On the Chiang candidacy issue, is Carney missing an opportunity? Rather than focusing in solely on the should-he-go or not as a candidate disqualification matter, could it not be an opportunity to address the larger issue of foreign interference in general.
For example, indicate that a Carney government would take foreign interference seriously. Promise a registry for foreign lobbyists, promise better rules for party nominations for all parties, etc. The Liberals need to indicate that they have policies on these topics rather than simply hanging their hats on Poilievre's refusal to get a security clearance.
Foreign interference is not going away, it's only going to get worse, and Canadians are waiting for a serious reponse not just deflection and partisan gamesmanship. Is Carney (and the press frankly) missing the more important issue here?
I agree that pursuing a more robust response to foreign interference is the opportunity that you have identified.
I also feel that Chaing's been the elected MP of that riding, and it's the voters in that riding who should decide if he should be re-elected or not. Main parties already impose too much top-down pressure on local riding associations during nominations. Local voters need more democratic influence.
Very informative session, particularly on Jason's closing remarks in terms of Carney's ideology regarding energy infrastructure and how the NDP can respond.
Agreed - saying “Carney doesn’t believe in building energy infrastructure (oil and gas)” put the focus where it needs to be - could it be possible that Carney could act against his reasoned beliefs? Should we look for a candid moment where he would just say it, ie. “Let me be perfectly clear: I’ve changed my mind on this issue, despite the 400 pages I wrote about it in my book…”
Good show Paul. Trump is Carney's best friend right now. The more fuss he makes for us, the more it works for Carney. Carney seems to be better at appearing Prime Ministerial than he is at campaigning.
Conservatives are in tough, their numbers are strong based on history, but they haven't won an election without the NDP capturing 17% of the popular vote. And even the most optimistic polls don't have the NDP near there, even including the margin of error.
I'm glad the panel agreed that Liberal candidate for Markham-Unionville, Paul Chiang, should be forced to step down. Stating that your political rival should be turned over to the Chinese secret police effectively is unforgivable and especially so given China's history of kidnapping the two Michaels.
There is a fundamental conflict of interest in holding dual citizenship and participating in politics. Many countries ban dual citizens from holding political office for this reason.
But we steer clear of this conversation in Canada, as it’s not political correct.
Speaking of Liberation Day ... gasoline was $1.56 a litre yesterday, but price dropped to only $1.28 today. Thank you Pierre Poilievre for your highly effective "axe the tax" slogan, at least someone in this country is worried about affordability.
I'm not sure that the Conservative's "export energy" initiative is the winner that Jason thinks it is. Yes, by all means, let's build pipelines so that Alberta can export its oil and gas. But I'm in manufacturing (in Ontario). How does help me? Is it a world where I can prosper based on access to cheap resources? That sounds a lot like the National Energy Program that Alberta hated so much, so I kind of doubt it. Or is it a world where I collect pogey while living next to a pipeline that ships oil to Europe?
Trump and Vance are specifically saying that they want to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. That's my job they're talking about! Where is the plan to rapidly transition our manufacturing industry away from selling into the American market? Or is the plan to simply stand idly by while the Americans suck investment out of Ontario and Quebec?
I would like to think that we can build pipelines and encourage manufacturing at the same time, it's not a one or the other decision. As far as investment being sucked out of Canada, that is what has been happening under the Liberals for the past ten years as their tax policies and over-regulation discourage Canadians and foreigners from putting their money to work in Canada.
Jason Lietaer's claim that Mr. Carney is being dishonest when discussing "building energy infrastructure", (because he has in the past not been a champion), and that Mr. Poilievre will eventually hammer him with this, illustrates exactly why the fortunes of Mr. Poilievre's party have changed so radically for the worse.
It's an overly simplistic analysis of an extremely complicated issue, and current circumstances are entirely new. To hammer Mr. Carney with accusations of dishonesty in this regard is straight out of the Trump playbook, and while the Conservative base might relish the premise, no one else will be won-over, but rather feel vindicated in their ABC resolve.
I suspect that Mr. Carney would be fine with "building energy infrastructure"; just not precisely what the O&G schills are pushing for right now, for the subsidies they say they must have.
Jason Lietaer’s comments on Mark Carney were entirely fair. Carney spent the last decade advancing policies designed to restrict Canada’s oil and gas development, from leading global divestment campaigns to pushing emissions caps and aggressive decarbonization mandates. His 2021 book laid out a vision that explicitly deprioritized traditional energy infrastructure. That is not spin, it is fact.
Now, facing a trade war and mounting pressure over the need for Canadian energy security and economic sovereignty, Carney is suddenly using vague language about “building pipelines” and “investing in infrastructure.” But without endorsing any concrete plan such as Poilievre’s energy corridor plans, it is entirely legitimate to question whether he truly believes what he is saying.
This is not about “shills.” It is about credibility. If Carney genuinely supported growing energy infrastructure, he would repeal C-69, scrap the emissions cap, commit to removing the industrial carbon tax, and he certainly would not have kept activist Steven Guilbeault in his cabinet. Lietaer simply pointed out the disconnect, and voters deserve to hear it.
One small point. You mentioned that progressives believe all conservatives think alike and you rightly point out the diversity of conservative perspectives. In my experience, a sizeable number of conservatives think the same about progressives - especially Liberals. Can we please acknowledge nuanced differences across the political spectrum? A lot of us are weary of partisan politics precisely because of this kind of reflexive dismissal of "the other." And it sure has not resulted in thoughtful discussions about serious issues.
But that’s not an accurate read of the point I made, which is that, regardless of the views that Mr. Carney has expressed in the past, should he be elected, his mandate will be quite different, and any reasonable voter knows this and expects his national energy strategy to adjust accordingly.
I’m not concerned about whether that strategy is still “vague”, because right now, other than aspiration statements, it should be. I AM concerned that Poilievre’s supporters think he has a plan, because how could he? I’ve heard his “energy corridor” idea, but it’s hardly a plan, because that would take months of consultation with subject matter experts.
All he has at the moment is a notion to use extraordinary powers to expropriate land, deregulate standards and safety, socialize liability, and subsidize business costs.
That would be a disaster. I’m confident that voters much prefer cautious prudence from a seasoned professional with demonstrated expertise in this area, and who is advised by expert peers such as Mr. Guilbeault.
I’m increasingly convinced that the fundamental problem here is not the degree of euphoria that the various political parties demonstrate for additional pipelines, but that Conservatives are still in denial about climate change and its implications.
Hmmm, significantly less of what I pointed out last week from the CPC shill. I’m being careful lest I be suspended again. Libs gonna win a majority. CPC gonna be 32%.
PW — Would say that your private podcast feed is redundant at this point? I forget what your plans were for it — if you were going to have subscriber only content. I ask because I see that the public feed is updated with this episode whilst the private one is not.
Trump had an opportunity to pivot and took it , Carney wisely took the evident switch to have an adult conversation. Wed . Therefore even more of a big deal! Someone should e mail Jason’s comments to ndp headquarters! Now let’s see…
On the Chiang candidacy issue, is Carney missing an opportunity? Rather than focusing in solely on the should-he-go or not as a candidate disqualification matter, could it not be an opportunity to address the larger issue of foreign interference in general.
For example, indicate that a Carney government would take foreign interference seriously. Promise a registry for foreign lobbyists, promise better rules for party nominations for all parties, etc. The Liberals need to indicate that they have policies on these topics rather than simply hanging their hats on Poilievre's refusal to get a security clearance.
Foreign interference is not going away, it's only going to get worse, and Canadians are waiting for a serious reponse not just deflection and partisan gamesmanship. Is Carney (and the press frankly) missing the more important issue here?
Trudeau did everything he could to respond as slowly and inefficiently as possible to foreign interference. Why?
And today we learned Carney is ok to continue being unserious about this. Again, why?
And the Conservatives have some issues too.
I agree that pursuing a more robust response to foreign interference is the opportunity that you have identified.
I also feel that Chaing's been the elected MP of that riding, and it's the voters in that riding who should decide if he should be re-elected or not. Main parties already impose too much top-down pressure on local riding associations during nominations. Local voters need more democratic influence.
Very informative session, particularly on Jason's closing remarks in terms of Carney's ideology regarding energy infrastructure and how the NDP can respond.
Agreed - saying “Carney doesn’t believe in building energy infrastructure (oil and gas)” put the focus where it needs to be - could it be possible that Carney could act against his reasoned beliefs? Should we look for a candid moment where he would just say it, ie. “Let me be perfectly clear: I’ve changed my mind on this issue, despite the 400 pages I wrote about it in my book…”
“…and the last five years my life at the UN and GFANZ”.
Good show Paul. Trump is Carney's best friend right now. The more fuss he makes for us, the more it works for Carney. Carney seems to be better at appearing Prime Ministerial than he is at campaigning.
Conservatives are in tough, their numbers are strong based on history, but they haven't won an election without the NDP capturing 17% of the popular vote. And even the most optimistic polls don't have the NDP near there, even including the margin of error.
I'm glad the panel agreed that Liberal candidate for Markham-Unionville, Paul Chiang, should be forced to step down. Stating that your political rival should be turned over to the Chinese secret police effectively is unforgivable and especially so given China's history of kidnapping the two Michaels.
There is a fundamental conflict of interest in holding dual citizenship and participating in politics. Many countries ban dual citizens from holding political office for this reason.
But we steer clear of this conversation in Canada, as it’s not political correct.
So far, there's no Lib "nation-building program".
Speaking of Liberation Day ... gasoline was $1.56 a litre yesterday, but price dropped to only $1.28 today. Thank you Pierre Poilievre for your highly effective "axe the tax" slogan, at least someone in this country is worried about affordability.
I'm not sure that the Conservative's "export energy" initiative is the winner that Jason thinks it is. Yes, by all means, let's build pipelines so that Alberta can export its oil and gas. But I'm in manufacturing (in Ontario). How does help me? Is it a world where I can prosper based on access to cheap resources? That sounds a lot like the National Energy Program that Alberta hated so much, so I kind of doubt it. Or is it a world where I collect pogey while living next to a pipeline that ships oil to Europe?
Trump and Vance are specifically saying that they want to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. That's my job they're talking about! Where is the plan to rapidly transition our manufacturing industry away from selling into the American market? Or is the plan to simply stand idly by while the Americans suck investment out of Ontario and Quebec?
I'm feeling left out.
I would like to think that we can build pipelines and encourage manufacturing at the same time, it's not a one or the other decision. As far as investment being sucked out of Canada, that is what has been happening under the Liberals for the past ten years as their tax policies and over-regulation discourage Canadians and foreigners from putting their money to work in Canada.
Jason Lietaer's claim that Mr. Carney is being dishonest when discussing "building energy infrastructure", (because he has in the past not been a champion), and that Mr. Poilievre will eventually hammer him with this, illustrates exactly why the fortunes of Mr. Poilievre's party have changed so radically for the worse.
It's an overly simplistic analysis of an extremely complicated issue, and current circumstances are entirely new. To hammer Mr. Carney with accusations of dishonesty in this regard is straight out of the Trump playbook, and while the Conservative base might relish the premise, no one else will be won-over, but rather feel vindicated in their ABC resolve.
I suspect that Mr. Carney would be fine with "building energy infrastructure"; just not precisely what the O&G schills are pushing for right now, for the subsidies they say they must have.
Jason Lietaer’s comments on Mark Carney were entirely fair. Carney spent the last decade advancing policies designed to restrict Canada’s oil and gas development, from leading global divestment campaigns to pushing emissions caps and aggressive decarbonization mandates. His 2021 book laid out a vision that explicitly deprioritized traditional energy infrastructure. That is not spin, it is fact.
Now, facing a trade war and mounting pressure over the need for Canadian energy security and economic sovereignty, Carney is suddenly using vague language about “building pipelines” and “investing in infrastructure.” But without endorsing any concrete plan such as Poilievre’s energy corridor plans, it is entirely legitimate to question whether he truly believes what he is saying.
This is not about “shills.” It is about credibility. If Carney genuinely supported growing energy infrastructure, he would repeal C-69, scrap the emissions cap, commit to removing the industrial carbon tax, and he certainly would not have kept activist Steven Guilbeault in his cabinet. Lietaer simply pointed out the disconnect, and voters deserve to hear it.
One small point. You mentioned that progressives believe all conservatives think alike and you rightly point out the diversity of conservative perspectives. In my experience, a sizeable number of conservatives think the same about progressives - especially Liberals. Can we please acknowledge nuanced differences across the political spectrum? A lot of us are weary of partisan politics precisely because of this kind of reflexive dismissal of "the other." And it sure has not resulted in thoughtful discussions about serious issues.
But that’s not an accurate read of the point I made, which is that, regardless of the views that Mr. Carney has expressed in the past, should he be elected, his mandate will be quite different, and any reasonable voter knows this and expects his national energy strategy to adjust accordingly.
I’m not concerned about whether that strategy is still “vague”, because right now, other than aspiration statements, it should be. I AM concerned that Poilievre’s supporters think he has a plan, because how could he? I’ve heard his “energy corridor” idea, but it’s hardly a plan, because that would take months of consultation with subject matter experts.
All he has at the moment is a notion to use extraordinary powers to expropriate land, deregulate standards and safety, socialize liability, and subsidize business costs.
That would be a disaster. I’m confident that voters much prefer cautious prudence from a seasoned professional with demonstrated expertise in this area, and who is advised by expert peers such as Mr. Guilbeault.
I’m increasingly convinced that the fundamental problem here is not the degree of euphoria that the various political parties demonstrate for additional pipelines, but that Conservatives are still in denial about climate change and its implications.
An excellent discussion, raising several interesting and thought provoking points of view. Thank you.
Hmmm, significantly less of what I pointed out last week from the CPC shill. I’m being careful lest I be suspended again. Libs gonna win a majority. CPC gonna be 32%.
👏
Love the panel!
PW — Would say that your private podcast feed is redundant at this point? I forget what your plans were for it — if you were going to have subscriber only content. I ask because I see that the public feed is updated with this episode whilst the private one is not.
Trump had an opportunity to pivot and took it , Carney wisely took the evident switch to have an adult conversation. Wed . Therefore even more of a big deal! Someone should e mail Jason’s comments to ndp headquarters! Now let’s see…
Excellent overview. Until Wednesday...