pauses or permantently exempts GST on new homes and steals other conservative planks and when Parliament reopens in late March tables something that includes requiring a confidence vote (Throne speech, budget, ways and means motion) that requires the Conservatives to vote against it? One could see the NDP passing it to keep themselves relevant but if they don't and the Conservatives vote against it, then the government falls and the Carbon tax increase still comes into effect on April 1 while an election has been called and the Conservatives have to wear their decision to keep it in place during the campaign. Likely not a game changer but its exactly the kind of tactical shithead move the Liberals do so well.
I know that the Line Editors claim to skew right of center, but my goodness it was incredibly refreshing to hear Jen's exasperation with Michelle when she went into full parrot mode (*SQUAWK carbon tax election*). The sharp questioning from the Line Editors (once they could get a word in) was also great, and another reminder of why it's worth subscribing: no one is above being questioned, least of all those who hold political power and influence.
Loved the episode, and loved the format, thanks The Line!
Sorry I couldn’t stay up to watch the live podcast, had to get up early for my job. Not much of a job but still it’s a job… Finally watched the full podcast, depressingly entertaining. Keep up the good work and don’t change a thing.
Watched live. Loved all of it, including Matt's display of non-gurumba when it came to the exchange between Jenn and Michelle R-G (And being proud of it too)
For Jenn: never stop challenging CPC. People expect you to call LPC/NDP BS. Glad to see you don't play favs. I think everyone deserves a little Dark Jenn in their lives...
I know what Trump wants/needs for North American’s security. I had an epiphany,when he mentions Russian and Chinese ships. 3 things came together,to help with the puzzle. Matt,with your background in the military you will see it. Jen,watch ‘The Diplomat’ on Netflix. A recent column I read quoting a Canadian General who said “Don’t chase the arrow,go after the bow.” Unfortunately,Canadians as a majority are tree huggers singing “Pussywillows and Cattails” and look at that cute squirrel. We are freeloading on the Americans. For our security. I’ve been to the Arctic Coast,worked on the North Warning system in 1997. From Coral Harbour to Inuvik along the American border. That’s how old that system is. Believe me,we have nothing up there
I remain confused about why some pundits (Jen) think American across-the-board tariffs would be an immediate disaster for Canada. There is a place for targeted tariffs -- which already exist -- to encourage and protect domestic production. Canada does this with products such as milk and eggs to encourage and protect domestic production. But an across-the-board tariff would immediately increase prices for American consumers, with no immediate increase in domestic production or reduction in imports -- unless American consumers could no longer afford to keep buying cars, lumber, maple syrup etc. Eventually some Canadian exports could be replaced by American producers, but there is no way to replace imports of strategic minerals, crude oil, iron ore, long-fibre pulp, high-quality grain, potash, and similar commodities. Companies that do decide to on-shore production will need time and resources to build plants and train workers. My suspicion is that many will just take the 25 per cent bonus they can claim by passing on import duties to their customers, and increase dividends to their shareholders. Another bonus for MAGA's billionaire benefactors! It remains to be seen how long it will take the "America first" ideologues to figure this out. Intelligence has not been a strong suit so far.
Watching the show live yesterday, I just realized that there is actually no other show in all of Canada that provides a platform for people like your guests who can speak relatively freely. Yes I do wish there was a lot less interruptions from all, but the quality of the conversations was there to see. I sincerely hope that the idiotic laws that prevent The Line making themselves known on Facebook are revoked at the earliest by CPC.
Thanks guys, that was awesome! I really appreciate the time and effort it takes to pull something like that together. I also liked the guests... informative and to the point. Good work.
Two things I'd like to note though... despite the irreverent and relaxed tone of things, and in a landscape of limited objective coverage of Canadian politics, this is a serious business. And so, and I say this with a light tone and full support of what you do, it doesn't serve your efforts or your paying subscribers if you get drunk on air. That's not what I'm there to experience. Jokes about Jen's alcohol intolerance aside, you undermine your program when drinking and jokes get in the way of making your points. I count on you to bring your A game to your work, and yes, with irrevernce and humour, but your critical insight is your strenght and you are awesome at it. But it's not a drinking game, and when that gets in the way of holding your own in a debate, well, that's a concern.
Which leads me to my second point... I did not appreciate the exchange with Michelle Rempel Garner... MRG came across as a bully and as someone who is not willing to listen to others. Yes, of course, pocketbook matters are a significant focus of many if not all Canadians, but I felt the point that Jen was making was on the nose too - after almost a decade of trying to eradicate what it means to be Canadian, we need someone who will build it back up, and MRG did not listen to this relevant point but stayed in her partisan lane and did not listen. The vision for the country right now matters, and matters big. It sets the tone and underpins the decisions made going forward. MRG, whom I don't know well but have been reading her SubStack (and I'll say this same partisan flavour is in her writing, to it's detriment) appeared to me to be the same as the Libs at not listening. She's got legit points, but the uber partisan fervour is hard to take. I feel the same about their leader.
And if that is the kind of government that they will be, then we are all truly lost. Political leadership should not be a game of "tit for tat" but, especially these days, politics is a serious business. Just because the Liberals put this thing, insert policy here, doesn't mean it is bad. The bully approach of "just talk louder" does not give me confidence, as a voter who has voted for basically all the options over time, that the Conservatives under this current leader have the ability, the willingness, to listen to other voices than their own.
Thanks again for last night. I've caught all The Line's lives, as well as those done by Paul Wells. You guys rock. Thank you.
Although it made me a little uncomfortable at times, I actually really enjoyed the exchange between Jen and MRG. I thought it was more heated than we are used to in Canada but in a good way - active engaged debate and calling each other on points. Well done!
I understood the point each was making. I think if there had been a different way to ask the question beyond the word “vision” we might have gotten some more out of MRG but most likely not. MRG probably could have addressed this by expanding upon what freedom means, what the party means when it says “Canada first” etc. but I get that no senior CPC member is going to go on “air” and say things that they think could be potentially disruptive to the party’s chances. I would encourage the CPC to think about the question here and be prepared to provide an expanded answer as I think this could show the party in a positive, compelling light.
The guests on the show were excellent and it would be great to include guests on the pod too!
Agreed!!
Vision is a tricky thing... I take your point quite well. What I'd like to hear the Conservatives tell us is: if we can agree that this adventure in a "post-national state" has gone sideways, how would they as Conservatives define Canada? I always thought of us as a people who would push one another out of a snowbank if needed, strangers and friends alike. I don't know if we're there anymore...
This Live was a great opportunity to "garden" with a senior member of the Conservative party... plant seeds for thought about the kinds of things that average Canadians would like to hear from the party, things that would compel non-Conservatives who are currently undecided to have confidence and vote for them. How will we develop pride in who we are again? What does having pride in Canada even mean anymore? Good think pieces like this... I just didn't feel the MRG was even listening.
And yes, we tend to be a little less heated in our exchanges, but I really don't like it when people railroad over each other and don't listen.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Tell us please, was the uber partisan fervour of the Liberals and Trudeau over the years equally hard to take ?
Indeed it was. I just wish politicians would focus on governing rather than power struggles.
Jen$Matt: you did a great job last night. All three guests weee worthwhile. When Matt started his closing was the first moment where I noted the time - yes, I’m one of the 999+ who were with you start to finish. Please keep doing these when and as needed.
Was sorry to have to sign off early -- really enjoyed Jamie Carroll's perspectives and John's insights. A pity to miss MRG live; will try to catch up on the stream tonight.
P.S. The Stand is my favourite King novel, too -- a timely reminder of what it takes to stand up for the good.
Hogue is to provide her reports to cabinet, not parliament, so the prorogation shouldn't have an impact. Note though, that Hogue doesn't make her public report to the public - but to cabinet and the cabinet "may", not "shall", make it public. The French version uses the word "puisse" which I understand, and my French is rusty, connotes even more aspects of discretion and uncertainty.
The initial Order in Council (since amended to push back the deadlines) says that Hogue is to (spacings and square brackets inserted to make it less jumbled, the French is a lot clearer and uses dashes):
"submit to the Governor in Council, in both official languages and in an accessible format,
[1] a classified report containing any relevant classified content, if required, and
[2] a report suitable for disclosure to the public with findings and recommendations,
so as to ensure that the Governor in Council may
[1] make available to the leaders of all recognized parties in the House of Commons who have the requisite security clearance, any classified reports as soon as feasible after their receipt, and
[2] make the public report available to the public as soon as feasible after its receipt[.]"
https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=44169&lang=en
I watched the portion of the live cast with James and found the discussion you had after he left to be very interesting. Jen said (and Matt agreed) that “one of the big things we did to our democracy in this country is that we hybridized a (leadership selection) system between a UK Westminster based system and the US Presidential system”.
I disagree.
In the US primary system it is the registered voters in each state who vote directly for the Presidential candidates. This determines the number of delegates that each candidate gets from each state. These are regular voters, the vote is open to all and is not restricted to party members, as is the case here.
In the UK the leadership selection process varies somewhat by party but in all cases MPs are directly involved either by voting for or nominating the initial slate of candidates. After that, the final selection of party leader is made through a voting process that is open only to party members, as it is here.
IMO our parties don’t have a hybrid UK- US system, rather they have a bastardized version of the UK system that has removed the role of MPs from the process and leaves the selection of the leader entirely in the hands of party members. It’s worth noting that our parties have also bastardized the Westminster Parliamentary system by centralizing power in the PMO and removing MPs ability to have an independent voice in Parliament, rendering them (to use Matt’s word) gormless.
Boy oh boy, did Rempel-Garner ever get defensive when Jen critiqued her on the beyond-tiring "Axe the Tax" line! I found myself screaming at the screen to let Jen speak!!!
First thing - great discussion that I listened to last evening and again this morning. I really enjoyed the insights of the first guest (Jamie?) and the back and forth from Michelle Rempel Garner.
Matt, you are a generous human being if you can generate sympathy for JT at this point. This is all self inflicted on his part. I feel sorry for the country, our children and grandchildren who will have to be paying for the debt generated in just a few short years. I feel sorry for the next PM who will have to open the books and see how much worse things are likely to be and then have to deal with all the issues incumbent - the PM that deals with the issues will not be popular during the term in office but history will smile on them eventually. We, as a country, are in for a world of hurt in the next twenty years as we dig ourselves out of the hole that has been dug for us finacially, politically, internationally and as a fine country that did not deserve to be treated as it has been for the last nine years. Even during his 'resignation' speech JT blew smoke at us in claiming that he was proud of the reduction in poverty and that he regretted not changing our electoral system - REALLY???
Jen, you mused aloud about the possibility that JT delayed his (sort of) departure deliberately to create as much havoc as possible. I have commented a couple of times that you should think back to Hitler in the dying months of WWII when he reaqlized that the war was lost but instead of taking any personal responsibility he decided that the country was unworthy of victory - his vision. Like Hitler, JT has decided that the country and party lack the necesary dedication to his vision of the world adn therefore have no reason to exist and must burn for our and their sins respectively. His dedication to burdening the next PM with a massive debt to deal with is just one example. He has allowed this current situation (now 24 hours old) to be created while he smirked in our faces. he could have left a year ago or even six months ago and he wouldnot have left as much damage to the LPC and Canada but he decided that both must be punished and here we are.
We will survive this and come out the other end and not as the 51st state - I like the one time conversion to CDN peso to greenback but I DO NOT WANT ITO BE AN AMERICAN!!!!
I would not at all mind both Canadian and American passports.
Great commentary, guests and analysis. Informative and entertaining. So many possible ways this could play itself out. In the long run this might be the lesson Canadians need to choose our governments more carefully and not be so complacent in gifting mandates over and over to empty suit "brand" names (parties and individuals included). We're going to suffer some real pain in the short term though and a recession may be the least of it.
Now my question is -given how utterly depraved, cynical and devoid of principle the Liberals have become, what are the chances that their new leader runs and wins on a platform to kill the carbon tax prior to its increase on April 1, immediately pauses or permantently exempts GST on new homes and steals other conservative planks and when Parliament reopens in late March tables something that includes requiring a confidence vote (Throne speech, budget, ways and means motion) that requires the Conservatives to vote against it? One could see the NDP passing it to keep themselves relevant but if they don't and the Conservatives vote against it, then the government falls and the Carbon tax increase still comes into effect on April 1 while an election has been called and the Conservatives have to wear their decision to keep it in place during the campaign. Likely not a game changer but its exactly the kind of tactical shithead move the Liberals do so well.
I know that the Line Editors claim to skew right of center, but my goodness it was incredibly refreshing to hear Jen's exasperation with Michelle when she went into full parrot mode (*SQUAWK carbon tax election*). The sharp questioning from the Line Editors (once they could get a word in) was also great, and another reminder of why it's worth subscribing: no one is above being questioned, least of all those who hold political power and influence.
Loved the episode, and loved the format, thanks The Line!
We are sort of "right of centre" ish in our outlook. We are not Big-C Conservative. We're not on anybody's team. JG
Thx so much for going the extra miles GnG. Really appreciated the insights and commentsry during these crazy days.
May we live in interesting times!
Sorry I couldn’t stay up to watch the live podcast, had to get up early for my job. Not much of a job but still it’s a job… Finally watched the full podcast, depressingly entertaining. Keep up the good work and don’t change a thing.
Watched live. Loved all of it, including Matt's display of non-gurumba when it came to the exchange between Jenn and Michelle R-G (And being proud of it too)
For Jenn: never stop challenging CPC. People expect you to call LPC/NDP BS. Glad to see you don't play favs. I think everyone deserves a little Dark Jenn in their lives...
I know what Trump wants/needs for North American’s security. I had an epiphany,when he mentions Russian and Chinese ships. 3 things came together,to help with the puzzle. Matt,with your background in the military you will see it. Jen,watch ‘The Diplomat’ on Netflix. A recent column I read quoting a Canadian General who said “Don’t chase the arrow,go after the bow.” Unfortunately,Canadians as a majority are tree huggers singing “Pussywillows and Cattails” and look at that cute squirrel. We are freeloading on the Americans. For our security. I’ve been to the Arctic Coast,worked on the North Warning system in 1997. From Coral Harbour to Inuvik along the American border. That’s how old that system is. Believe me,we have nothing up there
Jen - Excellent job, and 100% agree, that parties need a robust answer to what is a vision for Canada - please keep pushing parties to be better
I remain confused about why some pundits (Jen) think American across-the-board tariffs would be an immediate disaster for Canada. There is a place for targeted tariffs -- which already exist -- to encourage and protect domestic production. Canada does this with products such as milk and eggs to encourage and protect domestic production. But an across-the-board tariff would immediately increase prices for American consumers, with no immediate increase in domestic production or reduction in imports -- unless American consumers could no longer afford to keep buying cars, lumber, maple syrup etc. Eventually some Canadian exports could be replaced by American producers, but there is no way to replace imports of strategic minerals, crude oil, iron ore, long-fibre pulp, high-quality grain, potash, and similar commodities. Companies that do decide to on-shore production will need time and resources to build plants and train workers. My suspicion is that many will just take the 25 per cent bonus they can claim by passing on import duties to their customers, and increase dividends to their shareholders. Another bonus for MAGA's billionaire benefactors! It remains to be seen how long it will take the "America first" ideologues to figure this out. Intelligence has not been a strong suit so far.