I use Outlook and Windows on my laptop. There is no Transcript button to be found.
I click on the headline in the email "Election week 3: the age of coercion", and it opens up a window and there I see the Transcript button, basically as shown by Paul.
The key is to open the email in a browser, and this is not intuitve. Some newsletters I get have a "View in Browser" link.
There is a "Read in App" button but I don't want to read it in a app, I am on a laptop and I want to read it in a browser. And I really do as it allows me to scroll down easier.
On Safari browser on an iphone, transcript button is just ABOVE the post title, next to the “Open in App” button.
The reason I’m in a browser is because I deleted the Substack app when they introduced the infinite scroll and Notes. I came here to try to recover my ability to read, to get out of the dopamine/rage-triggering cycle of other social media. And then they went and introduced (some) of that into the Substack app! Corey Doctorow is right about “enshittification”. The financial incentives to do the socially-damaging monetization things are so powerful that all websites eventually succumb. Anyway my small act of resistance and self-preservation is to just use the website, not the app.
You have really got me thinking about following your lead on this move away from the app. I am increasingly reminded of the user experience on Twitter/X. Thanks for the nudge.
When the topic of bullying came up in your discussion with Michael Wernick I couldn't help but think of Jody Wilson Raybould. During the SNC Lavalin affair Mr. Wernick was one of many who tried to get her to change her mind on the prosecution of SNC. He warned her that PM Trudeau was "in one of his moods." In this interview he says that "if you make them feel bullied and anxious and uncertain, that stays for a long time." I wonder if Mr. Wernick has reached out to JWR since those dark days to find out how she is doing.
I listened to that taped phone call twice. "In one of his moods" could just as easily have been heard to signal "we're in this together". That's how I heard it. And I was puzzled by the immediate opposite reaction. Does JWR say anywhere how she heard it?
Finding the transcript button isn't intuitive, but it is easy. On my PC desktop computer (WIN 10), using Gmail, I do as follows. On the first page of the email from Paul Wells, I click on the podcast button, roughly in the middle of the button - really, anywhere other than the 'Play' icon, which I avoid. That brings up the podcast page rather than actually launching the podcast. The transcript button is easily found on that page. Unfortunately I have not figured out how to post a screenshot here, although Paul says it can be done. On today's podcast page, look for the reference to 'And Shannon Proudfoot". You will see the transcript button a few lines below 'Proudfoot'.
Slightly ridiculous: It's impossible to post screenshots in the comment threads, but easy to do it on Substack Notes. I was going to port this whole Find-The-Transcript-Button thread over to Notes, but since my goal was to help readers who aren't digitally native, I figured that wouldn't go well.
On an iPad, I open the email from you Paul, I click the photo at the top or the “listen now” bar immediate Below the photo and what pops up is a copy of the photo, followed by the your name, and immediately below that below and just to the right are buttons marked “share” and “transcript”. Click on transcript and you are there. I realize it is counterintuitive to read what you are asking to “listen to” but that works for me.
Mr. W., you and Ms. Proudfoot talk about PP "insufficiently" criticizing Trump and instead concentrating on the LPC and NDP.
I respectfully (really!) submit that the two of you have your heads up somewhere dark.
Why you ask? Well, I am glad to provide you with my response.
First off, PP has made clear his opposition to what Trump is saying and has done to Canada and indicating that he will strongly resist. Then, he talks about the LPC/NDP record over the last number of years and how that record has so weakened Canada that Canada is now greatly unable to deal with the tariffs, etc.
Clearly, the weakened economy and the structural impediments that the LPC/NDP assemblage over the last nine (very) odd years has a) greatly financially weakened Canada; b) made recovery very difficult; and c) ignored many problems of long standing nature (e.g. interprovincial trade issues). PP can go on about DJT endlessly and can, in fact, greatly insult DJT as did Trudeau [and look where that got Trudeau and, more particularly, Canada: stupidity about fifty-first state] but prudence indicates, well, prudence.
So, PP has made his position on Trump clear but he also is making clear how he will clear out the detritus of the last nine years in order to re-invigorate the Canadian economy so as to make Canada more able to deal with Trump and his potential successors.
So, I submit - again, respectfully - that you need to get your heads back in the light and consider that, to use a football metaphor, [I DO dislike sports metaphors but that is where I am today], sometimes the best defense is a really good offense that allows you to keep the ball away from the opposition. Translated, that means that one must forcefully deal with Trump et al but the most important thing is to make sure that Canada is sufficiently strong to allow us to go where and how we wish, something that the LPC/NDP assemblage has made really, really difficult.
Now, to overall comment on the podcast: pretty doggone good; all three guests were informative and provocative. I absolute agree that all party leaders are making promises that the next government just cannot - and should not! - cash. The promises on offer from the LPC and CPC sound, in this straightened environment, absolutely like NDP promises of old: stupid things that cannot be afforded and that would strangle future generations with costs and debt for "allegedly nice" things. Just as one (of many) example, I want my taxes reduced - who doesn't? - but the country simply cannot afford it; so they really shouldn't promise that. You know guys [i.e. PP and Carney], just be honest and admit the cupboard is bare; sometimes honesty works.
Many of us don’t know people with hard drug addictions so I think we can tend to ‘other’ them as somehow deserving their fate when in fact they should be treated with the same contentiousness and dignity that we bestow on sufferers, for example, of cardiac and cancer issues.
We also do this to people with other mental health issues and I was thinking recently how this relates to the newfound zeal to address internal trade barriers — the rationale being that they incur an economic cost not worth paying.
Similarly, unaddressed or suboptimally addressed mental health conditions are a large economic cost (in the form of lost hours of work, legal system costs and impact on children for example).
What I’m getting at is that we shouldn’t stop at internal trade. There are other massive opportunities in mental health treatment and pro-housing policy to stoke the economic engine and strengthen the social fabric.
Geoff Meggs admits there is a drug problem in BC with high rates of use, high rates of overdose, hydromorphine being diverted to teenagers and higher crime rates, but then defends the BC NDP policies and the federal approval of decriminalization and says the policies did not contribute to the problems. I couldn't disagree more. Also he says that Poilievre's plan to put drug dealers in jail for longer, and to put programs in place to help "only" 50,000 addicts, are poor policy proposals. Again I couldn't disagree more. Finally he says the logging and forestry problems in BC are because of U.S. softwood tariffs, when in fact the BC NDP have been actively trying to shut down the industry with their rules and regulations for years, and forestry companies like West Fraser and Canfor have been closing mills and laying off people and have been investing heavily in their operations south of the border because of NDP policy.
Countries that are financing U.S. debt aren't doing it out of the goodness of their heart, they are putting their money where it will get the best return with the least amount of risk. It is the most basic of financial transactions.
My recollection of the sequence of events is that Justin Trudeau made a response about Trump's tariffs to the effect that Canada's economy would be killed, after which Trump quipped that Canada should become a U.S. state. Dominic Leblanc wrote it off as a joke, but Trudeau and others, assisted by the media, escalated it.
I see at least 3 explanations for where we are today:
1.) the Trump team always had a plan to annex Canada, and the Mar-a-Lago "joke" let the cat out of the bag.
2.) the Mar-a-Lago "joke" was just a joke, but the perceived belief in it by Canadian politicians lead the Trump team that it was, in fact, a possibility.
3.) the Mar-a-Lago "joke" was just a joke, but the perceived belief in it by Canadian politicians lead the Trump team to continue the joke in the U.S. media while they privately laugh at us.
4.) the Mar-a-Lago joke was seized upon by the Liberal team to make a national threat out of it so they (the politicians) could get positive media coverage as Canada's sovereignty warriors.
Now, polls tell us that the Trump threat is the biggest issue among Canadian voters, surpassing domestic issues, and that Mark Carney is the favoured PM to deal with it.
I can understand why the Liberal campaign team are promoting the Trump "threat", but if independent influencers steer public opinion towards scenarios 1.) and 2.) above, is it because they actually believe it?
I've seen you talk about this a number of times, Neil, and to answer your question, I completely believe Trump intends to, at the very least, wage a trade war that will hurt the Canadian economy with the goal of placing "economic pressure" on Canada to become the 51st state (or, likelier, a territory - no way he's granting statehood). One way to know he intends to do that is that he is doing that.
Trump's aggressive, brash persona is something you usually only see in insult comics, so friend and foe experience a lot of cognitive dissonance: "*What* did he just say? Well, that's ridiculous! He must be joking!" You ever hear him make a joke? You ever hear him laugh? Does he seem like a mirthful fellow to you? You're putting way too much weight on "well, Dom LeBlanc was so startled by the president saying something so ridiculous that he briefly thought it was a joke" as evidence that it must have been a joke.
You can easily research the history of opioid abuse as a major social issue going back in Vancouver into the 1950s. Having visited the city many times between 1997 and 2008, the problem seems just as intense then as now.
The demographics have shifted. Opiods are a huge problem in rural and small-town North America. Vermont's addiction rate is through the roof. Eight years ago when I was articling in Eastern Ontario, colleagues practicing criminal law were telling me the local drug menu had been drastiaclly re-written in recent years. I remember the big recession of the early 1980s. I was unfortunate enough to be trying to start a career at the time. That was the beginning of modern food banks. We didn't have anywhere near the number of addicted unhoused people on city and small-town streets and camping on secluded vacant land in Ontario. The trend started in the late 1990s and accelerated in the 2010s. Another difference is that heroin and morphine were the opiods of the 1950s, which makes sense when you know ho many wounded soldiers were given morphine during the Second World War, and that trade from Asia got back on its feet in the 1950s. These opiods are different. They're cheaper, the doses are smaller, and they can be made here.
Thanks for your detailed reply, sorry I didn't see it till now.
I agree with what you're saying in fact. And I'm pretty sure that the homeless and addicted kids I'm seeing in the small town where I currently live were not around in the same numbers 10 years ago. Certainly they were never this visible. And I understand the drugs themselves are much scarier.
But I lived in big Canadian cities before fentanyl, and walked on the streets that people complain are now really scary. This is not new. They were scary then. But one of the things that is new is some kind of strange fervour to just make the ugliness go away. It makes me fear for the people who are victims of the drugs and lack of decent care as much as the rest of us are victims of the resulting disorder.
I don't remember in a detailed way what my response was about, but I'm pretty sure it would have been intended to help lower the temperature.
I am interested in how Question Period will or will not change once the elected candidates face each other in parliament and how the Speaker is treated. I'll be watching!
Proudfoot is amazing. When I was researching for my own project, I was so impressed with her work at Maclean's and the Globe.
I use Outlook and Windows on my laptop. There is no Transcript button to be found.
I click on the headline in the email "Election week 3: the age of coercion", and it opens up a window and there I see the Transcript button, basically as shown by Paul.
The key is to open the email in a browser, and this is not intuitve. Some newsletters I get have a "View in Browser" link.
There is a "Read in App" button but I don't want to read it in a app, I am on a laptop and I want to read it in a browser. And I really do as it allows me to scroll down easier.
I hope this helps.
This is key. You will not see the Transcript button in the email. You have to click through to the web version as described above.
On Safari browser on an iphone, transcript button is just ABOVE the post title, next to the “Open in App” button.
The reason I’m in a browser is because I deleted the Substack app when they introduced the infinite scroll and Notes. I came here to try to recover my ability to read, to get out of the dopamine/rage-triggering cycle of other social media. And then they went and introduced (some) of that into the Substack app! Corey Doctorow is right about “enshittification”. The financial incentives to do the socially-damaging monetization things are so powerful that all websites eventually succumb. Anyway my small act of resistance and self-preservation is to just use the website, not the app.
You have really got me thinking about following your lead on this move away from the app. I am increasingly reminded of the user experience on Twitter/X. Thanks for the nudge.
When the topic of bullying came up in your discussion with Michael Wernick I couldn't help but think of Jody Wilson Raybould. During the SNC Lavalin affair Mr. Wernick was one of many who tried to get her to change her mind on the prosecution of SNC. He warned her that PM Trudeau was "in one of his moods." In this interview he says that "if you make them feel bullied and anxious and uncertain, that stays for a long time." I wonder if Mr. Wernick has reached out to JWR since those dark days to find out how she is doing.
I listened to that taped phone call twice. "In one of his moods" could just as easily have been heard to signal "we're in this together". That's how I heard it. And I was puzzled by the immediate opposite reaction. Does JWR say anywhere how she heard it?
But wait a moment: that is talking about the LPC record. Can't have that!
Finding the transcript button isn't intuitive, but it is easy. On my PC desktop computer (WIN 10), using Gmail, I do as follows. On the first page of the email from Paul Wells, I click on the podcast button, roughly in the middle of the button - really, anywhere other than the 'Play' icon, which I avoid. That brings up the podcast page rather than actually launching the podcast. The transcript button is easily found on that page. Unfortunately I have not figured out how to post a screenshot here, although Paul says it can be done. On today's podcast page, look for the reference to 'And Shannon Proudfoot". You will see the transcript button a few lines below 'Proudfoot'.
Blair Mackenzie
Slightly ridiculous: It's impossible to post screenshots in the comment threads, but easy to do it on Substack Notes. I was going to port this whole Find-The-Transcript-Button thread over to Notes, but since my goal was to help readers who aren't digitally native, I figured that wouldn't go well.
heckuva groupa guests!!
shannon is the coolest imho. and literally always on point.
"used to work together at... a magazine" lol
On an iPad, I open the email from you Paul, I click the photo at the top or the “listen now” bar immediate Below the photo and what pops up is a copy of the photo, followed by the your name, and immediately below that below and just to the right are buttons marked “share” and “transcript”. Click on transcript and you are there. I realize it is counterintuitive to read what you are asking to “listen to” but that works for me.
That worked for me. Thanks for the tip.
Mr. W., you and Ms. Proudfoot talk about PP "insufficiently" criticizing Trump and instead concentrating on the LPC and NDP.
I respectfully (really!) submit that the two of you have your heads up somewhere dark.
Why you ask? Well, I am glad to provide you with my response.
First off, PP has made clear his opposition to what Trump is saying and has done to Canada and indicating that he will strongly resist. Then, he talks about the LPC/NDP record over the last number of years and how that record has so weakened Canada that Canada is now greatly unable to deal with the tariffs, etc.
Clearly, the weakened economy and the structural impediments that the LPC/NDP assemblage over the last nine (very) odd years has a) greatly financially weakened Canada; b) made recovery very difficult; and c) ignored many problems of long standing nature (e.g. interprovincial trade issues). PP can go on about DJT endlessly and can, in fact, greatly insult DJT as did Trudeau [and look where that got Trudeau and, more particularly, Canada: stupidity about fifty-first state] but prudence indicates, well, prudence.
So, PP has made his position on Trump clear but he also is making clear how he will clear out the detritus of the last nine years in order to re-invigorate the Canadian economy so as to make Canada more able to deal with Trump and his potential successors.
So, I submit - again, respectfully - that you need to get your heads back in the light and consider that, to use a football metaphor, [I DO dislike sports metaphors but that is where I am today], sometimes the best defense is a really good offense that allows you to keep the ball away from the opposition. Translated, that means that one must forcefully deal with Trump et al but the most important thing is to make sure that Canada is sufficiently strong to allow us to go where and how we wish, something that the LPC/NDP assemblage has made really, really difficult.
Now, to overall comment on the podcast: pretty doggone good; all three guests were informative and provocative. I absolute agree that all party leaders are making promises that the next government just cannot - and should not! - cash. The promises on offer from the LPC and CPC sound, in this straightened environment, absolutely like NDP promises of old: stupid things that cannot be afforded and that would strangle future generations with costs and debt for "allegedly nice" things. Just as one (of many) example, I want my taxes reduced - who doesn't? - but the country simply cannot afford it; so they really shouldn't promise that. You know guys [i.e. PP and Carney], just be honest and admit the cupboard is bare; sometimes honesty works.
Love how you said this even though I don't agree with what you said. Wells' comment section is the best!
Fantastic episode. Just chockablock with good stuff.
One thought as I was listening to the BC segment:
I wish we wouldn’t stigmatize and moralize our fellow citizens who struggle with drug addiction by denying them treatment approaches that actually work. For example with a quick search I learned about this https://www.med.ubc.ca/news/methadone-more-effective-for-treatment-retention-than-buprenorphine-naloxone/
Many of us don’t know people with hard drug addictions so I think we can tend to ‘other’ them as somehow deserving their fate when in fact they should be treated with the same contentiousness and dignity that we bestow on sufferers, for example, of cardiac and cancer issues.
We also do this to people with other mental health issues and I was thinking recently how this relates to the newfound zeal to address internal trade barriers — the rationale being that they incur an economic cost not worth paying.
Similarly, unaddressed or suboptimally addressed mental health conditions are a large economic cost (in the form of lost hours of work, legal system costs and impact on children for example).
What I’m getting at is that we shouldn’t stop at internal trade. There are other massive opportunities in mental health treatment and pro-housing policy to stoke the economic engine and strengthen the social fabric.
Geoff Meggs admits there is a drug problem in BC with high rates of use, high rates of overdose, hydromorphine being diverted to teenagers and higher crime rates, but then defends the BC NDP policies and the federal approval of decriminalization and says the policies did not contribute to the problems. I couldn't disagree more. Also he says that Poilievre's plan to put drug dealers in jail for longer, and to put programs in place to help "only" 50,000 addicts, are poor policy proposals. Again I couldn't disagree more. Finally he says the logging and forestry problems in BC are because of U.S. softwood tariffs, when in fact the BC NDP have been actively trying to shut down the industry with their rules and regulations for years, and forestry companies like West Fraser and Canfor have been closing mills and laying off people and have been investing heavily in their operations south of the border because of NDP policy.
Would like your take on this post? Thanks
Post copied:
Mark Carney: The Brilliant Move That Put Trump on Notice (from VoteReggie.ca) -
Remember when Mark Carney increased Canada’s holdings of U.S. Treasury Bonds while the world braced for Trump’s trade wars and annexation talk?
Might have missed it — boring news, really… except it wasn’t boring at all.
This wasn’t just about safeguarding Canada’s economy.
It was strategy. Leverage. Precision.
A masterclass in financial diplomacy that went mostly unnoticed.
While most headlines missed it, Carney was in the EU, not for optics, but strategy. Quiet meetings. Big players. Plans laid.
If things went off the rails, Canada was ready — and wouldn’t act alone.
A coordinated, calm off-loading of U.S. Treasury Bonds.
Not a panic. A precision strike.
The kind of move that makes the markets listen.
Then came the Carney–Trump call. And the message landed:
Hurt us, and we’ll hurt you — economically.
Dumping U.S. debt? Canada could start it. Others would follow.
The U.S. dollar? Sinks like a rock.
And suddenly, Trump knew how to say “Prime Minister.”
That’s not noise.
That’s financial deterrence.
That’s how global respect is earned.
So while Trump was yelling about Canada being “delinquent” on NATO payments, here’s what he left out:
Countries like Canada, Japan, and China are financing the U.S. government — including its military.
As of early 2025:
• Foreign countries hold $8.53 trillion in U.S. debt
• Canada holds over $350 billion
So… who’s really getting the free ride?
Carney didn’t just buy bonds. He gave Canada a seat at the power table — and a grip on the lever that could shift global economics.
Trump talks tough.
Mark Carney moves markets.
⸻
Fact Check It:
For those who want to dig deeper, search the following:
• “U.S. Department of the Treasury Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities site:home.treasury.gov”
• “Canada U.S. Treasury bond holdings August 2024 genspark ai”
• “Trump Canada delinquent NATO 2019 site: global news
Countries that are financing U.S. debt aren't doing it out of the goodness of their heart, they are putting their money where it will get the best return with the least amount of risk. It is the most basic of financial transactions.
My recollection of the sequence of events is that Justin Trudeau made a response about Trump's tariffs to the effect that Canada's economy would be killed, after which Trump quipped that Canada should become a U.S. state. Dominic Leblanc wrote it off as a joke, but Trudeau and others, assisted by the media, escalated it.
I see at least 3 explanations for where we are today:
1.) the Trump team always had a plan to annex Canada, and the Mar-a-Lago "joke" let the cat out of the bag.
2.) the Mar-a-Lago "joke" was just a joke, but the perceived belief in it by Canadian politicians lead the Trump team that it was, in fact, a possibility.
3.) the Mar-a-Lago "joke" was just a joke, but the perceived belief in it by Canadian politicians lead the Trump team to continue the joke in the U.S. media while they privately laugh at us.
4.) the Mar-a-Lago joke was seized upon by the Liberal team to make a national threat out of it so they (the politicians) could get positive media coverage as Canada's sovereignty warriors.
Now, polls tell us that the Trump threat is the biggest issue among Canadian voters, surpassing domestic issues, and that Mark Carney is the favoured PM to deal with it.
I can understand why the Liberal campaign team are promoting the Trump "threat", but if independent influencers steer public opinion towards scenarios 1.) and 2.) above, is it because they actually believe it?
I've seen you talk about this a number of times, Neil, and to answer your question, I completely believe Trump intends to, at the very least, wage a trade war that will hurt the Canadian economy with the goal of placing "economic pressure" on Canada to become the 51st state (or, likelier, a territory - no way he's granting statehood). One way to know he intends to do that is that he is doing that.
Trump's aggressive, brash persona is something you usually only see in insult comics, so friend and foe experience a lot of cognitive dissonance: "*What* did he just say? Well, that's ridiculous! He must be joking!" You ever hear him make a joke? You ever hear him laugh? Does he seem like a mirthful fellow to you? You're putting way too much weight on "well, Dom LeBlanc was so startled by the president saying something so ridiculous that he briefly thought it was a joke" as evidence that it must have been a joke.
Ok, George, I'll put you into the camp that says it was Trump's plan all along.
He's said it many, many times, not just once at Mar a Largo.
You can easily research the history of opioid abuse as a major social issue going back in Vancouver into the 1950s. Having visited the city many times between 1997 and 2008, the problem seems just as intense then as now.
Thanks for reminding everyone of this. I don't understand why our understanding is so ahistorical.
The demographics have shifted. Opiods are a huge problem in rural and small-town North America. Vermont's addiction rate is through the roof. Eight years ago when I was articling in Eastern Ontario, colleagues practicing criminal law were telling me the local drug menu had been drastiaclly re-written in recent years. I remember the big recession of the early 1980s. I was unfortunate enough to be trying to start a career at the time. That was the beginning of modern food banks. We didn't have anywhere near the number of addicted unhoused people on city and small-town streets and camping on secluded vacant land in Ontario. The trend started in the late 1990s and accelerated in the 2010s. Another difference is that heroin and morphine were the opiods of the 1950s, which makes sense when you know ho many wounded soldiers were given morphine during the Second World War, and that trade from Asia got back on its feet in the 1950s. These opiods are different. They're cheaper, the doses are smaller, and they can be made here.
Thanks for your detailed reply, sorry I didn't see it till now.
I agree with what you're saying in fact. And I'm pretty sure that the homeless and addicted kids I'm seeing in the small town where I currently live were not around in the same numbers 10 years ago. Certainly they were never this visible. And I understand the drugs themselves are much scarier.
But I lived in big Canadian cities before fentanyl, and walked on the streets that people complain are now really scary. This is not new. They were scary then. But one of the things that is new is some kind of strange fervour to just make the ugliness go away. It makes me fear for the people who are victims of the drugs and lack of decent care as much as the rest of us are victims of the resulting disorder.
I don't remember in a detailed way what my response was about, but I'm pretty sure it would have been intended to help lower the temperature.
Another informative show.....thank you!
I am interested in how Question Period will or will not change once the elected candidates face each other in parliament and how the Speaker is treated. I'll be watching!
Can’t find it. email opens Substack on iPad…no transcription button or options.
No transcript button on Android