Nice person. But I don't see any major pivot, no hint at dealing with the existential crisis that we're in now, just same old, same old "we're listening to Canadians, we'll twiddle a few knobs, adjust the furniture, etc."
It is pretty rich of Ms Gould to piously inform us that "all Canadians have to stick together" when her party has been so divisive and used wedge issues to get elected. Western Canada begs to differ.
What's objectively "divisive" about the federal Liberals? Running on a wedge issue is not inherently "divisive", since no other political party is forced to agree or disagree on whichever issue in question.
Karina Gould listens to and responds to the actual question (as far as I could tell). Her replies seemed fresh and interesting and not just an attempt to avoid trouble. I consider this interview a service to us as Canadians. Thank you.
Thank you for making the interview happen. I enjoy her poise and refreshing self-reflection. The interviews I have heard (and there are not many) have shown a calm person that does not shy away from correcting the record, acknowledging poor decisions in the past by government, and a good load of political acumen. She could be accused of being too nice, but we sure need more of that in this day and age. I am hopeful for her future in the long-term.
I should add a note that I am not typically a supporter of a party but rather of the MP that represents me in Parliament - a quaint notion in this day and age of "presidential" politics. If she was running as my MP she would get my vote. But then I am getting old! LOL
Gould’s interview still proves that the Liberals care about party first and country last.
Her party tuned out Canadians for much longer than 6 to 8 months post-covid. They ignored Canadian concerns and challenges for almost 2 solid years! Remember when inflation, housing, and groceries were getting out of control? What was this idiotic party doing in Parliament in May 2023 before the summer break? They were fixated for weeks on the Online News Act (Bill C-18) and publicly complaining that Zukerberg and Google weren’t in support. Housing be damned, citizens.
The bulk of her ideas (aside from forming a citizens assembly regarding electoral reform) are simply tweaks to Trudeau’s mandate. She still thinks the carbon tax is a “communication issue” and needs a better “story”.
Also, her comment on “loyalty” is a direct swipe at Freeland (who I’m no fan of, but we should all thank for finally getting Trudeau to resign). At least Freeland was courageous and finally stopped being a lemming for Trudeau.
Honestly, no she wasn't. Her mandate letter when she got the job said, Don't pursue electoral reform. There's not a lot of wiggle room there. And I mean, we spend five minutes in the interview talking about this very point, so feel free to check that out.
Thanks for this, Paul. I always find it funny that so many people complain about the death of government by cabinet, and simultaneously blame ministers for things that happen nominally under their purview. The prime minister dropped electoral reform; it really doesn't matter who happened to be minister at the time.
None, they all want to win and no one outside of Quebec takes notice.
In 1982 I left Quebec and put a bumper sticker on my car, once over the border. I drove across the country to BC, the sticker I made said “ This is illegal in Quebec”, one person in Calgary asked what was illegal and I said that any English only sign was not allowed in Quebec, he had no idea.
As a former Montrealer myself, I follow QC politics very closely, and I also do my best to tell folks, who may not be aware, of the very real issues anglophone Québécois are facing. Unfortunately, the situation is now far worse than it was in 1982. However, I also do believe that more and more people in the ROC have become aware.
I can never forget her explanation of how we "make every vote count... One two three... " Such an inane response! As far I can tell, she's still a clueless ladder climber.
Mr Wells:- Don't worry about the Grit no-shows:--> Carney is franticly honing his "en francais". Your fav. ...> Ms Gould will survive the coming Fed. Election:--on May5, 2025.
Poillievre will be Majority PM of Canada Peter D. Marshall in Oakville
I am not surprised at the reluctance to answer direct questions on the part of both Freeland and Carney. Liberal success at the polls depends heavily creating an image without any substance. This strategy depends upon the cooperation of the legacy media and government funded media such as the CBC.
The 1% cut in the GST wouldn't really make much difference in affordability. Groceries are already exempt. The forgone income for the government could be put to better use, for instance on military spending.
It was a relief to hear Ms. Gould refuse to endorse a "middle-class income tax cut" -- they have never worked and never will but always increase inequality. (Ref. https://erwindreessen.substack.com/p/once-again-tax-cuts-dont-work). Her proposal to support a GST tax cut, on the other hand, well, as you noted: The government needs more revenue so a GST increase would make more sense (with equity-targeted rebates).
On several other topics as well she had a bit of a refreshing perspective, so I thank you, Paul, for this interview. On electoral reform, however, while her support for a Citizens' Assembly is welcome, I believe she misrepresented the outcome of the Special Committee's work. It agreed on more than no compulsory vote and and no electronic vote. They actually agreed on proportional representation. The Conservatives, however, insisted that there had to be a referendum.
It is solely Mr. Trudeau's lying by omission in the 2015 campaign -- not saying that the only reform he'd accept would be the so-called Alternative Vote -- that is the cause of this setback. Worse, to this day the Liberals defend that option, knowing full-well that it would tend to favour a middle-of-the-road party like the Liberals.
Too bad electoral reform is not one of the topics chosen for the Leadership debates. It would have been interesting to know the candidates' views on this. And so Ms. Gould now agrees with the Conservatives?
I was mistaken: It's the Liberals who filed a minority report to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, claiming there was no consensus -- a line they've been using ever since. In a desperate effort to move forward, the Greens and NDP agreed with the Conservatives on holding a referendum.
Ms. Gould styles herself as a progressive. It would have been interesting to explore that, especially as the electorate in Canada as in many other countries seems to be shifting leftward, or at least away from progressivism.
You did ask about two policies which, I guess, can be seen as progressive. First, the temporary reduction in the GST. I remember how vocal the Liberals were when Stephen Harper cut the GST from 7% to 5%. In retrospect, was that a good move? Also, Ms. Gould supports some level of carbon tax, saying that economists support it as an efficient way to cut carbon emissions. But economists also generally support consumption taxes as superior to income taxes (for favoring savings and investment). Do we no longer rely on economsist when their recommendations are not progressive enough? (Consumption taxes can be made to be progressive.)
Second, Ms. Gould would increase corporate income taxes on large corporations. There is a general consensus that this would decrease investment by private sector, and hence hurt Canada's productivity. Does this worry Ms. Gould?
Finally, when she announced her candidacy, he set out a third policy -- enshrining in law that supply management would never be on the table during trade negotiations. Does Ms. Gould still promote that policy?
Good questions. Honestly I find the rush to cut GST horrifying, as a part-time member of the Economists Party. And I did gently suggest in this interview that there simply isn't enough revenue to pay for the government Liberals want to provide. I haven't done the math, but I'd be surprised if her tax on large corporations does much to close recent deficits.
In general: I can't debate my interview subjects on everything, but I can rely on readers to spot the weaknesses in everyone's arguments, as they usually do.
I am afraid that you are absolutely right, and that the GST is going up. Or our debt is going up, up, up; and I suspect capital markets will disapprove of that, as they did in the mid 1990s. You can't vote or borrow yourself rich, despite the efforts of the last decade.
Excellent interview, Paul. I would love to have someone ask a Liberal if they feel pot-committed with their climate hysteria or if they TRULY believe that paying taxes will save the earth.
Every country in the world both resists and responds to peer pressure. There's a world of difference between a world where Canada becomes a role model for reducing CO2 emissions in an economically-efficient way, and a world where Canada is actively making a virtue of lazy inaction and mocking other countries who can be bothered to even try.
Tom, I'm nobody in the Liberal Party, but for me, as a Liberal, two things can be true:
1. I'm absolutely pot-committed with my climate hysteria.
2. I think this issue is actually so serious, and that we're so far gone, that there's not too much the 37th-most-populous country in the world can do about it.
Every country in the world both resists and responds to peer pressure. There's a world of difference between a world where Canada becomes a role model for reducing CO2 emissions in an economically-efficient way, and a world where Canada is actively making a virtue of lazy inaction and mocking other countries who can be bothered to even try.
If I understand what you wrote correctly, you read campaign literature and other interviews and decided not to interview Frank Baylis. Perhaps you could have unearthed some interesting information. I guess we'll never know.
I'm a little surprised this isn't obvious, but I'm not running a 200-person newsroom here. I have finite time and resources and I make decisions all the time about how to allocate them. Sorry I don't have a recipes section either.
You were also just so damned unequivocal in your initial post that you'd interview *any* Liberal leadership candidate, damn the torpedoes, which made this a bit of a shock, but also...it's Frank Baylis. I agree that you, and we, aren't missing much.
Ok: so … no recipes section. But how about some sports? Kelly is ‘too good to be true’ ( most excellent) … but some high powered competition could be attractive
You're a hop and a skip from a cooking segment on your Christmas variety show. That's a weird part of this accursed timeline that I can get behind.
Back in reality, it makes sense to prioritize contenders and/or unique messaging. Especially with the siren song of responding to "current events"/insanity that can easily court burnout.
Glad you have checked out Baylis: I’m sorta trusting you on this … but other than what you have very (too?) briefly surmised, can you fill this in a bit more please
Nice person. But I don't see any major pivot, no hint at dealing with the existential crisis that we're in now, just same old, same old "we're listening to Canadians, we'll twiddle a few knobs, adjust the furniture, etc."
It is pretty rich of Ms Gould to piously inform us that "all Canadians have to stick together" when her party has been so divisive and used wedge issues to get elected. Western Canada begs to differ.
What's objectively "divisive" about the federal Liberals? Running on a wedge issue is not inherently "divisive", since no other political party is forced to agree or disagree on whichever issue in question.
Like all Parties, they play politics and are hypocritical. I just like calling them out when they are so blatant about it.
Karina Gould listens to and responds to the actual question (as far as I could tell). Her replies seemed fresh and interesting and not just an attempt to avoid trouble. I consider this interview a service to us as Canadians. Thank you.
Thank you for making the interview happen. I enjoy her poise and refreshing self-reflection. The interviews I have heard (and there are not many) have shown a calm person that does not shy away from correcting the record, acknowledging poor decisions in the past by government, and a good load of political acumen. She could be accused of being too nice, but we sure need more of that in this day and age. I am hopeful for her future in the long-term.
I should add a note that I am not typically a supporter of a party but rather of the MP that represents me in Parliament - a quaint notion in this day and age of "presidential" politics. If she was running as my MP she would get my vote. But then I am getting old! LOL
Gould’s interview still proves that the Liberals care about party first and country last.
Her party tuned out Canadians for much longer than 6 to 8 months post-covid. They ignored Canadian concerns and challenges for almost 2 solid years! Remember when inflation, housing, and groceries were getting out of control? What was this idiotic party doing in Parliament in May 2023 before the summer break? They were fixated for weeks on the Online News Act (Bill C-18) and publicly complaining that Zukerberg and Google weren’t in support. Housing be damned, citizens.
The bulk of her ideas (aside from forming a citizens assembly regarding electoral reform) are simply tweaks to Trudeau’s mandate. She still thinks the carbon tax is a “communication issue” and needs a better “story”.
Also, her comment on “loyalty” is a direct swipe at Freeland (who I’m no fan of, but we should all thank for finally getting Trudeau to resign). At least Freeland was courageous and finally stopped being a lemming for Trudeau.
Wasn’t Karina Closely involved as the ‘democratic reforms’ person … in preventing electoral reform ??
Honestly, no she wasn't. Her mandate letter when she got the job said, Don't pursue electoral reform. There's not a lot of wiggle room there. And I mean, we spend five minutes in the interview talking about this very point, so feel free to check that out.
Thanks for this, Paul. I always find it funny that so many people complain about the death of government by cabinet, and simultaneously blame ministers for things that happen nominally under their purview. The prime minister dropped electoral reform; it really doesn't matter who happened to be minister at the time.
Open transparent honest until someone say the speaker of the house of Parliament brings up the green slush fund
Which candidate will speak up for, and defend, Québec anglophone rights?
None, they all want to win and no one outside of Quebec takes notice.
In 1982 I left Quebec and put a bumper sticker on my car, once over the border. I drove across the country to BC, the sticker I made said “ This is illegal in Quebec”, one person in Calgary asked what was illegal and I said that any English only sign was not allowed in Quebec, he had no idea.
As a former Montrealer myself, I follow QC politics very closely, and I also do my best to tell folks, who may not be aware, of the very real issues anglophone Québécois are facing. Unfortunately, the situation is now far worse than it was in 1982. However, I also do believe that more and more people in the ROC have become aware.
Likely none. Spoken as a former Montrealer.
I thought that perhaps Baylis was the only one? But he's not getting much press.
You got that right.
No one. That's why we left in 1981. Been back three times. Briefly. It's the only place in the world where I refuse to speak French.
I can never forget her explanation of how we "make every vote count... One two three... " Such an inane response! As far I can tell, she's still a clueless ladder climber.
Mr Wells:- Don't worry about the Grit no-shows:--> Carney is franticly honing his "en francais". Your fav. ...> Ms Gould will survive the coming Fed. Election:--on May5, 2025.
Poillievre will be Majority PM of Canada Peter D. Marshall in Oakville
I am not surprised at the reluctance to answer direct questions on the part of both Freeland and Carney. Liberal success at the polls depends heavily creating an image without any substance. This strategy depends upon the cooperation of the legacy media and government funded media such as the CBC.
The 1% cut in the GST wouldn't really make much difference in affordability. Groceries are already exempt. The forgone income for the government could be put to better use, for instance on military spending.
It was a relief to hear Ms. Gould refuse to endorse a "middle-class income tax cut" -- they have never worked and never will but always increase inequality. (Ref. https://erwindreessen.substack.com/p/once-again-tax-cuts-dont-work). Her proposal to support a GST tax cut, on the other hand, well, as you noted: The government needs more revenue so a GST increase would make more sense (with equity-targeted rebates).
On several other topics as well she had a bit of a refreshing perspective, so I thank you, Paul, for this interview. On electoral reform, however, while her support for a Citizens' Assembly is welcome, I believe she misrepresented the outcome of the Special Committee's work. It agreed on more than no compulsory vote and and no electronic vote. They actually agreed on proportional representation. The Conservatives, however, insisted that there had to be a referendum.
It is solely Mr. Trudeau's lying by omission in the 2015 campaign -- not saying that the only reform he'd accept would be the so-called Alternative Vote -- that is the cause of this setback. Worse, to this day the Liberals defend that option, knowing full-well that it would tend to favour a middle-of-the-road party like the Liberals.
Too bad electoral reform is not one of the topics chosen for the Leadership debates. It would have been interesting to know the candidates' views on this. And so Ms. Gould now agrees with the Conservatives?
I was mistaken: It's the Liberals who filed a minority report to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, claiming there was no consensus -- a line they've been using ever since. In a desperate effort to move forward, the Greens and NDP agreed with the Conservatives on holding a referendum.
The ERRE report: https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/42-1/ERRE/report-3/page-ToC
Fair Vote Canada's page on this myth of no consensus: https://www.fairvote.ca/06/03/2017/mythbuster-was-there-no-consensus/
Thank you, Mr. Wells.
Ms. Gould styles herself as a progressive. It would have been interesting to explore that, especially as the electorate in Canada as in many other countries seems to be shifting leftward, or at least away from progressivism.
You did ask about two policies which, I guess, can be seen as progressive. First, the temporary reduction in the GST. I remember how vocal the Liberals were when Stephen Harper cut the GST from 7% to 5%. In retrospect, was that a good move? Also, Ms. Gould supports some level of carbon tax, saying that economists support it as an efficient way to cut carbon emissions. But economists also generally support consumption taxes as superior to income taxes (for favoring savings and investment). Do we no longer rely on economsist when their recommendations are not progressive enough? (Consumption taxes can be made to be progressive.)
Second, Ms. Gould would increase corporate income taxes on large corporations. There is a general consensus that this would decrease investment by private sector, and hence hurt Canada's productivity. Does this worry Ms. Gould?
Finally, when she announced her candidacy, he set out a third policy -- enshrining in law that supply management would never be on the table during trade negotiations. Does Ms. Gould still promote that policy?
Good questions. Honestly I find the rush to cut GST horrifying, as a part-time member of the Economists Party. And I did gently suggest in this interview that there simply isn't enough revenue to pay for the government Liberals want to provide. I haven't done the math, but I'd be surprised if her tax on large corporations does much to close recent deficits.
In general: I can't debate my interview subjects on everything, but I can rely on readers to spot the weaknesses in everyone's arguments, as they usually do.
I am afraid that you are absolutely right, and that the GST is going up. Or our debt is going up, up, up; and I suspect capital markets will disapprove of that, as they did in the mid 1990s. You can't vote or borrow yourself rich, despite the efforts of the last decade.
Excellent interview, Paul. I would love to have someone ask a Liberal if they feel pot-committed with their climate hysteria or if they TRULY believe that paying taxes will save the earth.
Climate hysteria - nobody mentions Canada has less than 2% of global emissions. Nothing Canada does would make any practical difference.
Every country in the world both resists and responds to peer pressure. There's a world of difference between a world where Canada becomes a role model for reducing CO2 emissions in an economically-efficient way, and a world where Canada is actively making a virtue of lazy inaction and mocking other countries who can be bothered to even try.
Tom, I'm nobody in the Liberal Party, but for me, as a Liberal, two things can be true:
1. I'm absolutely pot-committed with my climate hysteria.
2. I think this issue is actually so serious, and that we're so far gone, that there's not too much the 37th-most-populous country in the world can do about it.
So in answer to your questions, yes and no.
Every country in the world both resists and responds to peer pressure. There's a world of difference between a world where Canada becomes a role model for reducing CO2 emissions in an economically-efficient way, and a world where Canada is actively making a virtue of lazy inaction and mocking other countries who can be bothered to even try.
That's pot-committed as in poker, not pot. :)
If I understand what you wrote correctly, you read campaign literature and other interviews and decided not to interview Frank Baylis. Perhaps you could have unearthed some interesting information. I guess we'll never know.
Yeah, I guess we won't.
I'm a little surprised this isn't obvious, but I'm not running a 200-person newsroom here. I have finite time and resources and I make decisions all the time about how to allocate them. Sorry I don't have a recipes section either.
I think it’s more that you raised some intrigue with your comment on Baylis. Like there’s more to the story.
Fair. Honestly I was just unimpressed.
You were also just so damned unequivocal in your initial post that you'd interview *any* Liberal leadership candidate, damn the torpedoes, which made this a bit of a shock, but also...it's Frank Baylis. I agree that you, and we, aren't missing much.
Ok: so … no recipes section. But how about some sports? Kelly is ‘too good to be true’ ( most excellent) … but some high powered competition could be attractive
You're a hop and a skip from a cooking segment on your Christmas variety show. That's a weird part of this accursed timeline that I can get behind.
Back in reality, it makes sense to prioritize contenders and/or unique messaging. Especially with the siren song of responding to "current events"/insanity that can easily court burnout.
Glad you have checked out Baylis: I’m sorta trusting you on this … but other than what you have very (too?) briefly surmised, can you fill this in a bit more please