Paul , you have three rock stars there. Great discussion. And I especially appreciated that all three provided intelligent and insightful comments vs taking openly partisan positions.
This is very encouraging, thanks. When I decided to do a political panel, I thought (a) I need to be careful because there are dozens of panels (b) I want practitioners, not just assigned message deliverers (the latter is an honourable profession but it’s not my thing) (c ) I won’t mind if it’s less emotionally hot than some of what’s out there, but we’ll see whether there’s an audience for something calmer. Very pleased to see these discussions are finding their audience.
I think that's the difference, the networks, for the most part all have campaign staff looking to score points. I've come to the position that regardless of your political bent, it's best to observe and listen.
I'm actually surprised at how little I've had to intervene in the comment boards — in fact I haven't at all for months now — but people shouldn't assume I won't. Personal insults are not welcome.
Hey, you use the term.!!when I was working for David Lange in NZ many years agoI came across the term.subsequently I published an article about its applicability within the Canadian political context & especially my own area of research
Don't make too much about Carney's French. I am a French speaking but as a voter what really matters for this election 2025, is who can beat Trump. Who can put this US threat down. Poilievre has no plans to deal with Trump. I strongly believe that Poilievre and now it is confirmed by Danielle Smith, is Trump's ally in the political world. Poilievre during his political career has never said anything I found appealing. The whole TVA charging a lot of money for a debate was wrong. Happy it's not happening. I will probably not watch the debates because they bore me and look controlled. As for the criticism that Carney not being nice to reporters, Poilievre has never been nice of polite to the media, we have seen that many times. I also believe that April 2, will probably jolt us all and be a game changer for the campaign. This campaign is so much more than a gas tax or a pipeline, we are talking about our future as a country, that means a lot more than a bunch of political regional issues. I am also disappointed that your discussion appears to not speak too much about Poilievre, who in the media is going to tackle him? I wish you had asked who will be in Poilievre's cabinet? As one voter, I do not believe Poilievre has a team or a new team of fresh faces. We have to live in hope that as Canadians we will be alright.
Carney’s whole platform is lifted from the Conservatives. And the idea that this effete Davos banker can deal with Trump is risible. Maga will eat him alive. And it doesn’t bother you that he’s abandoned his long-standing opposition to fossil fuels? Shows that he’ll say or do anything to get elected.
I have heard from several of my francophone family in Quebec that Carneys French is not an issue at all.Actually, some of his vocabulary is good compared to some of the joual spoken in the province.Jasons comment was uncalled for.
When the Liberal leadership contest got into action and the main players started to seek support for their ambitions, numerous prominent Quebec Liberals, including high ranking Cabinet Ministers flatly stated that anyone with leadership ambitions needs fluency in French. The way things have turned out there are two sets of rules in Liberal circles: perfect French for anyone west of Toronto and barely passible French is good enough for anyone from the Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal triangle that looks like a winner.
Christy Clark assessed her modest French skills and withdrew. Are her French skills any worse than Carney’s?
Been a long time since I heard Christy speak French but I recall her not having much French. These things are more of a gradient than a binary. On debate nights, I'd frequently see online comments to the effect that Justin Trudeau is an anglophone who doesn't fake French well. That was exaggerated, but goes to show you that some people mark harder than others. Incidentally, Christy is being modest about how many reasons she had not to run; https://www.biv.com/news/kirk-lapointe-christy-clarks-liberal-leadership-bid-faceplants-on-a-fact-check-10069334
That was really good. Jason is a great addition. Lots of insight, particularly his point about Carney running on policies (axe the tax, build pipelines) that he believe in. Unfortunately, Canadians don’t seem bothered by this hypocrisy. Equally mystifying: they think the Davos banker dude is going to be able to deal with Trump better than a populist Conservative. I just don’t get it.
What silly comments from Jayson about Carney’s French (and most everything else). It’s not great but it’s not horrible. Typical Poilievrism. This guy is wrong about just about everythingg in this discussion. He’ll see when PP’s final number is 32%. Send this guy back to AA ball.
yeah, ‘cause speaking French well totally doesn’t matter in vote-rich Quebec lol. Also love Carney’s pipeline strategy: tell westerners he’s going to build pipelines across the country, using federal emergency powers if necessary. Then tell Quebecers the opposite. Real big brain stuff.
I enjoy this panel. The panelists' reasonableness comes through ahead of their partisan affiliation, which allows them to make partisan critiques with integrity. It also allows for self-reflection too - such as Marcy able to be straight-up about the Liberal weakness of arrogance. It's a small thing but really exemplifies the...solidness?...of the panel. It'll be great to see things get fully up to speed as Jason gets settled in with Allison and Marcy!
The discussion was good; each member of your panel (as well as you yourself) made several very interesting points.
The potential vulnerability of Carney's campaign is obvious. However, to Jason Lietaer's assertion--that the 'authenticity', or lack thereof, of Carney's commitment to 'building a pipeline' or sticking with the removal of the consumer carbon tax is an issue, well...
I'm not sure that a majority of voters will pick up on that issue.
The biggest single 'score' goes to Marci Surkes' comment about the likelihood that the outcome of the election campaign is likely only to become clear in its dying days.
Oh, and that the Liberals shouldn't be measuring the drapes yet.
PS: Paul Well's assessment of the more conventional approach to debate moderation that we'll see this time 'round (one moderator for each debate--Patrice Roi in French, Steve Paikin in English)... was spot on!
Small quibble on describing poll results as volatile. They have changed, but the trend has been stable. Upward for the liberals, down most for the ndp and less for the Tories.
The panelists are especially straight shooters (including Gary from before) They represent the kind of political leader I want to vote for. Mostly I hear politicians say what they think will be approved by Canadians. I don't like that. I'd prefer to have a politician try to convince me of their vision if they are not dogmatic but have considered the options.
It seems that, like the panelists, politicians who choose answers that hold integrity remain unelected politicians.
The media is also not discussing why Carney and Brookfield were able to secure a loan from a CCP controlled bank to refinance a property in China, when almost every other foreign investor in the collapsing Chinese real estate market was being zeroed out by the CCP Government.
If the asset was performing, all the more reason for the CCP to NOT bail Brookfield out, and force them to use their own money, or money from a non-Chinese bank or non-Chinese investor. Brookfield's treatment stand out as unique among foreign investors in Chinese real estate. The CCP forced most domestic Chinese real estate developers to put up more capital before receiving any government help. And they zeroed most foreign investors.
Carney under investigation by US House Judiciary Committee for operating a cartel engaged in corporate extortion. Carney testified before the committee. He's an unindicted co conspirator. He's fucked.
Marc Nixon
@MarcNixon24
THE LIBERAL LIE JUST BLEW UP
They claimed they’re doing everything possible to negotiate with Trump
But Mark Carney just admitted Trump doesn’t recognize him as Prime Minister.
He’s waiting for a real election before speaking to 🇨🇦
Mark Carney testified before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in 2024. The testimony was part of an investigation into potential antitrust violations by climate coalitions, specifically focusing on the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ).
The committee, led by Republicans, expressed concerns that GFANZ might be facilitating collusion that could violate U.S. antitrust laws. Carney, along with Mary Schapiro, another GFANZ leader, was interviewed as part of this intensified scrutiny of global climate change coalitions.
The investigation was part of a broader Republican effort to challenge environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives. The committee's concerns centered on whether GFANZ's activities could be seen as coordinating business decisions in a way that might restrict competition.
Paul , you have three rock stars there. Great discussion. And I especially appreciated that all three provided intelligent and insightful comments vs taking openly partisan positions.
This is very encouraging, thanks. When I decided to do a political panel, I thought (a) I need to be careful because there are dozens of panels (b) I want practitioners, not just assigned message deliverers (the latter is an honourable profession but it’s not my thing) (c ) I won’t mind if it’s less emotionally hot than some of what’s out there, but we’ll see whether there’s an audience for something calmer. Very pleased to see these discussions are finding their audience.
An excellent discussion by three well-informed and articulate panellists, thank you.
Thank you, too, for keeping it to a very manageable thirty-five minutes.
I think that's the difference, the networks, for the most part all have campaign staff looking to score points. I've come to the position that regardless of your political bent, it's best to observe and listen.
Jason is so much better than the second Darren
Really? This guy’s a fuckwit.
Look in the mirror Matt.
From the “I know you are but what am I?” school of debate. Well done, Sir. I seem to have found another one.
Your comment was malicious. It got the response it deserved.
I'm actually surprised at how little I've had to intervene in the comment boards — in fact I haven't at all for months now — but people shouldn't assume I won't. Personal insults are not welcome.
Hey, you use the term.!!when I was working for David Lange in NZ many years agoI came across the term.subsequently I published an article about its applicability within the Canadian political context & especially my own area of research
Thank you (I think).
Don't make too much about Carney's French. I am a French speaking but as a voter what really matters for this election 2025, is who can beat Trump. Who can put this US threat down. Poilievre has no plans to deal with Trump. I strongly believe that Poilievre and now it is confirmed by Danielle Smith, is Trump's ally in the political world. Poilievre during his political career has never said anything I found appealing. The whole TVA charging a lot of money for a debate was wrong. Happy it's not happening. I will probably not watch the debates because they bore me and look controlled. As for the criticism that Carney not being nice to reporters, Poilievre has never been nice of polite to the media, we have seen that many times. I also believe that April 2, will probably jolt us all and be a game changer for the campaign. This campaign is so much more than a gas tax or a pipeline, we are talking about our future as a country, that means a lot more than a bunch of political regional issues. I am also disappointed that your discussion appears to not speak too much about Poilievre, who in the media is going to tackle him? I wish you had asked who will be in Poilievre's cabinet? As one voter, I do not believe Poilievre has a team or a new team of fresh faces. We have to live in hope that as Canadians we will be alright.
Carney’s whole platform is lifted from the Conservatives. And the idea that this effete Davos banker can deal with Trump is risible. Maga will eat him alive. And it doesn’t bother you that he’s abandoned his long-standing opposition to fossil fuels? Shows that he’ll say or do anything to get elected.
I have heard from several of my francophone family in Quebec that Carneys French is not an issue at all.Actually, some of his vocabulary is good compared to some of the joual spoken in the province.Jasons comment was uncalled for.
Oh, you're gonna hate the podcast tomorrow.
When the Liberal leadership contest got into action and the main players started to seek support for their ambitions, numerous prominent Quebec Liberals, including high ranking Cabinet Ministers flatly stated that anyone with leadership ambitions needs fluency in French. The way things have turned out there are two sets of rules in Liberal circles: perfect French for anyone west of Toronto and barely passible French is good enough for anyone from the Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal triangle that looks like a winner.
Christy Clark assessed her modest French skills and withdrew. Are her French skills any worse than Carney’s?
Been a long time since I heard Christy speak French but I recall her not having much French. These things are more of a gradient than a binary. On debate nights, I'd frequently see online comments to the effect that Justin Trudeau is an anglophone who doesn't fake French well. That was exaggerated, but goes to show you that some people mark harder than others. Incidentally, Christy is being modest about how many reasons she had not to run; https://www.biv.com/news/kirk-lapointe-christy-clarks-liberal-leadership-bid-faceplants-on-a-fact-check-10069334
Yes, the numerous reasons for Ms. Clark’s decision to withdraw are noted.
Jason Lietaer!?! Talk about bench strength!
That was really good. Jason is a great addition. Lots of insight, particularly his point about Carney running on policies (axe the tax, build pipelines) that he believe in. Unfortunately, Canadians don’t seem bothered by this hypocrisy. Equally mystifying: they think the Davos banker dude is going to be able to deal with Trump better than a populist Conservative. I just don’t get it.
What silly comments from Jayson about Carney’s French (and most everything else). It’s not great but it’s not horrible. Typical Poilievrism. This guy is wrong about just about everythingg in this discussion. He’ll see when PP’s final number is 32%. Send this guy back to AA ball.
yeah, ‘cause speaking French well totally doesn’t matter in vote-rich Quebec lol. Also love Carney’s pipeline strategy: tell westerners he’s going to build pipelines across the country, using federal emergency powers if necessary. Then tell Quebecers the opposite. Real big brain stuff.
Jason took over most of the talking time.. Marci and Allison should be given time for their opinions in equal proportion
Maybe this isn't the only video that's ever been made!
Paul..relax…you let things get out of control as a moderator
Here is the data for each participant's speech time:
Paul Wells: 5:28
Jason Lietaer: 11:52
Marci Surkes: 8:52
Allison Gifford: 4:43
I thought you were great in The Accountant, Mr. Affleck.
I enjoy this panel. The panelists' reasonableness comes through ahead of their partisan affiliation, which allows them to make partisan critiques with integrity. It also allows for self-reflection too - such as Marcy able to be straight-up about the Liberal weakness of arrogance. It's a small thing but really exemplifies the...solidness?...of the panel. It'll be great to see things get fully up to speed as Jason gets settled in with Allison and Marcy!
Finally,....a positive "mention" re a CPC member:-
Is this the knew you? How's that "Polling/ poster Wish" going?
Peter Marshall, Oakville
The discussion was good; each member of your panel (as well as you yourself) made several very interesting points.
The potential vulnerability of Carney's campaign is obvious. However, to Jason Lietaer's assertion--that the 'authenticity', or lack thereof, of Carney's commitment to 'building a pipeline' or sticking with the removal of the consumer carbon tax is an issue, well...
I'm not sure that a majority of voters will pick up on that issue.
The biggest single 'score' goes to Marci Surkes' comment about the likelihood that the outcome of the election campaign is likely only to become clear in its dying days.
Oh, and that the Liberals shouldn't be measuring the drapes yet.
PS: Paul Well's assessment of the more conventional approach to debate moderation that we'll see this time 'round (one moderator for each debate--Patrice Roi in French, Steve Paikin in English)... was spot on!
Small quibble on describing poll results as volatile. They have changed, but the trend has been stable. Upward for the liberals, down most for the ndp and less for the Tories.
Jason needs to get off his phone.
Paul thanks for the email to return, after hearing this panel I’m glad I came back. Loved the panel discussion.
The panelists are especially straight shooters (including Gary from before) They represent the kind of political leader I want to vote for. Mostly I hear politicians say what they think will be approved by Canadians. I don't like that. I'd prefer to have a politician try to convince me of their vision if they are not dogmatic but have considered the options.
It seems that, like the panelists, politicians who choose answers that hold integrity remain unelected politicians.
PW — Episode not posted on your private Apple Podcast feed fyi
That’s coming, I’m told. My tech friends are working on it. But thanks for flagging it.
I found it curious the Globe and Mail piece on CPC political interference by India and Poilievre security clearance wasn't discussed? Is not relevant?
The media is also not discussing why Carney and Brookfield were able to secure a loan from a CCP controlled bank to refinance a property in China, when almost every other foreign investor in the collapsing Chinese real estate market was being zeroed out by the CCP Government.
They have performing assets!
If the asset was performing, all the more reason for the CCP to NOT bail Brookfield out, and force them to use their own money, or money from a non-Chinese bank or non-Chinese investor. Brookfield's treatment stand out as unique among foreign investors in Chinese real estate. The CCP forced most domestic Chinese real estate developers to put up more capital before receiving any government help. And they zeroed most foreign investors.
Does this have any validity?
Richard Boraks BA LLB
@WorkerCanada
·
Follow
Trump can't talk with Carney .
Carney under investigation by US House Judiciary Committee for operating a cartel engaged in corporate extortion. Carney testified before the committee. He's an unindicted co conspirator. He's fucked.
Marc Nixon
@MarcNixon24
THE LIBERAL LIE JUST BLEW UP
They claimed they’re doing everything possible to negotiate with Trump
But Mark Carney just admitted Trump doesn’t recognize him as Prime Minister.
He’s waiting for a real election before speaking to 🇨🇦
Liberals lied Again-Explosive new information
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/terry-newman-climate-carney-conveniently-side-steps-investigation
Or one can ask Perplexity.AI
Mark Carney testified before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in 2024. The testimony was part of an investigation into potential antitrust violations by climate coalitions, specifically focusing on the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ).
The committee, led by Republicans, expressed concerns that GFANZ might be facilitating collusion that could violate U.S. antitrust laws. Carney, along with Mary Schapiro, another GFANZ leader, was interviewed as part of this intensified scrutiny of global climate change coalitions.
The investigation was part of a broader Republican effort to challenge environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives. The committee's concerns centered on whether GFANZ's activities could be seen as coordinating business decisions in a way that might restrict competition.