[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

... And Smith is opposed to any heavy handed response to the US tariffs, saying it will provoke a unity crisis.

If we didn't before, now we know where the traitor lies.

[Barrister]

... And Smith is opposed to any heavy handed response to the US tariffs, saying it will provoke a unity crisis.

If we didn't before, now we know where the traitor lies.

If you look closely at what Smith said - she is opposed to export taxes or limits on exporting energy.

Because, not surprisingly, that would hammer one sector and one region of Canada.

[Grey Fox]

It would hurt Quebec too, our Premier is also against using energy to retaliate.

[viper37]

... And Smith is opposed to any heavy handed response to the US tariffs, saying it will provoke a unity crisis.

If we didn't before, now we know where the traitor lies.

If you look closely at what Smith said - she is opposed to export taxes or limits on exporting energy.

Because, not surprisingly, that would hammer one sector and one region of Canada.

I don't think anything should be off the table for now.  We are at war, and sacrifices will be needed.

If Ukrainians had acted like that, their country would have fallen by now.

[Barrister]

... And Smith is opposed to any heavy handed response to the US tariffs, saying it will provoke a unity crisis.

If we didn't before, now we know where the traitor lies.

If you look closely at what Smith said - she is opposed to export taxes or limits on exporting energy.

Because, not surprisingly, that would hammer one sector and one region of Canada.

I don't think anything should be off the table for now.  We are at war, and sacrifices will be needed.

If Ukrainians had acted like that, their country would have fallen by now.

Ukraine has continued to transit Russian gas across their territory up until this year (as in 2025) - almost three years after the full scale invasion, 10 ears after the initial annexation of Crimea.

[HVC]

appeasing Russia didn't help them, and appeasing the US won't help us.

[viper37]

... And Smith is opposed to any heavy handed response to the US tariffs, saying it will provoke a unity crisis.

If we didn't before, now we know where the traitor lies.

If you look closely at what Smith said - she is opposed to export taxes or limits on exporting energy.

Because, not surprisingly, that would hammer one sector and one region of Canada.

I don't think anything should be off the table for now.  We are at war, and sacrifices will be needed.

If Ukrainians had acted like that, their country would have fallen by now.

Ukraine has continued to transit Russian gas across their territory up until this year (as in 2025) - almost three years after the full scale invasion, 10 ears after the initial annexation of Crimea.

They're not doing it for Russia.

[Barrister]

They're not doing it for Russia.

Exactly.

I believe Ukraine still received some transit fees, plus of course they didn't want to hurt European allies who were dependent on Russian gas.

Now that calculus changed this year, but I don't know the exact details.  But it definitely wasn't appeasement.

[crazy canuck]

It would hurt Quebec too, our Premier is also against using energy to retaliate.

It would also have a significant negative impact on BC.  Oil, gas and hydro would be impacted.

One fun fact is the major natural gas line that supplies Greater Vancouver dips through Washington State simply because of the local geography.  That would be a nightmare to figure out if our countries had a trade war over energy.  Not to mention how integrated BC electrical energy is within the American Grid on the West Coast. 

[Grey Fox]

What a shit show that's going to be.

[Barrister]

So politics in 2025 are so very weird.  Let's just talk about interviews.

Normally, politicians would go on political talk shows.  In the US going on 60 Minutes would be a staple.  In Canada you'd do an interview that might go on The Journal (which would follow The National evening news show).

But these days?

Trump's most important interview was with former Fear Factor host Joe Rogan.

Pierre Poilievre's only interview is with some obscure former U of T professor on Youtube.

Justin Trudeau's only interview is on comedy show 22 Minutes.

And now we have Mark Carney giving his first big interview - with John Stewart on American tv.

Now doing gimmicky interviews isn't anything all that new - I remember Bill Clinton playing the sax on Arsenio Hall - but it is odd to see him go to a US show.  Mind you they may well have figured that likely Liberal voters were more likely to watch John Stewart than any Canadian show.

Anyone watch it?  Any reviews?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-jon-stewart-daily-show-1.7430594

The most interesting is the perhaps obvious part where Carney describes himself as an outsider, and in comparison to Poilievre who is a "career politician".

Because on one hand he's right.  Carney has never been elected to anything and certainly does have private sector experience, whereas Poilievre has done nothing but politics his entire adult life.

On the other hand though - if you want to talk about the "elites", the "swamp", maybe the "Laurentian elites" - Carney is right at the heart of it.  I think I've gone over this before - studied at Harvard and Oxford, worked at Goldman Sachs, senior official in the Department of Finance and Bank Governor for two different countries.

Also - apparently Katie Telford is running Carney's campaign.  The same Katie Telford who has been Justin Trudeau's chief of staff for many years.  So don't tell me what an outsider Carney is going to be.

Thinking about it though - it's very funny how almost all of the potential next PMs all have deep Alberta roots.  Carney was born in NWT but grew up in Edmonton, Poilievre was born and raised in Calgary, Freeland was born in Peace River and grew up in Edmonton.  None of them, however, now back Alberta their home (although apparently Carney might run in an Edmonton riding).

[crazy canuck]

The thing is, I don't think it is gimmicky anymore. I heard a stat the other day that something like 70% of people 30 and under get all of their information from social media.  And so appearing on social media is now the equivalent of sitting down with Peter Mansbridge for a year end interview.

One personal request, please refrain from using Trumpist language like "the swamp" here.

[Barrister]

One personal request, please refrain from using Trumpist language like "the swamp" here.

Umm, no?

Because there's a real phenomenon here.  People who go to the right schools, move in the right circles, with the right connections, moving in and out of government at times.

SNC Lavalin was just such an excellent example.  Lavalin bribed Libyan government officials.  They were put under investigation in Canada for those bribes.  So SNC Lavalin puts pressure on the government -first to change legislation to allow for a Deferred Prosecution Agreement, and then once that was passed, to give a DPA to SNC Lavalin  Now, they happen to run into a justice minister in Judy Raybold-Wilson who though smart was not part of that "elite" and protested.

So instead, Raybold-Wilson was fired - and in the end SNC Lavalin got their DPA.

What's the best term of that kind of incestuousness and back-scratching?  I'm not married to the word "swamp" if another word will serve, but I think it covers what we're talking about.

Two additional thoughts:

1. Trump.  Trump has no intention of "draining the swamp" - he just wanted it to benefit him.

2. Katie Telford?  The one running Carney's campaign?  Implicated in the SNC Lavalin affair.

[Grey Fox]

The thing is, I don't think it is gimmicky anymore. I heard a stat the other day that something like 70% of people 30 and under get all of their information from social media.  And so appearing on social media is now the equivalent of sitting down with Peter Mansbridge for a year end interview.

Joe Rogan is the most important media personnality of the Western world. His podcast and its excerpts on social media have an almost limitless influence on millions.

[Barrister]

Christy Clark not running for Liberal leader.

Officially, it's because her French just isn't good enough, and the timeline is too short.

Unofficially?

Clark was the leader of the BC Liberal Party.  As CC has told us, the BC Liberal Party is actually pretty right-wing.  (Or was, as it rebranded itself as BC United).

Over the past few days though Clark denied that she was ever a member of the federal Conservative Party.

This is despite the fact she's on video back in 2022 endorsing Jean Charest for Conservative leader, including buying a membership.

Now given that she was endorsing Charest - and pointedly NOT Poilievre - this might have been defensible.  But just flat-out lying about it?