Bloggers note: lets hear a little MEA CULPA here , from MPs that still have a conscience telling them : WEEL MAYBE I DID THIS AND THAT , can you tell me if i did something wrong ???..lets get MPs come forward and stand to be scrutinized ...OTHERwise this will end like the 1990s. Mulroney cabinet when through a 11 day hearing by a judge and were to be charged by Ontario s Bobs RAEs attorney general one day then reversed his original statement in writing and forgo charges in the name of MORE investigation was needed ,,
ended by a ultimatum that when like this ...IF THESE GUYS (MPs) RUN AGAIN THEY WILL BE CHARGED IF THEY DO NOT ..CASE CLOSED.
But in this case i believe there maybe charges later ....on those that commit treason
........................===========
Premiered Jun 14, 2024 Good Talk Who to believe? Who would you believe if you had a choice between believing Jagmeet Singh or Elizabeth May? That question is being asked now concerning the whole "is there a traitor or traitors in the House" issue. Singh and May certainly sound like they disagree. Bruce and Chantal have their thoughts on this, plus, the capital gains tax may be flopping for the Liberals; and, who will young people vote for -- you may be surprised.
are you ready for good [Music] talk and hello there Peter mans here with Sean Telly bear and Bruce Anderson uh it's Friday that means good talk and uh well we've got I hope an interesting good talk for you today lots to talk about some of the main stories of the week haven't really changed in a week certainly the lead one hasn't it's it's kind of I don't know how many of you remember the old Mad Magazine they used to have like a kind of a cartoon section that was called spy versus spy you know it was a good spy it was a spy and that's kind of like what's seems to be going on you like that it's Som what's going on in the House of Commons you know there's there's the good Traders and there's the bad Traders there's treason or there's not treason um and it really depends on who's doing the the investigating of the report to determine you know what's exactly going on you know you have Elizabeth green or Elizabeth May from the green party you have ju me Singh from the NDP with two very different versions after they've read the secret report as to what may or may not be going on in the House of Commons and in the Senate are there traitors is there treason is it spy versus spy what exactly is happening um so you remember Boris and Natasha do you remember that cartoon I think it was Rocky and bowinkle anyway Boris and Natasha were these two spies in it just if we're looking for other cartoon references that was one of my favorite that dealt with spies you understand that you're outside my uh my my culture field here so before I start going on about T and the many spies he encountered let's move on all right move on Dantel reads a little deeper stuff thanan too I thought maybe it came across her TV back I I Ain never spoke enough English to read it until I was 16 well Bruce you start us off this week what are we if ever there was a week if ever there was a week when I love our standard well Shantel why don't you start us up because I've been thinking about this since you said oh talk about it when she said last night and then okay I stopped thinking about it because it was just fluming me I was trying to figure out um what the heck to make of this and you know how I always have felt like there should be a little disclaimer on a podcast that says uh what we say may not be accurate and I shouldn't apply it to Shantel because it's almost always accurate I'm sure but sometimes I feel like we have to say things about a subject matter where you go I don't know if this is right or not not so anyway with all of that here's what I think um I do think that it is you know it's been another episode where the government hasn't been able to really kind of grapple with how to communicate about this in a simple enough way so that people understand the basic precepts which they're working with which on the whole I think um the position that they're taking is probably the right position it doesn't look good politically because it you end up having this conversation that's out in the wilderness with people some people saying I haven't read the report but here's what it makes me feel and other people saying I read the report and here's how I interpret it Elizabeth May and I'm not that concerned about it and jug meet Singh yesterday saying I read the report and it's uh devastatingly disconcerting um so I do think the government's going to have to do more to not do what juget Singh says necessarily um but certainly to to try to explain this discrepancy uh to people try to explain the reasons again why the government can't do what might seem to regular people like an obvious thing to do which is like put the report out put the names out let the chips fall where they may I happen to continue to believe that there are good reasons why you might not want to do that in particular uh because it could reveal to the uh to the people who are doing the farious things either those who are trying to influence uh uh and interfere in our democracy or if there are some bad actors in our Parliament those Bad actors when in fact it might be better to monitor to uh develop information that might lead to a prosecution and then to proceed with the law as the law permits you to U that to me is the most important reason perhaps for not revealing that second obviously and and not notably less important is if the Intel comes from our allies and is part of an agreement that we have with them about how we would ever make such information available to the public then I think it's a better idea for us to abide by those uh constraints then to break those constraints uh but it is always going to be a judgment call I think by the prime minister of the day or the government of the day and in a situation like this the government ends up feeling that it you know it kind of has the weight uh of this decision on its shoulders and very little ability it feels like to to kind of debate its choices publicly or explain its choices publicly but in the end I think they do they are going to feel like they have to say more about this because of what Mr Sing said last thing for me on on jug M s's comments were he he threw around the world the word traitor a little bit um and he said there are you know things that seem to be crimes and should be Pro prosecuted and I just feel as though political leaders need to be careful how they use those words um if there I think that the proper setting for a political leader is to say there are things that look quite Troublesome and I hope the police evaluate them and to see if there's room for a prose if there's reason for a prosecution and if so to prosecute I don't think that people should toss around the word uh traitor um with without understanding as Shantel has kind of raised in past conversations the weight of that word and what it means uh because it's kind of stoking the fire here a little bit and I'm not sure if that's if that's the right thing to do because we in the end don't know what's in the report SE so uh to start with I know that Bruce doesn't mean to say that in the name of protecting intelligence operations the prime minister or other leaders should refrain from taking actions against those MPS because that is where that logic leads if you're not going to want to unsettle ongoing intelligence investigations then you do not want to be kind of agitating the weeds uh but if you push this to its ultimate logic then you don't do anything and you don't say anything to the MPS because they're going to find out that they are being under surveillance possibly for bigger fish I'm not sure where that really leaves the government um by the way if FR Blan is the next person who is going to be reading this report uh and it will be interesting to see his take on this but I believe overall that this week the two uh leaders uh most likely to lead this country I.E the current prime minister who is in the chair and the leader of the official opposition P who is leading in voting intentions both let Canadians down for different reasons Mr Trudeau has had this report since March my understanding is that he had a say as prime minister in what was going to be redacted and what was going to be made public yet he has provided zero context ever since the beginning of this story in public zero context of the kind that both Chuck me Singh and Elizabeth may have provided it should have been on him to do so between March and now they the that did not bark is any sign that with Mr trudo saw in this report troubled him enough to make changes in his caucus try to encourage some MPS not to undo something about whatever findings are in there which you know if we're going to be the the the the Blind and we're all blind as voters we are being led by oneeyed Kings and would be Kings uh looking from the outside you'd say well if nothing happen since March Mr Trudeau must be closer to Elizabeth May stake on this than to J sing otherwise Would we not have seen some incling uh that he has found serious grounds to do something about it within his own ranks that they are after all the government Mr PV is now the only leader who will not read the report doesn't even want to be one eyed he wants to remain blind to whatever is in this it doesn't wear well on a wouldbe prime minister to engage in willful blindness about the state of things on an issue as serious as that um and it would be important to to have his stake and to know that he is asking questions and yes he can still ask questions uh having seen what we saw this week it's hard to to to see how constrained he would be uh for having read the report um but do not want to know the lay of the land looks worse this week than last week the reason why I think they have ended up in this position is that initially this started remember when David Johnston's first report came out and I think partly rightly both the BL and the conservatives back then said we are not going to want to have a briefing about more stuff we can't talk about Mr Johnston nothing in there will convince us uh and nothing he could say that there shouldn't be public heiring of this issue and I think by reflex the conservatives stuck to that position but events have moved way past that uh and and it leaves Canadians I agree with Bruce that the government and by the government I do mean the prime minister is going going to have to provide more context uh and account for his actions because by not saying anything Justin Trudeau is actually on this Jo me sing Is On Solid Ground he is escap keeping uh accountability uh by putting himself in a silo uh of silence and I don't think that serves either the issue or Canadian SW I just Peter if I can just for a second um first of all thank you Sean for clarifying that I wasn't saying that the Prime Minister should interpret what I said as as being uh licensed to do nothing and I do think that the burden uh on him is increasingly to show that he took these concerns seriously that he did something as a consequence or that he uh at least is now going to although even just saying that that way is probably part of the conundrum they feel like they're they're so far behind the curve again on this issue by looking as though they had a report didn't take it serious enough to uh uh to want to raise alarm Bells uh to situate what was ultimately going to come out in a way that people could understand uh to explain enough times with enough Clarity the choices that they were making and why they were in The public's interest as opposed to in their own political interest the same burden I do think I agree with Shantel completely is now on Mr POV the question that starts to develop over time is is the reason that you're not wanting to get this briefing uh to get clearance so that you can read this report is it because you you will find it uncomfortable if it says something about members of your own party that question is uh was always going to be a bit legitimate uh and the answer that I think has been used is always well you don't want to put yourself in a situation where as official opposition leader you can't really criticize the government I think the the burden of evidence right now is shifted more towards get the briefing if you want to be seen as a serious Contender for the office of prime minister and for Mr Trudeau I think it's um you're going to have to step into the middle of this you're going to have to clarify where you're coming from and and what you did or didn't do or how you reacted that we didn't know about and uh why people should have confidence that the government is taking this issue seriously enough all right well there are two points that that you're both sort of coming down to one is the PO position I find it interesting that that while Singh took the briefing Tom Mare is saying the former NDP leader is that PV shouldn't take the briefing that he supports pov's position as it is um that they will put him in a box in terms of asking questions now I think you both addressed that in terms of what he can ask and where he can go but I found it interesting uh that um mare would do that we've talked about mclair a number of times in the last few weeks he kind of bopping back and forth in in terms of uh of his feelings about POV but on this one he seems to be saying POV is is doing the right thing which I don't know whether that's more uh supportive of POV than it is not supportive of of what his successor did there is a a thread here and by the way uh with all due respect to Mr moner uh he is not the Arbiter of what is right and wrong in the House of Commons he's just one of many uh and in its case a bit of a lonely U analyst to have come to that conclusion which actually serves um this this favorite team which is how bad Justin tudo really is but but the thing is here just to pick up Thomas mare was probably the best leader of the official opposition that we saw in decades and part of the reason why he did so poorly is that he spent most of his time addition in to be leader of the opposition in giving PV that advice he's actually encouraging Mr PV to go down the same path he did that is not hamper his capacity to be a an effective leader of the official opposition in favor of becoming a better prime minister if that is going to happen and I find that really interesting and not to totally surprising why would you advise your successor as leader of the official opposition to take a path different from yours which might bring you to admit that maybe you didn't take the turn towards being the Prime Minister and waiting early enough and ended up in the campaign being rewarded by losing both jobs the other the other point that I that I want to raise that you both have raised is this issue of the report itself now I understand um there were all kinds of conditions placed on the secrecy suring that report what can be said about it what can't be said about it but I think it seems to me tell me if I'm wrong that we've reached a point on this story where it's awfully hard now to keep that thing totally secret that the only way out of this is going to be in some fashion and with you know with all the proper uh you know conditions placed around the naming of names but at least the basic report have we not reached a point where the only way to clarify this story in terms of the Canadian people and possibly the some of the uh the MPS themselves is to make it public why like what's the downside here well the downside is for one and I I say this from anecdotal but real uh evidence is that if you do so you will have I understand that there are names in there obviously uh and that will happen I know of two persons uh that I'm not going to name who were once tagged as possible security risks by cus and then were not because it was based on a lot of associations and in the end it turned out that whatever smoke cus and others thought they saw uh was a cloud that the wind took away so the the risk is and that is the same risk with publishing the names is that you will forever have this over your head even if it's not founded uh and and that is a real conundrum yes if you put your the names out these people will be able to defend themselves but against what you're when you're fighting Security Services intelligence you're fighting ghosts you're not it's not as if the person across from you in the House of Commons wants to debate whether you're a spy or not or a traitor it's who who is saying that on the basis of what I'm not sure you can get um due process uh to work in this particular instance okay well I'm I'm not suggesting I'm not suggesting that the name should be handed out I'm like I I I still don't like understand what the hell are they talking about like where people taking money to give secrets about our you know our our defense capabil ities or or whatever the thing is um would it not be would it not give us some indication of how serious a situation we're talking about if there was some given where we are on this story right I understand a month ago not but now given everything that's being said that there is some clarity brought to the situation as to what in fact we're talking about I go back to but I go back to my old question Peter do you have you known many back benchers to have state secrets to solve because I haven't no I haven't either and I think that um so I keep vacillating between wanting to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt on this and sort of say let's walk through the logic of what he was presented with what he knows about everyday occurrences of foreign actors trying to influence our and intervene in our Democratic activities which is probably a lot and probably quite worrisome and probably has been for his entire term as prime minister a mixture of facts speculation rumor guilt by association all the things that Shantel alluded to and if you've known that has been going on and if you know that the information is of questionable quality sometime but still you'd rather know it you'd still rather have it be shared with you and collected by our intelligence service but you also know that there are real world consequences for making the choice to kind of blurt that information out and and and I do think that if you blurt the information out the cry for the names uh just becomes almost overpowering and so on balance and I'm I'm sort of laying out this logic of what would be in the prime minister's mind to have taken the positions that he's taken or the decisions that he's taken so far giving him the benefit of the doubt you would you would come to the conclusion that to shantel's point this is about conversations that foreign actors are having with back Ventures how much risk is there to National Security in that now I say that and I know there are people are going to kind of howl with outrage at the at the Cavalier way i' put that but I think shantel's right that this you know that if there was evidence that state secrets were being passed uh to other governments that there would have been more uh evident reaction by the government so far instead I suspect that the prime minister is looking at information that he sees as of mixed quality uh around individuals that have done some things that that test the limits of what's acceptable maybe go beyond it uh some of which he you know wanted to make sure that the police were looking at from the standpoint of is there a rationale for a prosecution here or at least the reason for further investigation and surveillance I heard J Singh say you know that he thought that putting the names out would put people on notice that they were being watched if I understood his comment correctly well I happen to believe that if anybody is doing this kind of thing right now they're already on notice that this is being observed those names don't be out there and I completely agree with Shantel that we've seen we've known of situations where um intelligence agencies in good faith suggested that there might be a problem with an individual here or there that turned out not to be real and the consequences for those individuals are something that half to way you want a prime minister to weigh those consequences in making this decision and air on the side of not implicating people who might not be guilty of anything in a way that might tarnish them for life it just back to my point for a moment um if this is ever going to end it's only going to end with some kind of clarity as to what was really going on because nobody's going to believe anybody saying it wasn't bad or it was bad because we just don't know what it I it was um and given that politically I almost get it why paav is not is doing what he's doing because this just keeps going on and it's not I don't think it's hurting him everything everything that happens these days only seems to hurt one one party um you're shaking your head Shantel well I I would be uh I would I would like to have Mr Pia's take on this report I I would like him to tell me that he's comfortable with his caucus and comfortable with his colleagues or not and if he wants he can do what jock me Singh said yesterday we understand that there are conservatives in liberals in there that's clear after two weeks that much information is not a state secret some of them are past parliamentarians but I I would like as I will be really interested in if FR blanz take on the report and I'm pretty sure there won't be any BL mpce in there uh but I I at some point you do want to have the take on this report from Justin trudo and PV in the and and if Mr PV comes out and says this is really you know gross negligence has been allowed to to unfold he wasn't in government over the past eight or nine years if there are people in a caucus in a larger sense including Senators doing things that cross the line someone should have told him or told eron ool so that they could act or and nothing happened apparently Mr Mr PV is not acting as if he ever got a heads up from anyone that be careful stuff is happening there's also stuff in there about the media I'd really like to know what this committee really means about their media you know Bruce knows my obsession with the notion that they media is kind of a catch word for just about anything the media has been targeted by Foreign interference efforts and as who are we what what organizations are we actually talking about here is it the entirety of the media environment or is it a a couple of Publications I don't know that um the leadership campaigns of the conservative party the past two were the subject of e efforts of electoral interference from India and China okay that's possible knowing what happens when you kind of uh sign up members but but does that mean it impacted on the results I went through the last leadership campaign of the conservatives looking for science that a a an organized Chinese effort that help one of the two main candidates Shan share andv writing by writing taking the 20 writings with the largest Chinese communities and I found absolutely no discrepancy between the results of the two main candidates in those writings versus comparable writings and you're left with all those questions and no answers and it's a pretty broad attack on just about everything that happened in this country over the past five to eight years so so I do think that Mr PV for the sake of his stature as a future Prime Minister should be speaking on the basis of knowledge about this issue you get the last word if you have one Bruce on this subject well I do think it's coming upon Mr POV to uh you know to to do more on this issue to explain his position on you know if if he really believes that the right choice is to not Avail himself of this information so that he can uh remain in the role of critic of the government you know he should own that choice and and step up to the mic and explain it to people rather than have people kind of do it for him and have people kind of surmise that this might be the reason I don't think it's it's a good enough answer I I think he should uh enter into a conversation with the government about what to do about this I think that's the serious response to this um but there's no evidence that he's going to take that and there's no real evidence that to your point Peter the only people who ever seem to get hurt these days are the incumbents uh whether it's in Canada or somewhere else um he might not be paying a price for it and he might not pay a price for taking that position there's no evidence that he has so far um but I do think that the the biggest burden right now is on the prime minister to uh to step into this mix and and try to put this issue to bed by explaining what the choices are that he made and why he made them and why he thinks they're the right choices and and to try to move on okay on that note we're going to take our first break come back with a different subject right after this [Music] and welcome back you're listening to a good talk the Friday episode of the bridge with shantell bear and Bruce Anderson you're listening on Series XM channel 167 Canada talks are on your favorite podcast platform or you're watching us on our YouTube channel we're glad to have you with us topic number two capital gains tax how long's it been since the budget six weeks something like that it's been a one been a long time ago so long ago I can't remember when it was um but one of the things the Liberals were so proud of themselves for slipping into the budget was new rules around capital gains which they felt put them on the side of the little person and up against the fat cats and they wanted that same split to happen for the conservatives except the opposite of theirs but the conservatives through Pierre pev took his time of deciding what exactly he was going to say about this what position they were going to take and it's gone on and on and on to the point where a couple of days ago the Finance Minister who was behind the whole idea on the capital gains Chris Freeland gave a speech and some comments about where they were on this that did not come on off well to put it in its mildest terms um didn't work at all and she's taken a bit of a thrashing in the in the media for for her positioning on this and once again paav is over in the corner kind of smiling that delaying reaction has actually worked in his favor we'll see eventually and when the people speak on it but have the Liber lost this fight on the capital gains tax or are they losing it Shantel well I wouldn't go hunting with the Christa Freeland or at least not trap hunting because I would be afraid that I'd have to call an ambulance when she got her foot stuck in her own trap uh which is basically what we witnessed over the past few weeks for one uh the conservatives yes did feel that there was a a trap in the making in the budget uh and was kind of obvious to everyone the morning after the budget that the plan was to force Mr puer to either side with so-called fat fat cats or an damages brand as an everyday person or else a vote for ax uh that the Liberals are putting in place and then to be even more clever uh the Liberals decided to have separate legislation on it so that the conservatives couldn't vote against it in the budget as were against the budget so as part of their being against the budget they would have voted against the change uh and took six weeks to come up with the legislation until this week well six weeks is a long time to allow uh a bear to go through the forest to look at where you are setting up your traps uh and Mr PV did exactly that and what he did this week is actually um Turned the issue into an issue of liberals tax taing people now over those six weeks there have been plenty of stories of people who own a cottage a family Cottage and have had for decades who will be caught in this and who are hardly fat cats or doctors or small business people real people come out and public opinion so far is divided on this issue me I think that uh the Liberals lost a debate one with over the toop rethoric as in pregnant teenagers will be uh desperate if we don't have these tax changes uh which is almost not a caricature of what Christ freand argued a week ago uh but I also think that when it comes to voting people are angry because they think they'll be paying a tax or they will be paying a tax are much more likely to go vote than those who are not touched by the notion of a tax it brings back memories of the vaccine mandates that became the wedge issue that the Liberals t would win them a majority a couple of years ago and only ended up dividing uh Canadians and creating real wedges but did not result in what the Liberals hoped except this time we're gonna have a class war and the Liberals can't lose it I I think the last people who are who look like the people who would want to have a class war on behalf of U middle or M moderate income Canadians are not chrisa Freeland and Justin too that's not the first thought that comes to your mind when you look at them these are people who are like me struggling at the grocery store uh and who are fighting a class war on be on behalf of little people Bruce well Peter you started with um today's good talk with a reference to a cartoon a spy versus spy and as I was listening to Shantel talk about the the laying of a trap uh I was reminded of Wy coyote and the Road Runner you remember how the this coyote always thought he's going to lay this diabolical trap and the Road Runner was finally going to be captured by it and all that it was so obvious that the Road Runner figured out what the Trap was and how to avoid it this is uh absolutely a terrible political miscalculation on the part of the liberal it's not the policy itself I'm not enough of a policy expert to know whether this was a a really important tax change and to some degree I a bit agnostic on uh the money that they raised and what they spend it on um so if we just talk about it from the standpoint of is it successful political posturing uh it reminded me of the Liberals first uh drubbing around the small business tax changes early on in their uh first mandate that they they misunderstood the way in which um government changing the tax system increasing taxes sounds to Canadians it doesn't sound to Canadians like an overdue reconciling of uh uh a class divide it looks like government taking more money out of the economy and so if you're going to do that don't imagine that you're going to convince people that you're only taking it from the bad people who aren't paying their share because you won't probably convince them of that especially this far into your mandate maybe earlier on there was a chance to do that uh with small business tax changes but even there like now the next thing that happens when you say we're we're just going to uh extract a little bit of money from this one part of the economy because while you probably didn't know it these people weren't paying their share while you were all along what happens is and everybody says well actually you're doing the numbers wrong you're miscalculating the impacts they're much more severe and widespread and longterm than you're making that out to be and all of a sudden the public is like you know what that sounds more persuasive to me especially when you say it's going to raise this much money from this small a number of people so where did the Liberals go wrong on this uh you know my view is that if they felt like they needed that amount of money whatever it was1 19 billion dollar that this measure is going to generate um because they wanted to buy these things for the economy or for people they should have stayed focused on what the people were going to get for the money that was being raised rather than put so much emphasis on the most important thing here is that there have been people among you who have not been paying their share and we're going after them on your behalf because you're trying to introduce an issue where people might legitimately go well if this has been going on for eight years how come you didn't notice and if you're describing people who've been paying the taxes that they were required to pay should you be using that kind of language to demonize them and then the last part of that is that if you look like you're losing that fight should you dial the rhetoric up to 17 on the dial by saying things like these people if if you don't agree with us on this tax measure you're the equivalent of somebody who wants to live behind a g a gate in a gated community while people outside are starving there's no breakfast for kids that um unwed mothers are going to have babies because they can't afford contraceptives it was ludicrous in my view um because I think they just keep on doubling down on this idea that they can get the conservatives they can get uh they can get Wy coyote as a conservative leader instead of an actual conservative leaders pretty Wily politically and doesn't have much trouble figuring out how to dodge this particular trap so the more they try to prosecute this class war the deeper in the whole I think they will get on it I don't think people are going to come to the conclusion that thank God you know Justin Trudeau is finally trying to um deal with all of this tax avoidance by super rich people I'm I'm oldfashioned um I tend to think that the the Finance Minister should defend defend tax measures on the basis of finances uh and not on the basis of uh throwing stones at the official opposition it doesn't really convince me of anything except that the the Finance Minister is using the budget uh to score political points at the expense of governance and proper communication with Canadians and how well is that working not so well um here's what I don't understand that they make a decision to put a Freeland out front on this issue with this argument um which they probably could been told is going to fall flat uh given everything that's happened while at the same time their best Communicator or at least in my view on the topic that supposedly is the major topic for most Canadians that's housing and Sean Fraser you don't hear from anymore like it it just seems to me if you're GNA make a decision to go out front to try and change the dynamic out there you put your best person for now this is where I'm coming from if you need this money for housing which was the first line of argumentation that we heard keep talking about it keep saying you know what people some people won't like any tax measure this is the best one that we could think of because we need the money to make more housing happen will it work with everybody no but is it better than trying to counter that what we saw right after the budget in our polling was that 70% said this this this budget is going to tax every body more they didn't believe that it was only going to tax a small part of the population you're always going to lose that I think if you're an incumbent and you're trying to make the case that you found some sort of a tiny vein in which to insert the needle and extract the tax money the so they would have been way better off to just keep on focusing on we're making houses happen more quickly Sean Fraser in the window talking about it was a good solution for several months leading up to the budget and would be a good solution today but you know they're like they're like little kids playing with toys they keep trying out toys and when the outcome is not what they want they move on to the next toy so housing all those announcements did not move the needle in the way that instant gratification would have called for so let's move on to some new Ploy and put our all our energies on it I can't wait to see what the next shiny object uh that they believe will change uh the Dynamics electorally is going to be because at this point you know and that is the case often of governments that are in trouble is uh their already short attention span becomes almost non-existent and it feels like that when you look at this government they have lost control of the conversation it keeps going in places where they don't want it to go they believe that silence ofation is going to get allow them to get away with it foreign interference is the case the opposite is happening and they are convincing more and more people that they have really lost it we're GNA take our final break I got another subject uh that I want to talk and get your your thoughts on and uh we'll do that right after [Music] this spark conversation spark engagement spark action spark advocacy hello again Peter mans here with Shan and Bruce uh final segment of good talk for this week um interesting study done last week sort of in relation to the elections that took place in Europe last weekend and the suggestion that we're seeing something happening that we haven't seen in well in generations and that is a a shifting of the uh political Dynamic if you will uh interest if you will on the part of young people from left to right I mean it's generally being accepted in most countries in the in the Free World that uh younger voters have been on the Progressive side have voted uh Center left or further left than that um not just in Europe but in elsewhere as well in North America uh but this study of what has been happening in Europe suggested actually quite the opposite the younger voters are looking more attractively these days to the right of Center so I thought start with you Bruce on this and and whether we are seeing anything like that here yeah this is one of the most interesting um questions that we're seeing in public around different parts of the world and there is some evidence of it here I don't know if it's going from left to right or if it's going from more left towards the center but the movement directionally is uh is in the way that you described it Peter and I think it's there's enough evidence to believe that it's not just a there's not a rogue poll or a rogue political event out there there's some some materiality to it and so it's really worthwhile trying to understand it to the to the degree that I've seen enough research to have a hypothesis about it and it's just a hypothesis what I see is that young people have tended um for many years to believe that they can have their aspirational ideals and their values uh which tend as you say to tilt towards the progressive uh policy agenda climate change social justice uh Equity diversity inclusion um and redistribution um and they can hold those positions uh well at the same time experiencing uh a life uh which pragmatically is going pretty well that they're able to uh study they're able to develop jobs or careers and pay their bills and live the kind of lives that they hope that they would live that there was in effect no Zero Sum gain in the economy where you have to trade off some of the higher-minded ideals that you have for some of the everyday realities that you want and I think that the the way that the economy has been working and in particular the cost of living and the cost of housing and cost in some markets of student uh loans and student debt um has created a different Dynamic where young people are saying look um we don't want to abandon our ideals we're not changing our values but we need better results in terms of the Practical realities of our lives and so if we believe for example that housing is a big problem and immigration is part of that problem then we should look at immigration again if we believe that uh the balance of uh the conversation in our public policy sphere is about people who aren't us we want to address that balance a little bit and we want to and this is particularly true we're seeing among men uh younger men we want that addressed we want to feel as though we're a focus of attention in terms of public policy so I don't really want to go further than that because I think it really is more in the area of hypothesis and there are a number of threads that connect together there but I wouldn't I wouldn't say that what's happening is that young men are becoming misogynistic or young people are becoming more inclined towards racism that's not what I'm describing what I'm describing is more of a a search for practical Solutions even if it means you're looking at Progressive parties that you might have supported before and you don't feel that they're really speaking your language right now and U you you probably saw both of you probably saw what I saw yesterday which was Kier starmer U when he put out his labor party Manifesto in the UK uh was at pains to say we are pro business and pro worker we are the progrowth party and I found that quite interesting and instructive for Progressive parties that if you want those voters you need to make them feel as though uh you're focused on the economy and making the economy work for people as well as uh uh pursuing those Progressive IDE ideas Sean and of course the labor in the UK is looking for previous or past conservative votes so it makes a lot of sense to appeal to that side they're not going to win it on the left they have to go take votes on the right which um brings me to my sense that you can't divorce um those kinds of numbers with what is happening to incumbents uh these days on the left or the right so we have polls in this country that show that younger voters are increasingly interested in the conservative party walking away from the liberal party or the NDP uh but in the UK it's the reverse the younger voter uh strata is uh shifting or has shifted to labor So Gone left and what I read in that was that the in both places they're walking away from the incumbent and going to the alternative option I saw some interesting numbers u in Quebec recently where people were asked and remember that we have a government that is more right than of Center than left of center uh and very nationalist in its approach and people were asked do you believe that federalism has been U more bad than good for Quebec and in the old days when we covered this debate the three of us the younger voters were always the most inclined to say we're not getting a good deal in Canada we should support sovereignty and that shifted over the past 20 years and in this poll the highest proportion of people who believed federalism was more bad than good for Quebec were the 55 years old and over and the group that was most likely to say no unbalanced federalism has been better than bad for for Quebec were the among the younger voters where that that over 50 group were the younger voters day exactly when they were first discussing this and it goes to the nightmare of the P the sovereignty movement that in the end this is a dream that will die with Baby Boomers but uh those younger voters even if they may vote for PV I don't know what's going to happen in Quebec in the next election are still think that federalism which in their lifetime as they've grown up to become voters many of them as being a progressive government uh that of Justin hudu and with all of the stuff that is said about federalism in Quebec still un Balan like federalism better than their Elders uh and I thought this is really interesting it could be the way we look at younger voters is and and our measures need to be updated for an environment where issues like climate change a war Etc uh housing difficulties have become more important than flag Wars Bruce you wanted to make two quick things one is that the those Boomers were the surprised bonus voters that supported legalization of marijuana I remember seeing that in the numbers uh and uh it reminded me that in 1978 i i attended a liberal convention at the shadow laier in Ottawa and uh and obviously I'm a boomer uh and one of the things that I was kind of working on then was trying to get the liberal delegates to agree to legalize marijuana 1978 and So eventually those things catch each other but my my main point was Shantal said that in the UK the drift was more towards the right and certainly relative to um more towards the the left rather because people were moving from conservative to towards labor what I tend to see is more moving from ideological perspectives towards pragmatic perspectives that's I think the com the most common thread um but in in a number of markets it does have aspects that look as though it's adopting a more right of Center uh ideological perspective because the issue of immigration for example comes up uh time and time again but I mostly think it's it's people who are saying look the system's not working for me and I don't trust solutions that sound like they're packaged in ideology whether it's conservative or on the Progressive side I just want people to tell me how they're going to fix the problem and I think that is the success that Pier POV has been having to some degree in Canada is that he does really well when he says I'm just going to make there be more houses more quickly uh and I'm going to fix this problem with health care as opposed to to sounding like an idog all right we're going to leave it at that for this week uh a good conversation as it always is um and I I thank Sean tell for joining us she's in Ottawa picking up yet another one of her Awards and congratulations on that and you see her fancy hotel room suite in the backround yes sir taxpayer's money was not wasted on my hotel room and for all those people who are gonna write and say Peter you've got some kind of strange light poing down in your head I know I tried to get rid of it I don't know where it coming from um but it's there so it must be a sign of something Bruce just in as usual Ottawa haunt you look like a religious figure with that next week our last good talk before uh we take a bit of a Hiatus for most of the summer not all of it but for most of it uh and we'll have a chance to uh bring you up to date on whatever is worth bringing up to date next week uh as well as maybe a quick preview of the byelection which will take place the following week May well be one of the most important byelections certainly in the term of this government uh thanks Bruce thanks to Shantel and thanks thanks to you for listening this week talk to you again in a couple of days take care you guys
.
0:11
0:18
0:24
0:30
0:37
0:44
0:49
0:54
1:00
1:07
1:15
1:22
1:27
1:35
1:41
1:49
1:55
2:02
2:09
2:15
2:20
2:28
2:34
2:41
2:46
2:52
2:59
3:06
3:11
3:16
3:22
3:29
3:35
3:40
3:47
3:54
4:03
4:12
4:18
4:23
4:29
4:35
4:43
4:49
4:55
5:03
5:10
5:17
5:23
5:29
5:35
5:41
5:46
5:51
5:57
6:03
6:09
6:15
6:21
6:28
6:34
6:40
6:47
6:53
6:58
7:05
7:14
7:21
7:28
7:35
7:42
7:49
7:54
8:01
8:08
8:14
8:19
8:25
8:33
8:40
8:48
8:55
9:00
9:07
9:14
9:20
9:26
9:33
9:42
9:47
9:54
10:01
10:06
10:13
10:19
10:26
10:33
10:40
10:47
10:52
11:00
11:06
11:12
11:18
11:26
11:32
11:37
11:43
11:50
11:58
12:06
12:11
12:17
12:24
12:29
12:36
12:42
12:47
12:53
12:59
13:04
13:11
13:17
13:24
13:30
13:37
13:43
13:49
13:56
14:01
14:10
14:15
14:22
14:30
14:37
14:44
14:51
14:57
15:03
15:08
15:14
15:20
15:25
15:32
15:39
15:45
15:53
16:00
16:06
16:12
16:19
16:25
16:32
16:39
16:47
16:54
17:01
17:08
17:15
17:23
17:30
17:37
17:42
17:49
17:57
18:03
18:09
18:18
18:24
18:30
18:37
18:43
18:50
18:55
19:02
19:08
19:14
19:19
19:25
19:32
19:38
19:45
19:52
19:57
20:03
20:08
20:15
20:21
20:28
20:35
20:41
20:48
20:55
21:00
21:06
21:12
21:18
21:23
21:30
21:37
21:42
21:48
21:55
22:02
22:08
22:14
22:21
22:26
22:32
22:38
22:44
22:50
22:56
23:03
23:10
23:16
23:24
23:30
23:35
23:42
23:47
23:55
24:03
24:10
24:16
24:24
24:31
24:37
24:43
24:49
24:56
25:02
25:10
25:15
25:22
25:28
25:35
25:43
25:49
25:54
26:01
26:07
26:15
26:22
26:27
26:34
26:42
26:48
26:53
27:00
27:07
27:13
27:18
27:25
27:31
27:37
27:43
27:50
28:02
28:09
28:15
28:21
28:29
28:34
28:40
28:46
28:53
28:58
29:04
29:12
29:19
29:26
29:34
29:40
29:45
29:51
29:59
30:05
30:11
30:16
30:21
30:27
30:32
30:39
30:45
30:50
30:56
31:03
31:12
31:17
31:23
31:30
31:36
31:42
31:49
31:55
32:01
32:07
32:13
32:18
32:26
32:34
32:42
32:48
32:54
33:00
33:08
33:16
33:22
33:28
33:35
33:42
33:47
33:54
33:59
34:06
34:13
34:18
34:24
34:31
34:37
34:43
34:49
34:55
35:02
35:08
35:15
35:21
35:28
35:33
35:39
35:45
35:52
35:59
36:05
36:11
36:16
36:21
36:26
36:34
36:41
36:46
36:51
36:57
37:05
37:12
37:18
37:25
37:30
37:37
37:44
37:49
37:55
38:01
38:06
38:13
38:19
38:27
38:34
38:40
38:47
38:53
38:58
39:04
39:10
39:20
39:27
39:33
39:39
39:47
39:52
39:58
40:04
40:10
40:19
40:27
40:34
40:39
40:47
40:54
40:59
41:06
41:13
41:22
41:28
41:34
41:42
41:47
41:55
42:01
42:08
42:13
42:18
42:25
42:30
42:37
42:44
42:50
42:56
43:03
43:08
43:15
43:23
43:30
43:35
43:41
43:47
43:53
44:01
44:06
44:13
44:18
44:24
44:30
44:39
44:46
44:52
44:57
45:04
45:11
45:17
45:23
45:28
45:34
45:40
45:45
45:52
45:59
46:06
46:12
46:19
46:25
46:31
46:37
46:45
46:53
46:58
47:05
47:10
47:19
47:24
47:30
47:37
47:43
47:50
47:56
48:02
48:08
48:14
48:20
48:27
48:32
48:38
48:45
48:52
49:00
49:08
49:15
49:20
49:27
49:32
49:39
49:46
49:53
49:59
50:05
50:12
50:19
50:25
50:33
50:38
50:45
50:50
50:56
51:02
51:08
51:14
51:19
51:26
51:36
51:41
51:47
51:54
52:01
52:06
52:13
52:19
52:25
52:32
No comments:
Post a Comment