[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

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.

So on the one hand you claim to be, you never Trumper.  And I accept that you were being completely harnessed about that.

The thing that is very perplexing is that you still wish to mimic of the trumpet rhetoric and seemingly without any insight about what you're doing

I fear for Canadian politics since you seem to be one of the more moderate Conservatives.

[Josephus]

It's easy to pick on Trudeau now, as it was easy to pick on Mulroney when he left office.
I think history will look kindly on Trudeau, as it did Mulroney. There were plenty of things he did get done: mostly the child benefit which did a lot to reduce child poverty, the dental plan (I get Singh had a lot to do with that one), I think Trudeau did well during COVID, and dealt with Trump 1.0 admirably.

He will be remembered for reneging on the electoral reform (that really gets me) and the ethics scandals he had to deal with; but by and large I think he was a succesful prime minister.

Every era has its end-date. Trudeau past his by a couple years. Sometimes I think the American two-term rule might be apropos here too.

We'll have to come back to this in 10, or even 20 years - but I think history will judge Trudeau harshly.

So I could quibble about many of the programs you cite positively - the child benefit simply replaced the Harper-era universal child care benefit and covered many fewer people.  Dental care again doesn't cover that many people.  And on the other hand I thought voting reform was stupid and Trudeau smart to abandon it.

Trudeau inherited a surplus (maybe late, but still) and has given us deficits.  Declining productivity growth which he masked by massively increasing immigration.  Standard of living falling further behind the US.

With you on the increasing immigration bit (see we can find common ground). But yeah, let's get back to this in, say, 15 years.

[Barrister]

So on the one hand you claim to be, you never Trumper.  And I accept that you were being completely harnessed about that.

The thing that is very perplexing is that you still wish to mimic of the trumpet rhetoric and seemingly without any insight about what you're doing

I fear for Canadian politics since you seem to be one of the more moderate Conservatives.

Not every single thing Trump says or does is wrong.  Just most of them.

I could say the same about Justin Trudeau - and do.

[crazy canuck]

So on the one hand you claim to be, you never Trumper.  And I accept that you were being completely harnessed about that.

The thing that is very perplexing is that you still wish to mimic of the trumpet rhetoric and seemingly without any insight about what you're doing

I fear for Canadian politics since you seem to be one of the more moderate Conservatives.

Not every single thing Trump says or does is wrong.  Just most of them.

I could say the same about Justin Trudeau - and do.

A non sequitur does not answer my concern that you have adopted Trump is language. With the use of language in the adoption of ideology is not far behind.

We were asserted that there is a "real phenomenon" here.  Let's delve into that a little bit shall we?

What are the right schools you're referring to and what are the right circles you're referring to?

I pointed out that just a decade ago a complete outsider Ontario raised but adopting an Alberta based politics was running the country.

So the TLDR is what the hell are you talking about?

[crazy canuck]

In other news, Carney is going to be announcing his leadership bid on Thursday.

Born in the northwest territories and raised in Edmonton so I'm not sure what that's going to do with BB's right circles swamp theory.

[Grey Fox]

He's part of it, quite deep.

He's Freeland's son Godfather, ffs.

[Barrister]

In other news, Carney is going to be announcing his leadership bid on Thursday.

Born in the northwest territories and raised in Edmonton so I'm not sure what that's going to do with BB's right circles swamp theory.

We've been over his bio before CC.

Undergrad at Harvard.  Masters and doctorate at Oxford.  Worked at Goldman Sachs for 13 years.  Senior civil servant at Bank of Canada.  You know the rest.

He's part of the "elite" - or whatever you want to call it.  Like I said before - all of Trudeau's staffers and advisors are running his leadership campaign.

Now unlike Trump - who sees corruption and wonders how he can get his share - the "elite" don't see it as corruption.  Instead it's "whatever is good for Power Corp. / Desmarais family, is good for the Liberal Party, is good for Canada".  It's why Canada has so much of its economy tied up in a small number of firms - only five big banks, only 2 telecommunications companies, only two grocery chains, only two pharmacy chains (one of which is owned by a grocery chain), and so on.

You brought up Harper.  Harper and the Conservatives were never embraced by this "elite" (or "laurentian elite" if you prefer), and faced resistance, both within bureaucracy and the media.

Harper's government was not perfect - but compare Harper's scandals with those of the Liberals.  Harper had the "in-and-out" scandal.  The Conservatives did plead guilty to breaking election laws.  But in the end it was an accounting scandal - the Conservatives booked national campaign spending as local riding spending.  Or prorogation - it was considered scandalous when Harper did it, but not at all when Trudeau has done it.

Liberal scandals though tend to be about mixing up the interests of the nation with the interests of the Liberals.  I already talked about SNC Lavalin.  So lets go to WE Charity.  Trudeau's Liberals see no problem in sole-sourcing $900 million dollar program to WE Charity to administer, despite close ties between WE and the Trudeau family.  Or the Sponsorship scandal, where the government gave millions of dollars to Liberal-aligned ad agencies in Quebec, which then kicked back money back to the Liberal Party.

It would be interesting to see a true "outsider" take the reigns of the Liberal Party.  Freeland wouldn't be it - again it's Harvard and Oxford, journalism career at the Financial Times and the G&M, before holding a series of senior posts in Trudeau's government.  I'm not sure who that would be though.  Christy Clark?  Studied at SFU, the Sorbonne and Edinburgh (though didn't graduate), long time service in BC politics (but not Ottawa politics) would have been more outsider-y.  I don't imagine that happening though.

The last number of Liberal leaders have all been from this kind of mold - right schools, right connections.  Trudeau is kind of the exception - except for, you know, being a second generation Party leader.  But you had Dion (studied in France, academic), Ignatieff (you know him), Martin (Power Corp!), and Chretien.  Chretien always played up his "little guy" persona, but he did study law, and was in Liberal Party politics for decades, including senior roles in Trudeau Sr's cabinets.

Say what you will about the Conservatives, but their leaders have been a much more varied lot.  You know POilievre.  Before that we had O'Toole (military, lawyer), Scheer (insurance sales, from Saskatchewan), Harper (mostly politics, but also NCC), and Day (Pastor).  Then also consider some of the other people who have ran - Kevin O'Leary, Belinda Stronach, Maxime Bernier.

[crazy canuck]

So again, what are the "right schools" what is the "right circles" that underpin your justification for importing the Trumpist terminology of the swamp?

I have interacted with senior politicians and civil servants my whole life (hell I am married to someone who falls within that description).  In my experience most of them, like all Canadians, came from small towns, were educated in a large variety of universities for both their undergrad and post graduate work.

I see no cabal here dwelling in a swamp.

I also note you have moved to the rhetoric of the "elite".  That is at least some progress. You could have doubled down with your use of the word "swamp".  It's better than your attempt to justify your use of Trumpist terminology.

[viper37]

He's part of it, quite deep.

He's Freeland's son Godfather, ffs.

He's a Liberal.  He'll surround himself with Liberal.  That's one strike for him.


But he hasn't been a militant for the party playing an active role in politics.  His role was limited to economics and banking regulations.  Which he acquitted himself of wonderfully.


The full interview with Jon Stewart is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs8St-fF0kE

The most interesting segment is about the 2008 financial crisis just at the beginning, and it lasts less than 1 minute.


Economy wise, there's no doubt in my mind that he's an heavyweight and that's the guy we need compared to the Bitcoin dude.

I'm not worried about social issues, it's the Liberal party.  I doubt he'd be as woke as Trudeau was, though. 

Environmental issues are a non starter, people are tired to hear about it, they see all talks and no actions, only money spent unwisely.  He'll have a tough time approaching this issue from a purely environmental point.  But his interview on Jon Stewart's show gives me hope.

Provincial-Federal issues.  Constitutional issues.  Huge question mark.  We'll have to wait and see.  Can't be worst than Trudeau or any of his current ministers.  And I'm willing to endure 4-10 years of him rather PP.  Even pushing to 12.  Besides, if Quebecers are so fed up, it's up to the PQ to convince everyone else that independence is the solution.

Fiscal policy.  The capital gains tax increase is dead.  There might be some changes to make the very rich people pay more, but I doubt we will see very drastic changes.  I don't expect any tax cuts for the foreseeable future, nor do I even expect a shift from income tax to sales tax anytime soon with all that uncertainty.


You know, if we had a political system like the US where we vote for the Prime Minister and the MPs seperately, I might vote for Carney and vote for a Bloc MP.

[Barrister]

So again, what are the "right schools" what is the "right circles" that underpin your justification for importing the Trumpist terminology of the swamp?

I have interacted with senior politicians and civil servants my whole life (hell I am married to someone who falls within that description).  In my experience most of them, like all Canadians, came from small towns, were educated in a large variety of universities for both their undergrad and post graduate work.

I see no cabal here dwelling in a swamp.

I also note you have moved to the rhetoric of the "elite".  That is at least some progress. You could have doubled down with your use of the word "swamp".  It's better than your attempt to justify your use of Trumpist terminology.

Right schools?

Well Harvard and Oxford seem to come up an awful lot now don't they?  You can certainly add Yale and Cambridge.  Some of the more elite French schools.  In Canada, U of T (and in Quebec - Laval?).

The right circles?  Well - Power Corp / Desmarais family for one.  Not necessarily as a family member, but associating within their empire.  Or Associations with any of the really large corporations really - Rogers family, Weston family.  The CBC and/or Globe and Mail (this category is probably dying off).  And naturally - the Liberal Party itself.

And while Trudeau himself is a pure nepo baby, I agree most of those elites/swamp dwellers weren't born into it, and even see their own circles as being meritocratic.  Many/most of them are in fact quite smart!  Both Freeland and Carney got some level of scholarships to study at Harvard - and just being accepted there is hard.  But they don't realize how narrow the circles they move in are.

For the last time - I do not care if a word or phrase is used by Trump or not.



YOu kow I wondered if there was a list of PMs and the schools they attended - and there is!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_Canada_by_academic_degrees

So for starters I think you will notice the obvious difference between Liberal PMs and Conservative ones (other than Mulroney).  And Trudeau Jr is a bit of an outlier.  But here goes:

J Trudeau - McGill/UBC
Harper U of Calgary (x2)
Martin U of T (x2)
Chretien - Seminaire St Marie (?) / Laval
Campbell - UBC (x2)
Mulroney - SFX / Laval (x2)
Turner - UBC / Oxford (x3)
Clark - U of A (x2)
P Trudeau - Montreal / Oxford
Pearson - U of T / Oxford (x2)
Deifenbaker - U of S (x3)
St Laurent - Séminaire Saint-Charles-Borromée (?) / Laval
Mackenzie King - U of T (x3) / Harvard (x2)
Meighen - U of T / Osgoode

(and now we're into the 19th century and lawyers who didn't even have to go to school)

You don't notice a certain pattern when it comes to Liberal leaders?  How many times does U of T / Laval / Harvard / Oxford come up?

[viper37]

In other news, Carney is going to be announcing his leadership bid on Thursday.

Born in the northwest territories and raised in Edmonton so I'm not sure what that's going to do with BB's right circles swamp theory.

We've been over his bio before CC.

Undergrad at Harvard.  Masters and doctorate at Oxford.  Worked at Goldman Sachs for 13 years.  Senior civil servant at Bank of Canada.  You know the rest.

He's part of the "elite" - or whatever you want to call it.  Like I said before - all of Trudeau's staffers and advisors are running his leadership campaign.

Now unlike Trump - who sees corruption and wonders how he can get his share - the "elite" don't see it as corruption.  Instead it's "whatever is good for Power Corp. / Desmarais family, is good for the Liberal Party, is good for Canada".  It's why Canada has so much of its economy tied up in a small number of firms - only five big banks, only 2 telecommunications companies, only two grocery chains, only two pharmacy chains (one of which is owned by a grocery chain), and so on.

You brought up Harper.  Harper and the Conservatives were never embraced by this "elite" (or "laurentian elite" if you prefer), and faced resistance, both within bureaucracy and the media.

Harper's government was not perfect - but compare Harper's scandals with those of the Liberals.  Harper had the "in-and-out" scandal.  The Conservatives did plead guilty to breaking election laws.  But in the end it was an accounting scandal - the Conservatives booked national campaign spending as local riding spending.  Or prorogation - it was considered scandalous when Harper did it, but not at all when Trudeau has done it.

Liberal scandals though tend to be about mixing up the interests of the nation with the interests of the Liberals.  I already talked about SNC Lavalin.  So lets go to WE Charity.  Trudeau's Liberals see no problem in sole-sourcing $900 million dollar program to WE Charity to administer, despite close ties between WE and the Trudeau family.  Or the Sponsorship scandal, where the government gave millions of dollars to Liberal-aligned ad agencies in Quebec, which then kicked back money back to the Liberal Party.

It would be interesting to see a true "outsider" take the reigns of the Liberal Party.  Freeland wouldn't be it - again it's Harvard and Oxford, journalism career at the Financial Times and the G&M, before holding a series of senior posts in Trudeau's government.  I'm not sure who that would be though.  Christy Clark?  Studied at SFU, the Sorbonne and Edinburgh (though didn't graduate), long time service in BC politics (but not Ottawa politics) would have been more outsider-y.  I don't imagine that happening though.

The last number of Liberal leaders have all been from this kind of mold - right schools, right connections.  Trudeau is kind of the exception - except for, you know, being a second generation Party leader.  But you had Dion (studied in France, academic), Ignatieff (you know him), Martin (Power Corp!), and Chretien.  Chretien always played up his "little guy" persona, but he did study law, and was in Liberal Party politics for decades, including senior roles in Trudeau Sr's cabinets.

Say what you will about the Conservatives, but their leaders have been a much more varied lot.  You know POilievre.  Before that we had O'Toole (military, lawyer), Scheer (insurance sales, from Saskatchewan), Harper (mostly politics, but also NCC), and Day (Pastor).  Then also consider some of the other people who have ran - Kevin O'Leary, Belinda Stronach, Maxime Bernier.

You make an association between the school, the social circle they would build there and the corruption that happens later in life when they join the Liberal Party.

I do not follow that link.

In any case, if we follow your list, ont of the Conservatives' list you gave us, only Harper is noteworthy.  Scheer was (and still is) a religious zealot who wanted to bring the abortion issue back to the front, placing his personal conviction above his duty to the country.
O'Toole was ok, but was betrayed by his party.
Day is a conspiracy theorist, likely always has been.
Kevin O'Leary, let's not dwell too much.
Maxime Bernier is an intellectual lightweight, and it seems Harper himself didn't trust him much.


Most Liberals are concerned about one thing and only thing to the point of obsession: national unity.  They see the seperation of Quebec as the most mortal danger the country could ever face and are willing to do anything to prevent it, and they see only themselves as able to prevent it.

It's a religious fervor akin to an middle age Inquisitor, I think.  They will lie, they will cheat, they will accept bribes if it means that in their mind it will preserve Canadian unity.

Carney seems preoccupied about Canadian economy.  That's a vast improvement to me.

The rest remains to bee seen, but I'm listening.

[Barrister]

You make an association between the school, the social circle they would build there and the corruption that happens later in life when they join the Liberal Party.

I do not follow that link.

So let's be clear - it's not like they implant a mind-control chip in your brain when you go to U of T or Harvard or wherever.  Just as one example - JD Vance graduated Yale law school and is now Trump's VP.  Mihali on this board graduated Harvard law but went on to become a public defender.  Lots of people go to those schools and then return to comparatively more ordinary lives.

But can't you see the pattern?  Study at those prestigious schools.  Work in finance or journalism - often in New York or London.  Become associated with the Liberal Party.  Confuse the interests of the Liberal Party with the interests of the nation.

Most Liberals are concerned about one thing and only thing to the point of obsession: national unity.  They see the seperation of Quebec as the most mortal danger the country could ever face and are willing to do anything to prevent it, and they see only themselves as able to prevent it.

It's a religious fervor akin to an middle age Inquisitor, I think.  They will lie, they will cheat, they will accept bribes if it means that in their mind it will preserve Canadian unity.

Carney seems preoccupied about Canadian economy.  That's a vast improvement to me.

The rest remains to bee seen, but I'm listening.

The people around Carney are the people around Trudeau.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/trudeau-still-trying-to-anoint-carney-as-liberal-leader

That's the international view but the domestic view will be much less confrontational, much less controversial. In fact, it's doubtful they will ask him any difficult questions. As reported over the weekend, Trudeau's team is fully in on Carney, he is the next incarnation of Justin Trudeau's term in office no matter how much they wish to dispute it.

The following people with connections to Trudeau have been tied to Carney's campaign by fellow Liberals — Gerry Butts, Mike McNair, Brian Clow, Tom Pitfield and, of course, his Chief of Staff Katie Telford. Through the PMO comms team, Telford has denied making calls for Carney but multiple independent Liberals swear the calls took place.

These are people who have been with Trudeau for decades — the Globe and Mail reported Tuesday that Pitfield had stepped away, but only after his participation caused concern.

Trudeau announced on Jan. 6 that he would step down as Liberal leader once the party picks a new head honcho. Apparently, he didn't promise not to put his thumb on the scale, which is what he has done.

Of course Carney is going to emphasize the economy.  It's the number one issue on voters minds, and it plays to the strength of his resume.

But I'd be shocked if we see a significant change between a Carney government and a Trudeau one.

[viper37]

You don't notice a certain pattern when it comes to Liberal leaders?  How many times does U of T / Laval / Harvard / Oxford come up?

At the age these politicians are, there weren't many schools offering post graduate or master degrees for their relevant fields.

So, yes, Laval will often come up, so will HEC if they studied any field related to business admin.

As the people now in their 30s will reach their late 50s/early 60s and become leader, you will see more diversity in universities.

But keep in mind that politics isn't very varied: you usually don't go into politics following a patch from Computer Science, Biology, applied science, etc

Most politicians still come for a law background, political science, economics, and sometimes engineering and business admin.  Obviously, there are exceptions (Marc Garneau), but most politicians aren't astronauts.

So yeah, less diversities from universities as in the past, not many offered post-graduate programs.  Especially for older politicians, there were maybe 2-3 universities in Quebec for a master degree in some fields.

[Barrister]

You don't notice a certain pattern when it comes to Liberal leaders?  How many times does U of T / Laval / Harvard / Oxford come up?

At the age these politicians are, there weren't many schools offering post graduate or master degrees for their relevant fields.

Nonsense.  All the major Canadian universities are over a century old.  Yet it's always U of T / Laval.  Tons of universities around the world - but it's always Harvard / Oxford.

[viper37]

The people around Carney are the people around Trudeau.


But I'd be shocked if we see a significant change between a Carney government and a Trudeau one.

I know Trudeau's current advisors sided with Carney, out of spite toward Freeland because they see her as a betrayor.

Still, he's a smart guy.  Much smarter than Poilièvre who can do only one thing: throw insults.

Like I said, I'm gonna wait and see.