Thanks for an interesting listen. Definitely some different perspectives than my own.
Regarding Mark Bourrie's take on Pierre Poilievre, who he admits to be a having a strong work ethic, but who he suggest has been dogged stubborn in his views. That Poilievre has long held to his principles, I feel is admirable, while Bourrie does not. As a first generation immigrant, who came to Canada as a child, I am well familiar with the character of the immigrants who founded this country. They came with the sole purpose of working hard to create a better life for themselves and their families. They came to seize the opportunities a young country like Canada represents. Pierre Poilievre has captured this, and has not lost the sense of the fabric of the people who make Canada a wonderful country to call home.
On the other hand we have Mark Carney who has for years been either working as a Governor of the Bank of Canada and then the U.K. preceded by working with Goldman Sachs and later Brookfield Asset Management, all the while making the wealthy more wealthy. Also, he is self confessed climate zealot, in fact his still has the extreme climate zealot, Steven Guilbeault, in his cabinet. For years Mark Carney argued for a high carbon tax and less resource development. Now, however, as he runs for political office, he is suddenly embracing and adopting Pierre Poilievre's platforms. So changing views, even if only during an election campaign, is considered more admirable?
Perhaps Pierre Poilievre should have found space for the media on his campaign plane and bus.
Perhaps Pierre Poilievre should have his platform revolve more around Donald Trump. Are those deal breakers? Keep in mind that his rallies are well attended by enthusiastic supporters, much more enthusiastic than anyone around Mark Carney. Lately Pierre Poilievre ends his rallies with his usual list of what he will do to make Canada economically stronger, and then emphasizes this will enable Canada to be in a position of economic strength when negotiating with Trump.
The decision then comes down to who do you trust? Mark Bourrie made clear that with Pierre Poilievre what you see is what you get. For the past six months or more Mark Carney has had the attention and admiration of the media. Our current election campaign is the time for Canadians to determine if what is being promoted is real. Is Mark Carney trustworthy? Given his lapse in judgment concerning Paul Chiang, and considering is pirating of Poilievre's platform. In my biased view, he is very much a wolf in sheep's clothing and thus lacking as a Prime Minister.
I completely agree. At some point in life we all look at past performance, whether it be in sports, investments or governing, to decide how to proceed in the future. The past 10 years has shown us that the Liberals governance has been sorely lacking. They have mismanaged almost every file. I could make a list of their failures but no need, we are all familiar and have watched the train wreck. So now they have changed only the man at the top, but the rest of the ensemble is firmly in place, and their performance has been dismal. The Liberals should not be rewarded for their poor performance of the past decade.
Well said, Tom. We've watched the wreckage of the train. In slow motion and then in all at once as Trudeau resigned. All that's left to ask is: how is this even a race at this point? How is it that we're not all just rolling our eyes at Carney as we wait for the polls to open? What's left to learn?
An update from Kingston, Ontario. Last night I had the awesome experience of attending a Poilievre rally. The energy in the room was so contagious, even if a bit challenging for a senior such as myself.
There were thousands upon thousands of enthusiastic Poilievre supporters parking blocks away from the venue, walking in the windy wet snow weather, and then patiently standing in line to cheer on Poilievre and the Conservative platform.
When pollsters and political pundits say the Conservatives are lagging, they need to attend one of Poilievre's rallies. People are so eager for change.
I like the fact that Mark Bourrie includes a philosophical approach. Rather than looking just at the immediate proposals of both Poilievre and Carney to gain traction he takes a step back. He looks at the trend of rebellion against democracy. In this longer view Poilievre makes him nervous because PP is willing to dismantle things that we might not ever get back.
I can look at a "trend" in the growth of NATO; I can also look at a trend in elections that punished incumbents; here's another trend: Europe planning to re-arm itself along with Japan, and the UK. Here's a trend that isn't happening: malignant narcissists acceding to power in significant numbers. Here's my favourite trend: working class people getting really tired of having to watch plutocratic elites governing in favour of symbolic capitalists instead of everyone. Does Marc Bourrie account for these trends as well, and is that also "philosophical?"
Andrew Coyne has a book coming out this May about Canadian democracy; according to his assessment (in an interview yesterday that you can listen to via The Hub), Canada's democratic institutions are already in bad shape - even "dismantled" somewhat. Can you tell me which institutions Mr Poilievre is promising to dismantle? And how might we not ever get them back?
Interesting take, Warren. I wonder what the problem is with Europe arming itself? Are they to be trusted less than America? By malignant narcissists, are you specifically thinking Trump or would Trudeau fit that description, too? And Carney, too? What politician isn't a narcissist? It almost seems like a prerequisite - more so today than 50 years ago, perhaps, due to TV all other media, including social. Plutocratic elites ... when I think of those two words in the same sentence, I'm thinking WEF and everything I see and read about Carney and Trudeau and the "Laurentian Elite."
And yet, here we are today with polls pointing to a Carney majority. How? Why? Are people blind and stupid, or just naive and childlike?
The purpose of me citing trends (or "trends," if you will) is simply to counter the "trend" Hal Graham cites of a "rebellion," against democracy, along with a through line to Poilievre being "willing to dismantle things we may never get back." Are there anti-democratic planks in Poilievre's platform? No. Does Poilievre occasionally say things at rallies that threaten democratic institutions? No. Does Hal Graham illustrate what things Poilievre is "willing to dismantle?" Not in the least.
So what is Hal Graham - and by his own words, Mark Bourrie - attempting to reinforce here? I would hasten to say he's employing a standard guilt by association rhetoric; "See that thing over there that no one likes? It sure looks like this thing over here. Booooo." Until you actually examine it closely. And the foundation for this thinking is simple bias. Hal Graham doesn't like Poilievre very much, and Mark Bourrie's book allows Mr. Graham to backfill his bias with something that sounds like thought. That's why he says Bourrie is "philosophical," a claim that is not illustrated in any way.
"Poilievre makes him nervous because PP is willing to dismantle things that we might not ever get back." Hope so. A resurrection of a Canadian economy; a reduction in Federal debt would be most welcomed! Do not see it in Carney's bag of bookkeeping tricks.
I tuned into the Bourrie interview a few minutes after the intro and thought he was talking about the Liberals and Trudeau. I had a listen to his blubbering/philosophizing on to finally realize he was talking about Poilievre. My point is that what I think about the Liberals and their attitude about democracy is exactly what this author appears to be opining about the Conservative leader.
I think the rebellion against democracy that Bourrie referred to is international and affecting politics in general. Trudeau and the Liberals would have had their own ways of doing harm to it. Bourrie's evaluation seemed fresh to me. One corrosive development is not acknowledging any good points in the opposition. It is a system wide problem and few politicians seem able to avoid it. I don't think Poilievre recognizes the problem so he's unlikely to fix it.
I wonder if you are open to expanding upon your comment, "trend of rebellion against democracy". From my perspective it looks more like a rebellion against a loss of our democratic rights.
Also, if you could explain exactly what you are referring to when you say that "PP (Pierre Poilievre) is willing to dismantle things that we might not ever get back".
“Rebellion against the loss of democratics rights” is what “progressives” in North America, Europeans, and UK, call “autocracy”. For them, “democracy” is the entrenched technocratic “deep state” order of things. Anything that challenges the technocratic deep state is anti-democratic. If one does not virtue signal allyship with this order of things, one is an “autocrat”.
"it looks more like a rebellion against a loss of democratic rights" is a thoughtful and non-aggressive way of making your point. This helps me see another perspective and we need more of that.
My question regards the MSM media in general, Paul, that u are still a part of, but I’m also one of many listeners who enjoy your Substack. I’m wondering how the $100 million dollar Google fund has not come up in this election. Those cheques “just happened” to be ready for this election.. Seems to me every MSM member is refusing to talk about the fact that subsidies are also an item that should be discussed, but MSM will not address the big white elephant in the room.
In my opinion, the MSM media is fighting for their very lives, their very existence, as PP has indicated the subsidized press will not be funded by a conservative government, hence the coverage has been indicative/skewed.
It will take private podcasts and independent media to shine this light where it needs to be shone. “The Hub” donated the $22K cheque they received to a charity, but the National Post, Globe and Mail, CTV, CBC, and the rest of MSM are receiving millions, just in time to cover an election that they literally have a vested interest in.
Such a great point on the timing, Douglas. Furthermore, the lack of media comment is astounding. I have seen some, but I don't know if you'd call them MSM.
I will give the National Post some credit, though: if they're "bought and paid for" by the media funding, their reporters and columnists sure don't write like it's so.
Question: How was Harper apparently ‘Burke-ian’ in attempting to ‘improve’ rather than kill institutions when he trashed the long form census? And what about setting PP off to create the so-called ‘Fair Elections’ Act (which wasn’t) - that did pass but after major amendments in the Senate?
I wrote a 400-page book about Harper because I couldn’t summarize him in a tweet. You ask reasonable questions. Compared to Poilievre, he was closer to Burke in temperament. Compared to the rebuttals anyone can come up with, less so.
I doubt he would get more involved than he already has. He's had golden opportunities to get involved with previous leaders since he left politics. He demurred. He left politics, despite his loss to the execrable Trudeau, as a champion of conservative (and Conservative) politics. To back the wrong horse without the benefit of the long view would be rash. Harper may be a lot of things, but even his enemies wouldn't say he's rash.
In all seriousness, she's the best at what she does and has more balls than any of her colleagues. It surprises me that CTV tolerates her, though. She's not towing the party line with her lack of bias.
Likewise, one of the reasons I subscribe to Paul Wells, John Ivison, and Terry Glavin is that I have no idea how any of the three would vote based on their writing and interviews. To me, that makes all three true journalists.
Why would a Canadian investment TFSA be harder to implement than flow-through shares? Flow-through shares get messy if the investment doesn't happen, but I haven't heard of rampant abuse of the program, and there is no limitation on the amount.
It seems a better idea than the recurrent Liberal plan to force pensions to invest.
Flow-through shares are a pretty small program compared to giving every Canadian a capital gains exemption based on what they invest on next. The administrative burden seems mind-boggling.
I suspect though that Poilievre doesn’t mind too much if high net worth investors “fleece” the CRA (which collects our tax revenue that pays for all of our benefits and services).
The TFSA would be limited $5,000/year. That is hardly going to thrill the high net worth investors. Mind you, organized crime was able to make billions from the $2,000 month CERB.
CERB was the Canada Emergency Response Benefit that Trudeau and Carney paid out during covid, which was the short form for Coronavirus-19.
Thanks for an interesting listen. Definitely some different perspectives than my own.
Regarding Mark Bourrie's take on Pierre Poilievre, who he admits to be a having a strong work ethic, but who he suggest has been dogged stubborn in his views. That Poilievre has long held to his principles, I feel is admirable, while Bourrie does not. As a first generation immigrant, who came to Canada as a child, I am well familiar with the character of the immigrants who founded this country. They came with the sole purpose of working hard to create a better life for themselves and their families. They came to seize the opportunities a young country like Canada represents. Pierre Poilievre has captured this, and has not lost the sense of the fabric of the people who make Canada a wonderful country to call home.
On the other hand we have Mark Carney who has for years been either working as a Governor of the Bank of Canada and then the U.K. preceded by working with Goldman Sachs and later Brookfield Asset Management, all the while making the wealthy more wealthy. Also, he is self confessed climate zealot, in fact his still has the extreme climate zealot, Steven Guilbeault, in his cabinet. For years Mark Carney argued for a high carbon tax and less resource development. Now, however, as he runs for political office, he is suddenly embracing and adopting Pierre Poilievre's platforms. So changing views, even if only during an election campaign, is considered more admirable?
Perhaps Pierre Poilievre should have found space for the media on his campaign plane and bus.
Perhaps Pierre Poilievre should have his platform revolve more around Donald Trump. Are those deal breakers? Keep in mind that his rallies are well attended by enthusiastic supporters, much more enthusiastic than anyone around Mark Carney. Lately Pierre Poilievre ends his rallies with his usual list of what he will do to make Canada economically stronger, and then emphasizes this will enable Canada to be in a position of economic strength when negotiating with Trump.
The decision then comes down to who do you trust? Mark Bourrie made clear that with Pierre Poilievre what you see is what you get. For the past six months or more Mark Carney has had the attention and admiration of the media. Our current election campaign is the time for Canadians to determine if what is being promoted is real. Is Mark Carney trustworthy? Given his lapse in judgment concerning Paul Chiang, and considering is pirating of Poilievre's platform. In my biased view, he is very much a wolf in sheep's clothing and thus lacking as a Prime Minister.
I completely agree. At some point in life we all look at past performance, whether it be in sports, investments or governing, to decide how to proceed in the future. The past 10 years has shown us that the Liberals governance has been sorely lacking. They have mismanaged almost every file. I could make a list of their failures but no need, we are all familiar and have watched the train wreck. So now they have changed only the man at the top, but the rest of the ensemble is firmly in place, and their performance has been dismal. The Liberals should not be rewarded for their poor performance of the past decade.
Well said, Tom. We've watched the wreckage of the train. In slow motion and then in all at once as Trudeau resigned. All that's left to ask is: how is this even a race at this point? How is it that we're not all just rolling our eyes at Carney as we wait for the polls to open? What's left to learn?
An update from Kingston, Ontario. Last night I had the awesome experience of attending a Poilievre rally. The energy in the room was so contagious, even if a bit challenging for a senior such as myself.
There were thousands upon thousands of enthusiastic Poilievre supporters parking blocks away from the venue, walking in the windy wet snow weather, and then patiently standing in line to cheer on Poilievre and the Conservative platform.
When pollsters and political pundits say the Conservatives are lagging, they need to attend one of Poilievre's rallies. People are so eager for change.
Amen sister.
I like the fact that Mark Bourrie includes a philosophical approach. Rather than looking just at the immediate proposals of both Poilievre and Carney to gain traction he takes a step back. He looks at the trend of rebellion against democracy. In this longer view Poilievre makes him nervous because PP is willing to dismantle things that we might not ever get back.
I can look at a "trend" in the growth of NATO; I can also look at a trend in elections that punished incumbents; here's another trend: Europe planning to re-arm itself along with Japan, and the UK. Here's a trend that isn't happening: malignant narcissists acceding to power in significant numbers. Here's my favourite trend: working class people getting really tired of having to watch plutocratic elites governing in favour of symbolic capitalists instead of everyone. Does Marc Bourrie account for these trends as well, and is that also "philosophical?"
Andrew Coyne has a book coming out this May about Canadian democracy; according to his assessment (in an interview yesterday that you can listen to via The Hub), Canada's democratic institutions are already in bad shape - even "dismantled" somewhat. Can you tell me which institutions Mr Poilievre is promising to dismantle? And how might we not ever get them back?
Interesting take, Warren. I wonder what the problem is with Europe arming itself? Are they to be trusted less than America? By malignant narcissists, are you specifically thinking Trump or would Trudeau fit that description, too? And Carney, too? What politician isn't a narcissist? It almost seems like a prerequisite - more so today than 50 years ago, perhaps, due to TV all other media, including social. Plutocratic elites ... when I think of those two words in the same sentence, I'm thinking WEF and everything I see and read about Carney and Trudeau and the "Laurentian Elite."
And yet, here we are today with polls pointing to a Carney majority. How? Why? Are people blind and stupid, or just naive and childlike?
The purpose of me citing trends (or "trends," if you will) is simply to counter the "trend" Hal Graham cites of a "rebellion," against democracy, along with a through line to Poilievre being "willing to dismantle things we may never get back." Are there anti-democratic planks in Poilievre's platform? No. Does Poilievre occasionally say things at rallies that threaten democratic institutions? No. Does Hal Graham illustrate what things Poilievre is "willing to dismantle?" Not in the least.
So what is Hal Graham - and by his own words, Mark Bourrie - attempting to reinforce here? I would hasten to say he's employing a standard guilt by association rhetoric; "See that thing over there that no one likes? It sure looks like this thing over here. Booooo." Until you actually examine it closely. And the foundation for this thinking is simple bias. Hal Graham doesn't like Poilievre very much, and Mark Bourrie's book allows Mr. Graham to backfill his bias with something that sounds like thought. That's why he says Bourrie is "philosophical," a claim that is not illustrated in any way.
Yes fully agree.
"Poilievre makes him nervous because PP is willing to dismantle things that we might not ever get back." Hope so. A resurrection of a Canadian economy; a reduction in Federal debt would be most welcomed! Do not see it in Carney's bag of bookkeeping tricks.
I like this reply. Definitely not philosophical! It would be a very positive way of governing.
I tuned into the Bourrie interview a few minutes after the intro and thought he was talking about the Liberals and Trudeau. I had a listen to his blubbering/philosophizing on to finally realize he was talking about Poilievre. My point is that what I think about the Liberals and their attitude about democracy is exactly what this author appears to be opining about the Conservative leader.
I think the rebellion against democracy that Bourrie referred to is international and affecting politics in general. Trudeau and the Liberals would have had their own ways of doing harm to it. Bourrie's evaluation seemed fresh to me. One corrosive development is not acknowledging any good points in the opposition. It is a system wide problem and few politicians seem able to avoid it. I don't think Poilievre recognizes the problem so he's unlikely to fix it.
I wonder if you are open to expanding upon your comment, "trend of rebellion against democracy". From my perspective it looks more like a rebellion against a loss of our democratic rights.
Also, if you could explain exactly what you are referring to when you say that "PP (Pierre Poilievre) is willing to dismantle things that we might not ever get back".
“Rebellion against the loss of democratics rights” is what “progressives” in North America, Europeans, and UK, call “autocracy”. For them, “democracy” is the entrenched technocratic “deep state” order of things. Anything that challenges the technocratic deep state is anti-democratic. If one does not virtue signal allyship with this order of things, one is an “autocrat”.
"it looks more like a rebellion against a loss of democratic rights" is a thoughtful and non-aggressive way of making your point. This helps me see another perspective and we need more of that.
My question regards the MSM media in general, Paul, that u are still a part of, but I’m also one of many listeners who enjoy your Substack. I’m wondering how the $100 million dollar Google fund has not come up in this election. Those cheques “just happened” to be ready for this election.. Seems to me every MSM member is refusing to talk about the fact that subsidies are also an item that should be discussed, but MSM will not address the big white elephant in the room.
In my opinion, the MSM media is fighting for their very lives, their very existence, as PP has indicated the subsidized press will not be funded by a conservative government, hence the coverage has been indicative/skewed.
It will take private podcasts and independent media to shine this light where it needs to be shone. “The Hub” donated the $22K cheque they received to a charity, but the National Post, Globe and Mail, CTV, CBC, and the rest of MSM are receiving millions, just in time to cover an election that they literally have a vested interest in.
Am I being paranoid, or realistic?
Such a great point on the timing, Douglas. Furthermore, the lack of media comment is astounding. I have seen some, but I don't know if you'd call them MSM.
I will give the National Post some credit, though: if they're "bought and paid for" by the media funding, their reporters and columnists sure don't write like it's so.
Question: How was Harper apparently ‘Burke-ian’ in attempting to ‘improve’ rather than kill institutions when he trashed the long form census? And what about setting PP off to create the so-called ‘Fair Elections’ Act (which wasn’t) - that did pass but after major amendments in the Senate?
I wrote a 400-page book about Harper because I couldn’t summarize him in a tweet. You ask reasonable questions. Compared to Poilievre, he was closer to Burke in temperament. Compared to the rebuttals anyone can come up with, less so.
I bought that book. I enjoyed reading it. Do you think Harper will get involved in the campaign?
I doubt he would get more involved than he already has. He's had golden opportunities to get involved with previous leaders since he left politics. He demurred. He left politics, despite his loss to the execrable Trudeau, as a champion of conservative (and Conservative) politics. To back the wrong horse without the benefit of the long view would be rash. Harper may be a lot of things, but even his enemies wouldn't say he's rash.
‘balsam wood glider’!!!! good one Paul.
Yay vassy!!!! lol
I like Vassy. She always asks tough questions. When she says, "with all due respect..." you know that she has caught the interviewee off guard.
she's a gem :)
You're just saying that because you're Greek. :)
In all seriousness, she's the best at what she does and has more balls than any of her colleagues. It surprises me that CTV tolerates her, though. She's not towing the party line with her lack of bias.
Likewise, one of the reasons I subscribe to Paul Wells, John Ivison, and Terry Glavin is that I have no idea how any of the three would vote based on their writing and interviews. To me, that makes all three true journalists.
Love the light to heat ratio in this episode.
Why would a Canadian investment TFSA be harder to implement than flow-through shares? Flow-through shares get messy if the investment doesn't happen, but I haven't heard of rampant abuse of the program, and there is no limitation on the amount.
It seems a better idea than the recurrent Liberal plan to force pensions to invest.
Flow-through shares are a pretty small program compared to giving every Canadian a capital gains exemption based on what they invest on next. The administrative burden seems mind-boggling.
I suspect though that Poilievre doesn’t mind too much if high net worth investors “fleece” the CRA (which collects our tax revenue that pays for all of our benefits and services).
The TFSA would be limited $5,000/year. That is hardly going to thrill the high net worth investors. Mind you, organized crime was able to make billions from the $2,000 month CERB.
CERB was the Canada Emergency Response Benefit that Trudeau and Carney paid out during covid, which was the short form for Coronavirus-19.
Thanks Paul for another excellent podcast.