58 Comments
User's avatar
Nancy Kane's avatar

Good article Peter. I think Canada is likely a one party state now. The CBC disgusts me with their arrogant tone and overt smugness. I would seriously look at leaving the country for good if I was 15 years younger. We never had to worry about becoming the 51st state because we are already aligned with China.

Expand full comment
Leslie Philipp's avatar

Ya.

Because China just held an election too . .. oh wait, they don’t do that.

I know. Just like Canada. 🙄

Expand full comment
Peter Floyd's avatar

The Eurasia group has been and still is a convienent place for the Liberals to run their PMO from. The same people pushing the same policies that got Canada where we are under Trudeau.

Expand full comment
Pat Robinson's avatar

Yes, nothing has changed except we might somehow have an even more lunatic environment minister, truly climate/insane.

I would guess that Butts has decided it necessary to provoke a crisis with AB and SK in order to shore up the real rubes in this country, the ones who voted for more of the last decade of the worst govt in our history.

Because I respect Peter I won’t use the language I feel like using.

Expand full comment
Jan's avatar

I can see Gerald Butts’ fingerprints all over the way Carney used Trump’s remarks to his advantage.

Expand full comment
Hans Gruber Central Banker's avatar

I can see Gerald Butts from my house.

Expand full comment
Leslie Philipp's avatar

You have a problem with Carney taking advantage of Trump’s own words, or is that a compliment for Gerald Butts?

Expand full comment
Jan's avatar

It’s a compliment for Butts.

Expand full comment
Leslie Philipp's avatar

Evidence. Please.

How is Eurasia influenced anything, with Canadian government policy, or anything else.

I am not an advocate or apologist for Eurasia, just have seen zero evidence of them influencing any decision. Have you?

It seems pet peeve with this author no one has bothered to expose Eurasia for . .. anything.

Expand full comment
Chantal's avatar

Think tanks write our policy, but they are unaccountable and hide their funding through layers of foundations and nonprofits. Wouldn’t you like to know which special interests run the nation?

Expand full comment
Leslie Philipp's avatar

Sure. Tell me.

As of now, I have seen no connection between government policy and Eurasia group. Wife and associates working there is not writing policy.

Expand full comment
Dean's avatar

Gerald Butts was Trudeau's chief advisor. Carney advised the Trudeau government. Carney's wife works with Butts. Am I getting warmer?

Expand full comment
Leslie Philipp's avatar

No.

I understand the personal connections. Nowhere has anyone showed how Eurasia Group is an influence. As far as I can see, it’s a non-issue. I’m happy to be proved wrong, but where people have worked, or do work, is not a direct connection to how they make decisions working elsewhere.

Carney is not making decisions as a Brookfield director or the former head of the Bank of England.

All political parties have people from various think tanks and assorted corporate lobby groups or academia.

It’s not a big world in that regard.

I could make the same assertions about where people have worked and how it’s influencing policy in the Conservative Party.

https://pressprogress.ca/pierre-poilievre-allies-ties-to-lobbying-firms/

Expand full comment
Peter Floyd's avatar

The Liberals problem as the election approached was that Canada wanted change not Trudeau 2.3 (or whatever). Carney worked hard to try and distance himself from Trudeau. The same actors are still in place within the Government and outside in the same places they were before. I didnt buy it. Connect the dots.

Expand full comment
Leslie Philipp's avatar

I’m going with the fact that cabinet is chosen from the elected members of parliament, and you don’t have to throw out experience (and talent), just because they worked in the last government.

Carney is not Trudeau.

I suspect this is hard for some to admit, even when they know it’s not only true, but obvious.

Expand full comment
Peter Floyd's avatar

We'll see if the same bunch is willing to change.

Expand full comment
Leslie Philipp's avatar

That’s what I’m going with. 🍻

Expand full comment
Peter Floyd's avatar

So some time has passed and the outcome is as predicted. More of the same misguided Liberal spending. "The Liberals plan to spend about $486 billion this year, similar to the previous Trudeau government's level, despite promises of more fiscal discipline." We need to bring down this government fast.

Expand full comment
Leslie Philipp's avatar

Btw, I know Carney’s wife works at Eurasia Group. Their press release announcing Diana Fox Carney hiring stated, she’s an expert on the Climate and Energy. Great, I’m sure she shares that knowledge with her husband, and how fortunate that expertise is in climate & energy. Canada has both! 😉

My point is: So what?

I’m not assuming there is not cross pollination, but awaiting evidence. Any evidence.

Have a great day.

Expand full comment
Jan's avatar

You too.

Expand full comment
Leslie Philipp's avatar

TY.

Expand full comment
Pat Robinson's avatar

I think you underestimate the pernicious nature of drinking your own bath water.

I’m pretty sure Rosie et al truly believe they represent the center even if that only encompasses a few hundred thousand people, because it’s the correct people.

We were lied to by most media about everything regarding this election, and they all deserve to burn.

Expand full comment
Leslie Philipp's avatar

Lied to? How so?

I think most Canadians feel just as the CBC commentators do.

Poilievre could do himself, and his party, a favour by taking a hint.

Faux anger is not a policy, and isn’t a popular stance in this country. The election made that obvious, and either Pierre Poilievre is oblivious or has nothing else to offer. Which is too bad if he’s going to continue to lead, because the results won’t change either.

Expand full comment
Pat Robinson's avatar

It wouldn't be the same without your gaslighting.

Expand full comment
B–'s avatar

Taking what hint? I hope Pierre stays on. Liberals obviously still feel threatened by him.

Expand full comment
Leslie Philipp's avatar

I hope Poilievre stays on too, but only if he learns that most Canadians are not interested in MAGA style name calling and negative messages of grievance and anger. The election proved that.

If he wants to carry on the way he has, the results at the polls won’t change either. That’s exactly the message from the CBC.

Expand full comment
Darcy Hickson's avatar

Last week I was tracking the media response to the Minister of Finance’s declaration that there won’t be a 2025 budget, just a “robust update in the fall”. Date TBA.

The usual suspects from CBC, G&M, Star and the podcast analysts all got in line. Good for Canada! It’s just too hard to produce a budget with so much uncertainty! The Conservatives are out to lunch, blah blah blah.

The narrative was going swimmingly until the blowback from financial analysts was factored into the story. All of a sudden the Prime Minister, tooting around in Rome was forced to publicly smack down his own Finance Minister and say that yes, there would be a budget but not until the fall.

This is a pretty good example of how overt cheerleading for the Liberal government is not only a dereliction of journalistic integrity but also how journalists and their media outlets set themselves up to look like fools. What is a straight faced follow up to the government flip flop on the serious matter of tabling a budget?

Expand full comment
Penny Leifson's avatar

Thanks Peter. I’m wondering if Leslie Philipp is a self-appointed co-author/editor as there are so many comments attempting to “correct” others’ comments. Seems a shame.

Expand full comment
Penny Leifson's avatar

Enough Leslie Philipp - 11 of 33 comments so far. Perhaps Leslie Philipp needs his/her/their own Substack.

Expand full comment
Peter Menzies's avatar

Leslie is a bit of a contrarian and likes a good argument. Nothing wrong with that. We differ fundamentally though on the role of journalists. I think they should be wildly curious and asking questions about everything; Leslie differently. It's a free country.

Expand full comment
Penny Leifson's avatar

You are, of course, correct; and anyway - your house; your rules. I still think Leslie needs their own Substack rather than monopolizing yours or others’. 😇 Thanks for responding. Happy Victoria Day.

Expand full comment
B–'s avatar

Just wondering about her myself. It's a bit bizarre lol

Expand full comment
Roxanne Halverson's avatar

The CBC became increasingly disgusting in their bias against Conservatives and Poilievre in particular during the election. It was as if the journalists, Rosemary Barton and David Cochrane, in particular were taking a personal affront to Poilievre's commitment to defunding the CBC. We all know the CBC is bloated cow. These people all make six figure salaries and we are not talking in the $100,000 mark, it is beyond that and they are not worth it, and they know it, which is why they are pissed with Poilievre. Cochrane is the worst. I detected his extreme bias when he was just filling in on Power and Politics. He constantly defended Trudeau and the Liberals, made excuses for them, but it was at least mellow. Now he is so blatant I truly believe he should be taken off the air.

His attack on Poilievre that Jasmin Laine took issue with was personal and venomous. There was no need to go into his lost seat and how magnanimous Carney was to call a by election as soon as possible, so I suppose Pierre should kiss the ring. And then to mention, oh it's going to cost two million dollars. CBC probably pisses away two million dollars everyday. How much did Carney piss away with a needless trip to Rome to see the new Pope and bringing along some 19 Liberal MPs with him. Is Cochrane going to be bringing that up. And oh, Poilievre is still living in Stornaway, like that's some kind of sin. Cochrane doesn't mention that maybe its is more costly to move him and his family of two small children, one autistic, out of the residence and then move them back than it to just having them stay there. Again the venom was personal and so distasteful, it was palpable.

But forget about lodging a complaint with the useless CBC Ombudsman. I did over the Pierre is a 'dick' incident. While Bob Fife had to apologize, the Ombudsman, or rather one of her stooges sent me a letter to say the Cochrane only laughed in shock at the word 'dick', and 'it was not of his making', but he was 'spoken to'.

So there is no point in wasting time to write about this, because I am sure I will be told that Cochrane was just giving out 'all the facts'. It is depressing, disgusting and a lesson in futility and another example of how CBC wastes taxpayer's money. The Ombudsman is a front man, to make it appear like they respond to people's concerns, but they really just tell you to 'go f--k yourselves, we will do whatever we want.'

If Poilievre ever does become PM, which I know CBC will continue to try and prevent and now have even more money to do it with, I hope he absolutely crushes them. No mercy. He was kind enough to say they can just make it on their own with advertising dollars. I hope he finishes them dissolves the entire government corporation. They all deserve nothing less.

Expand full comment
Lawyerlisa's avatar

My book is out.

It has sales in 3 countries in 2 days.

https://youtube.com/shorts/299_BzgH0bA?si=Gyp_54W4JIaclPs1

Expand full comment
Allen Batchelar's avatar

It’s not just the bias that drives people away from the CBC. It’s their programming in general. Countries like Australia and small New Zealand produce more watchable programming. We have this huge group of excellent movie and television technical staff, but they never seem to get hired for CBC productions. Their productions are amateurish compared to other country’s programs.

Expand full comment
S.McRobbie's avatar

The job of any journalist interacting with any politician is first and foremost to stand in critical opposition by questioning the methods and motives of their subject regardless of their sympathies. In this way they may actually get a clearer understanding, on behalf of the audience, on the issue in question. To do otherwise is negligence. The concept of 'advocacy journalism', especially in the context of a public broadcaster, is fundamentally incompatible, unless you accept you are simply a propagandist for whatever party is in power.

I am more concerned about the producers and the bosses of the journalist who undoubtedly push for a particular angle, as they are probably most at risk because they represent overhead, while the 'talent' is the face of the outlet. The incentives are all wrong, especially in the case of the CBC.

Expand full comment
Magnificent fish pie's avatar

Ah that’s so Canada

Expand full comment
Susan Miller's avatar

Butts holding so much ( anointed Liberal power) over our country confounds and surprises me- you?

Expand full comment
Meowshell AM Bradshaw's avatar

I’m more worried about the conservatives connections to the IDU and Mike Roman of the Trump camp.

Expand full comment
Crankypants's avatar

Could Pierre not give it a rest for 5 minutes? I was disgusted he couldn’t rise to the occasion and it just confirmed my view he only has one song in his musical repertoire.

Expand full comment
Jan's avatar

So much venom so early in the morning. So sad.

Expand full comment
Mark L's avatar
User was temporarily suspended for this comment. Show
Expand full comment
Peter Menzies's avatar

I’ll live this on here for a little while as an example and then you’ll be blocked for being too coarse and vulgar. You have the option to self edit

Expand full comment
Peter Menzies's avatar

OK. Gave you two hours which I think is fair. So, blocked for profanity.

Expand full comment
Leslie Philipp's avatar

I was thinking exactly the same thing, without the harsh language.

Pierre can’t seem to Grok most Canadians are not buying the anger schtick. CBC is trying to drop a hint.

Any other agencies we can look forward to coverage on? American owned Trump apologists or Canadian provincial separation fantasists.

The CBC angle is getting a bit one dimensional, but I suppose it supports your theme?

Expand full comment
B–'s avatar

CBC can say whatever the heck it wants if it does so on its own dime. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for partisan propaganda.

Expand full comment
Writeorama's avatar

Some of us like it. In fact, the majority do.

Expand full comment
Darcy Hickson's avatar

The “majority” like the CBC on sentimental reasoning, nostalgically dreaming of the good old days. Unfortunately most of those full of such sentimentality don’t actually watch, read or listen to the CBC. The shallow ratings prove it.

Expand full comment
B–'s avatar

Then surely you wouldn’t object to paying extra for it yourselves!

Expand full comment
Hans Gruber Central Banker's avatar

I quite enjoyed Ezra Levant's video jaunts to Isle of Man and Bermuda where he had 4 hours to investigate because he couldn't afford the $1,000 per night hotel room rates. Is CBC doing any follow up vacationing?

Expand full comment
Leslie Philipp's avatar

So explaining Pierre’s continued “same same” grievance and anger politicking is not news?

I think it’s exactly what’s happening, and CBC is rightfully pointing that out.

Poilievre doesn’t want grow . .. well, we both know how that’s going to work out.

Expand full comment
Peter Menzies's avatar

Banned for vulgarity

Expand full comment
Leslie Philipp's avatar

Who me? 😯

Oh. Perhaps not.

Expand full comment
Paul Hayes's avatar

You are missing the point! Manipulation of the legions of gullible and naive Canadians is thriving and was reinforced by the poll swing! The tipsy Ms. McKenna was spot on when she said if you say it loud and often enough, they actually believe it.

Expand full comment
Harry's avatar

One wonders whether Eurasia Group has received any new “consulting” contracts since the election. I note that no “journalists “ have so far been curious enough to ask what the spate of contracts awarded to Eurasia from the Ministry of Keeping Natural Resources in the Ground, just before the House was prorogued, were all about. Besides, of course, being a lame last ditch effort to keep Wilkinson in cabinet.

Expand full comment