Juno News - August 26, 2023


Are the Trudeau Liberals getting desperate? (Ft. Aaron Wudrick)

Topics
Hosted by
Guests
Mentioned
Will politicians listen to the people on gender ideology? What the Jordan Peterson ruling means for free speech

Episode Stats


Length

25 minutes

Words per minute

200.48

Word count

5,172

Sentence count

289

Harmful content

Misogyny

1

sentences flagged

Toxicity

4

sentences flagged

Hate speech

5

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Aaron Woodrick, Director of the Domestic Policy Program at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, joins me to discuss the increasing craziness associated with the ruling political establishment and the woke left, including former Liberal MP Catherine McKenna calling conservatives arsonists for a spate of wildfires this past summer.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
Topics generated with Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct.
Hosts, guests, and mentioned names generated with spaCy (en_core_web_sm), reconciled against Wikidata.
00:00:00.000 Hi there, everybody, and welcome to the Rupa Subramanya show. I am Rupa Subramanya.
00:00:20.480 This week, I'm joined by Aaron Woodrick. He's director of the domestic policy program at the
00:00:26.840 Macdonald-Laurier Institute here in Ottawa. He's a lawyer, and he's been on the show before.
00:00:32.420 And this week, he joins me in discussing a range of different things that have been in the news
00:00:37.760 recently, including former Liberal MP Catherine McKenna calling conservatives arsonists for a
00:00:44.600 spate of wildfires this past summer. So, without any further ado, please welcome Aaron to the show.
00:00:51.740 Aaron, welcome back to the show. It's wonderful seeing you again. Today, I was hoping to chat with
00:00:58.700 you about what's been in the news recently and what I feel is like the increasing craziness associated
00:01:04.520 with the ruling political establishment and also the woke left. So, let's start with perhaps the
00:01:14.060 looniest of all claims. You know, after the spate of summer wildfires in Canada, former Liberal MP
00:01:22.300 and Cabinet Minister Catherine McKenna has called conservatives arsonists because they don't
00:01:28.840 support the carbon tax that the Liberals and the NDP support. Where does one even begin with this?
00:01:36.840 Well, Ms. McKenna has never been shy about gaslighting on her concerns. You know,
00:01:41.080 she used to play the victim when she was a cabinet minister. To be fair, there were some really nasty
00:01:45.840 things done to her, and I don't, you know, I don't think any of that was reasonable, and we should
00:01:50.360 all, you know, condemn that stuff. But, you know, now she's not a minister anymore. She doesn't have
00:01:54.220 to be on social media. She seems to still revel in going out and saying these over-the-top things,
00:01:59.460 which to me suggests that, oh, well, you know, maybe you were not that innocent to begin with. But
00:02:04.380 with respect to the climate change stuff specifically, look, I have a simple question for her,
00:02:08.640 which is if Canadian climate change policy can help stop wildfires, A, why haven't you guys done it
00:02:15.620 yet? Because you've been in power for, you know, your government's been in power seven and a half
00:02:19.300 years. So really, this is a failure on you. You know, Canadian climate change policy can stop
00:02:24.740 wildfires. Why hasn't the Trudeau government done it? Why is he pointing, why are they pointing fingers
00:02:29.380 at pure poly if it doesn't make any sense? I mean, the obvious answer is they can't. And if you want to
00:02:34.420 ask them questions like, well, how high, you know, how high does the carbon tax have to be
00:02:39.060 to stop wildfires? That's the question I'd like to ask. This is, Rupin, it drives me nuts that these
00:02:43.920 folks want to have it both ways. They, on the one hand, insist that, you know, Canadian climate change
00:02:48.540 policy is so pivotal and so fundamental, but also that it's a global problem that we can only all
00:02:53.760 solve together. Well, which is it, right? I mean, the reality is Canada climate change policy is a tiny,
00:02:58.900 tiny drop in a bucket and we could literally do everything or nothing and would not have any
00:03:04.520 impact on whether, you know, Yellowknife and Polona are burning today. Now that it's just
00:03:09.180 disingenuous to say that. I know people are going to have debates about climate change policy and what
00:03:13.420 to do about it. That's more of a moral argument. That is not a practical argument. You know, you could
00:03:17.660 say we morally need to do our share. I understand all of that, but as a practical matter, Canada's
00:03:22.920 climate change policy has zero impact on global climate change and the Liberal government trying
00:03:28.200 to gaslight people into thinking that if we drop the carbon tax, you know, it's somehow going to
00:03:32.700 change the number of wildfires we have. It's just a lie. Yeah, I mean, on that topic about climate
00:03:38.540 change, you know, you know, let's, you know, take that as an example. We're told these wildfires are
00:03:46.740 because of climate change, although we know that, you know, a singular event cannot be blamed on
00:03:52.920 climate change. You know, there's a lot of debate and discussion about what's exactly causing these
00:04:00.440 wildfires. There are some credible claims I've come across that show that arsonists were actually
00:04:06.720 responsible for much of the wildfires in Quebec, perhaps even in BC. I'm not so sure about that.
00:04:12.460 But, you know, how is it that, you know, what is, it's almost like the panic around COVID-19 has now
00:04:19.240 been replaced by climate change, fears about climate change, that basically everything that
00:04:24.080 is happening, like I get these alerts on my phone, and I'm sure as you do, every time there's a
00:04:28.840 thunderstorm or, you know, there's like multiple weather alerts, it just makes you very anxious and
00:04:36.060 scared. Is that what's going on here? Well, look, it is impossible
00:04:42.220 to determine whether a singular weather event is because of climate change or not. I mean, right,
00:04:47.360 that a single event is not climate, it is weather. Now, is there an argument that over time, you know,
00:04:54.140 in the long term, climate change increases the frequency? So it doesn't, it's not responsible for
00:04:58.840 every event, but say, you know, you used to have 10 hurricanes, now because of climate change,
00:05:03.780 few years later, you have 12 or 15. That's plausible. I'm not, you know, I don't think there's any,
00:05:08.200 that's a plausible argument. But what we're hearing from the sort of what I would call the 0.92
00:05:12.720 eco-extremist crowd is that every time there's an extreme weather event, they point the finger at
00:05:18.280 climate change. And people are not stupid. We know that there have always been these weather events. 0.97
00:05:22.420 If you're arguing that we're having more because of climate change, okay, then say that. But don't
00:05:26.020 take every example and say, because of, you know, because of climate change, that's why we had this
00:05:31.580 tornado, or that's why people don't believe that. And it just looks ridiculous. And it is, 0.93
00:05:35.800 it is a, frankly, a moral panic. And I think, frankly, it actually probably does a disservice
00:05:41.320 to the argument for climate change, because people start to roll their eyes and say, well,
00:05:44.700 everything is the fault of climate change. So I actually don't think they're convincing more
00:05:48.320 people. I think they're actually hurting their own cause by exaggerating it. And, and frankly,
00:05:53.400 looking like they're trying to exploit a tragedy to advance what is essentially their sort of
00:05:57.660 ideological agenda. Yeah. Well, let's turn to from, from Catherine McKenna to Melanie Jolie, our
00:06:05.200 foreign affairs minister, current foreign affairs minister, external affairs minister, foreign affairs
00:06:10.720 minister. She came up with another whopper, as far as I'm concerned, when she said that Canada has a
00:06:17.060 game plan to deal with the rise of the far right in the US. I think what she presumably meant was if
00:06:23.240 Trump were to get reelected, there was a Donald Trump returning to the presidency. And in one news
00:06:31.180 article, which I read, an expert claimed that there would be an influx of political refugees from the
00:06:38.820 US to Canada, if Trump were reelected. I, I had to read it like several different several times to make
00:06:46.280 sure that I was reading it right, because it's one thing to, you know, for Melanie Jolie to talk about
00:06:51.580 a game plan. But I just found these expert takes to be just so incredibly extreme. What do you make of
00:06:57.340 this? What does it tell you about the perception of the Canadian left on on this country's
00:07:02.500 importance? And their importance in this country? Well, first, the first thing that I noticed was what a
00:07:09.220 breach of protocol this is. I mean, it seems to me that foreign affairs minister, when asked about like, what's
00:07:14.780 happening in a foreign country and people changing the governments there, I think the diplomatic
00:07:19.100 answer is like, well, Americans will decide and you know, we'll respect that choice. And we'll deal with it for her to 0.87
00:07:24.780 launch into this, like, you know, concern about all these. Well, first of all, we've already seen this movie,
00:07:29.780 Donald Trump was already president once, America managed to survive it. It was a chaotic four years, I'm not going to
00:07:35.620 deny that. But we, you know, everybody survived it, America survived it intact. There was no that you know, we
00:07:41.420 didn't have refugees from blue states, you know, trying to sneak across the border at
00:07:46.940 Roxham Road or anything like that. So I think I think it's a bit overstated. What's other interesting too,
00:07:52.760 Ruba is contrast the differing reaction. In 2016, when Donald Trump was a surprise to a lot of
00:07:59.020 Canadians, they dealt with it, you know, to their credit, they sort of, they took the relationship
00:08:04.260 seriously, managed it as best they could. Again, Donald Trump, a mercurial guy who, you know, a lot
00:08:09.120 of foreign leaders had difficulty dealing with him. But we managed it, we managed to renegotiate NAFTA,
00:08:13.300 they took great pride in saying we managed the relationship. Fast forward to today, now they're
00:08:17.840 talking about like a completely different attitude. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that back
00:08:22.220 then, they were a new government with a lot of political capital. Today, they're struggling and
00:08:26.560 they're looking for another bogeyman. So if they can frame themselves as a sort of standing up to the, you
00:08:32.080 know, crazy Americans, or the evil Yankees, you know, they're going to do that. So I think that's 0.99
00:08:36.760 irresponsible from a, you know, we would hope that they would be adults about managing our, our
00:08:41.760 relationship with our with our neighbor and our biggest trading partner. And it seems like
00:08:45.480 they're prepared to play politics with that, if they think it's worth a few points.
00:08:49.160 Yeah, and also, I'm struck by this old argument, which, you know, I used to hear a lot of a lot of
00:08:55.720 this when I was a grad student, that, you know, Canada needs to diversify away from the US and,
00:09:01.900 and put more of its efforts into, into the EU and cultivating a relationship there. But as one of my
00:09:10.680 professors told me, you know, this is our closest neighbor. I mean, this is, we need to really double
00:09:15.040 down on this relationship as much as possible. And this talk of diversification is just complete
00:09:20.000 nonsense. And I'm seeing some of those arguments, again, like, you know, if, if, if Trump were to
00:09:25.000 return that, you know, we should diversify away from the US, which kind of seems foolish.
00:09:30.920 Yeah, and you know, part of that other diversification was towards China before,
00:09:34.380 right? And we've seen how that's turned out. I think there's been a cold, bit of a cold shower for a lot
00:09:38.340 of folks about that. But yes, you know, there are a lot of benefits to being as United States,
00:09:42.580 I recognize that, you know, as Canadians, whether consciously or subconsciously, because we're
00:09:47.540 smaller, because we are more dependent on them, we pay more attention to them than they do to us.
00:09:53.260 They're bigger, they have more money, they have more influence. It's, it's hard, psychologically,
00:09:57.560 we're always looking for a way to sort of minimize that. But we also need to look at the upsides,
00:10:01.920 we have so many benefits that come from being next to them as a neighbor, they are a huge market,
00:10:06.820 they're accessible, we speak the same language, we have shared the same culture. I mean, it is,
00:10:11.500 it is a huge benefit to us. And I think it would be a mistake to to take that too lightly.
00:10:17.700 Yeah, I take the point that people say, well, we have to be prepared, you know, if if there is an
00:10:23.280 event, you know, that people say in the extreme scenario of civil war, but that really just means
00:10:27.060 Canada doing things that any any sort of grown up country would do things like having a functioning
00:10:32.580 military things like being able to do our own emergency search and rescue. These are things
00:10:36.720 that comparable countries like our cousins down in Australia, similar sized country. I mean,
00:10:41.400 they have the capacity to do these things because they don't have a neighbor like America to look
00:10:45.360 after them. So if we really want to talk about Canada, like, you know, being an independent
00:10:49.220 country and be yourself, part of that involves spending money and making the hard decisions and
00:10:53.460 investing in these things that, you know, we've been basically like the teenager living in America's
00:10:59.720 basement and asking mom and dad to take care of us. And then we say, well, what if mom and dad kind of go
00:11:04.340 nuts? Well, maybe it's time to grow up and take care of ourselves.
00:11:07.900 Well, that's a great analogy. So let's let's talk about Pierre Polyevre and his meteoric
00:11:14.920 meteoric rise. And I feel like it's the first real change to a real challenge to Trudeau since he
00:11:23.560 came to power in 2015. First, let's talk about his makeover. I personally happen to like it. I think
00:11:32.060 it's, it's great that he got rid of the glasses and he's, you know, he's more, you know, he's,
00:11:37.480 he looks more down to earth and he looks great next to his wife. And do you think, do you think
00:11:43.960 this makeover, I know a lot of politicians undergo minor changes to their appearance. Do you think
00:11:50.780 it's enough just based on this alone? Do you think it's enough to defeat the liberals and Trudeau?
00:11:56.260 Well, well, who knows? Don't underestimate the power of the makeover. I mean,
00:11:59.140 where Stephen Harper pulled out the sweater vest and the kitten. I mean, I think that was pretty
00:12:03.320 devastating for the opposition, but look, this is nothing new. I mean, people are kind of people
00:12:08.300 who don't like him will poke fun at it because, you know, because he kind of, you know, he sounded
00:12:12.540 a bit nerdy and had the glasses and now he's got rid of that. And, you know, you can see he's been
00:12:15.840 working out. And so, but this is just standard for all politicians. I mean, did anyone want to deny
00:12:20.780 that part of Justin Trudeau's wave in 2015 was the man's sex appeal? I mean, that's just a benefit
00:12:25.760 that you have. In politics, you, you play to your strengths, you play to your advantage
00:12:29.700 if, and you minimize your liabilities. And so if something like the optics of his glasses
00:12:34.980 were a barrier, why not just get rid of that so that you can, you can, you know, work with the
00:12:40.300 things that suit you well. So I, I don't think it can hurt. I imagine that these days, you know,
00:12:45.220 political parties, they don't do these things on a whim. They'll focus group them and test them.
00:12:48.380 And so there must be something to it. Substantively, you know, I don't know if it's going to make
00:12:52.920 a huge difference, but if, if it's going to, for example, make them a little more appealing
00:12:57.580 so people give them a second look, why not do it, right?
00:13:02.980 Yeah, exactly. And, but more seriously, Aaron, like I've noted with some disappointment,
00:13:07.240 I've talked about this a few times and also written about it in the National Post that
00:13:11.120 the conservative party, um, has, uh, stayed away from what I think are some, some hot button issues
00:13:17.900 on the cultural side of things, uh, and also immigration, immigration, gender ideology. I think
00:13:24.220 these issues animate, uh, conservative voters. And in fact, uh, immigration is even animating people
00:13:30.660 on the left, um, because their argument is now self-serving because all of the things that they care
00:13:35.440 about is now in jeopardy because the, the institutions, the system just can't support
00:13:40.300 the large number of people coming in. Um, but so, uh, Pierre Pagliard was basically stuck to
00:13:47.860 talking about the affordability crisis, which is a very important issue, uh, and the ineptitude
00:13:52.800 of the Trudeau government. Um, do you think, uh, this, this, uh, this is strategic? Do you think
00:13:57.760 this is going to pay off? Do you think this will work in the end? Yeah, good question. I mean,
00:14:03.320 you're right on the, on the housing point. I mean, he's basically gone all in on housing.
00:14:06.520 He's, uh, he's made this the centerpiece. Of course, immigration is connected to housing,
00:14:10.980 right? Because part of the, part of the reason immigration has become a more, uh, explosive issue 0.67
00:14:16.960 in this country is precisely because of housing. I think perhaps, um, you know, the thinking in
00:14:21.900 there, and I'm not privy to any of it is that, uh, maybe by addressing the housing issue that will
00:14:26.640 take most of the sort of dangerous, um, polarization around immigration, uh, take the sting out of that.
00:14:32.760 That might be true, but I think it, uh, you know, I think we're actually, it's a good thing in this
00:14:37.340 country. We're actually talking about immigration again. Um, yes, there are, there are xenophobes in
00:14:42.340 this country, but the vast majority of people who are concerned about immigration are people that it's
00:14:46.520 just a numbers game. They're just like, well, where are we going to put them? You know, if we had
00:14:49.640 housing Canadians could all afford houses and there were plenty of places for new, new Canadians to live,
00:14:55.180 I think more, far more people would say whatever, you know, the more the merrier, but,
00:14:58.780 but we don't have that. And we're a long way from that. And so I think we do have a serious
00:15:03.000 conversation about, and, you know, we're getting into the weeds about it. Um, you know, not all
00:15:08.600 immigrants are made equal in terms of, in terms of the, uh, pressure they put on the system, 0.81
00:15:12.600 right? So yes, we say, well, we need more doctors and we need more people to build the houses. Okay.
00:15:17.260 Well, you look at what class of immigrants, uh, those are, but then we've got this, which frankly to
00:15:22.500 me is a bit of a backdoor is, is students, international students are coming in that the numbers have
00:15:26.820 skyrocketed over the last 10 to 15 years. The, you know, campuses, the universities and colleges are
00:15:32.360 not keeping up. Um, these are essentially cash cows for these post-secondary, uh, education students
00:15:37.740 because they, they can charge international students a lot more. Um, this is the sort of big
00:15:42.500 loophole to me that needs the most attention because it is, it is a massive size and we're talking
00:15:47.200 hundreds of thousands of students. And it's not that I wish them any ill will, but it's like,
00:15:51.460 if we have nowhere to put them, they're basically being taken advantage of and uses cash cows and they get
00:15:55.060 here and there's nowhere to live and there's no prospects for them after the fact, that's,
00:15:59.200 that's bad for them. It's bad for Canadians and it poisons the well on, on immigration generally. 0.99
00:16:04.840 Yeah, absolutely. Like I came here as an international student 25 years ago and I still
00:16:10.840 remember like there were just a handful of us coming to Canada to study. Uh, but that, but that's
00:16:16.660 just exploded since, since I was a student and, uh, and I'm hearing these horror stories of students who,
00:16:22.280 um, can't, um, you know, they're like five, six students living in a room. Um, it it's, it's,
00:16:29.240 it's almost like, um, the kind of situation that you, you would find yourself in India where most of
00:16:36.200 these students come from. So it's kind of bizarre to see that, uh, playing out here as well. Um, just,
00:16:41.980 uh, turning to the political calculus, Aaron, um, you know, uh, situation in Canada has always been
00:16:49.380 different than in the U S in the U S you basically have two major parties, uh, that split the vote
00:16:54.320 evenly and it's a coin coin toss who becomes president. Whereas in Canada, if you add together
00:17:00.440 the liberals and the NDP, they always get a bigger percentage of the votes, um, than the Tories.
00:17:05.480 And now with the present Alliance, uh, between the liberals and the NDP, um, we have a possible
00:17:11.480 template, which will keep them in power and perpetuity, uh, hypothetically, even if the Tories
00:17:17.040 win the most seats. Um, what do you make of this scary scenario?
00:17:23.000 Uh, look, I don't, I actually don't think that that's very likely, you know, I, I think that
00:17:27.500 we've, because of the way the system is set up, cause it's first past the post, they can get a
00:17:31.360 come. I mean, people love to add the liberal and NDP votes together all the time to get this number,
00:17:36.460 but they're two separate columns, right? They don't, it's not like in a, you can add them up after
00:17:40.800 the fact and, and, and they, you know, if the Tory gets 40 and the liberal gets 30 and the
00:17:45.340 Democrats 20, that they can, you'd add the 30 and the 20 together. That's not the way it works.
00:17:49.220 And, and we got to remember too, um, you know, the liberals have been in power, but out of the
00:17:54.180 last, I think it's a lot of the last six, seven federal elections, the liberals only won the
00:17:58.320 popular vote once in 2015. There are actually more Canadians who have voted conservative than
00:18:03.420 liberal in six out of the seven last seven elections. That's a significant number. Now the
00:18:08.080 liberals have the benefit in the system that the votes were in the right places, the way our system
00:18:12.100 works that they win more seats and retain power. But people talk as if there's this huge hill to
00:18:17.080 climb for conservatives and they got to convince so many people in this huge, they don't. This is a
00:18:22.240 game of inches. It's always been a game of inches, uh, like a few percentage swinging one way or
00:18:27.820 another can have huge, uh, changes in outcomes. And I think what you're seeing right now in the polls,
00:18:32.900 a lot of the polls are not very good for the liberals right now, down seven to 10 points,
00:18:36.220 all regions, all demographics. Um, you just see fatigue. Uh, like I don't want to downplay. I've
00:18:41.660 got a lot of criticisms of this government. I think they've been bad at governing generally and
00:18:45.640 have a lot of bad policies, but all governments pile up baggage after a significant amount of time.
00:18:51.200 And, uh, governments have way, way more advantages than opposition parties generally, but the one
00:18:56.540 liability they have is baggage and opposition parties have none. They can say whatever they want.
00:19:01.120 They can promise whatever they want. Justin Trudeau knows all about this because he did it to
00:19:04.800 Stephen Harper in 2015. So if they find it annoying right now, that's that Pierre Polyev is
00:19:09.700 blaming them for everything. Well, that's how opposition works. Opposition parties blame the
00:19:14.520 people in power saying you're not fixing the problems. They promised to fix it. Now that's
00:19:18.820 easier said than done, but they at least deserve a chance to do it because they haven't been the
00:19:22.860 ones failing at it for the last, in this case, eight years. Yeah. Um, final question for you,
00:19:28.940 Aaron, uh, let's talk about the far right, the scary far right, uh, in Canada.
00:19:33.740 They're everywhere. Apparently, apparently I am far right as well. So, um, and, and a lot of other
00:19:41.500 things, um, you know, this is, this is obviously a smear tactic from those who, um, you know,
00:19:49.480 from those on the left who basically, if you don't agree with their agenda, you're seen as far,
00:19:55.340 far right. I find this, um, the, this so incredibly bizarre and amusing, uh, because, you know, my,
00:20:01.640 my experience is that most conservatives in Canada, uh, would be considered as centrist or
00:20:06.900 center left in the U S. Uh, so the fact that many of us are smeared as far right is just 0.57
00:20:13.640 downright ludicrous. Um, what does this tell us about how far to the left Canada has drifted in
00:20:21.880 the last 10, 10 years or more? I think it's a, this is just a classic tactic to try and disqualify
00:20:28.320 any sort of dissent. Right. And you've just seen this happen a number of issues. It doesn't matter
00:20:32.280 what their issue is that, you know, abortion or climate change or racism or even spending,
00:20:38.020 right? Like everything is, if you don't like it, just call it far right. And then people will be too
00:20:42.300 afraid to say anything. Um, I always ask when people use that term, if they're serious people and
00:20:48.000 they want to have a conversation, I want them to define, like, what do you consider? What are the
00:20:51.220 positions that you are calling far right? Uh, and I mean, if they can identify something specific,
00:20:56.660 we can debate that. But when I hear the term generally just kind of roll your eyes. I mean,
00:21:00.600 I've been called, I've been called far right because I did, I wanted a tax cut. I mean, I, you,
00:21:05.160 at some point you just sort of say, okay, well, uh, but, but I, I also think it's dangerous for a lot
00:21:09.780 because you, you know, when you start to call too many things extreme, um, the things that are the
00:21:15.060 people that are actually extreme and everybody else, they kind of just merge together. And I
00:21:19.720 don't think that's helpful. So I actually think the left is helping empower the far right, the real
00:21:24.680 far right. And there's not very many of them. Um, but they actually, uh, almost, um, almost
00:21:29.780 legitimize them by calling everything far right. So I think that's dangerous. And I think, uh, you
00:21:34.000 know, peer poly has been accused of pandering to the far right. And the one example that's been in
00:21:37.960 the news lately is this, his policy about the world economic forum. And this one to me is, is amusing
00:21:43.340 because my view is actually, I think peer poly is actually doing us all a huge favor by proposing
00:21:48.900 a very simple, uncontroversial solution that doesn't require buying into more extreme conspiracy
00:21:54.500 theories. All it requires is you to believe that this group, the world economic forum is
00:21:58.360 not a particularly helpful group. I mean, it's, it's, it's kind of like almost a cartoon group
00:22:04.300 of like all the terrible things about global elitism. I mean, you've got super rich people jetting
00:22:08.220 into Switzerland, you know, $2,000 hotel rooms, hobnob. I mean, it's just a, it's a
00:22:13.140 PR nightmare. Why don't we just not go? This is the simplest thing. It doesn't require,
00:22:17.520 you know, you to believe that everybody that goes to Davos is meeting in like, like Dr.
00:22:22.140 Evil in a room and they're controlling everything. Maybe it's just Canada doesn't need to be there.
00:22:26.720 You solve the problem by just not going. And in fact, if, you know, if, um, uh, you know,
00:22:32.000 Justin Trudeau and Jack and meet Singh also came out and said, you know what, we won't send
00:22:35.760 anybody to the world economic forum either. That would solve the problem. It doesn't require
00:22:39.680 you to believe that they're an all powerful like cabal. It just requires you to believe
00:22:45.180 that, you know, maybe these, these people are not looking out for interest and we just
00:22:48.920 shouldn't go. I just, I think I actually think it's an elegant solution. Um, and it's a smart
00:22:53.280 proposal and I think more people should frankly embrace it.
00:22:57.060 Yeah. I've written quite extensively about the world economic forum. And in fact, uh, um,
00:23:01.920 Chrystia Freeland, our deputy prime minister wrote all about it. Yes. Yeah. She, she, I mean,
00:23:07.440 in fact, that's where it all began. Uh, the, the criticism of the world economic forum and the
00:23:12.380 Davos crowd, and she called them plutocrats. And she currently sits on the, their advisory board,
00:23:17.380 which is, uh, another discussion in itself. Um, but you know, just to push you a little bit on
00:23:23.580 this, Aaron, what if it's just, it's just a club, it's just networking. You, you could meet
00:23:28.640 the same people, um, you know, in London, for example, you know, you go meet, uh, Rishi Sunak
00:23:35.360 or something, the prime minister of, uh, the UK, um, and, and, and you, and you network with a
00:23:41.340 bunch of people, the same set of people who would show up at the world economic forum, like business
00:23:45.820 leaders, um, I don't know, NGOs, uh, leaders of NGOs and so on and so forth. So what, what,
00:23:53.160 what is it so special, what is so special about the world economic forum? When, if you, if you were
00:23:58.100 to just think about it as a networking event? Sure. Well, look, it, it, it largely is. It's
00:24:03.540 a question of how, um, you know, how transparent it is for one, right? Like I, and the sort of
00:24:09.380 accessibility, I think the, a lot of the problems with the world economic forum, frankly, are
00:24:13.260 it's just, it's a, it's terribly against the political zeitgeist today. It's extremely rich
00:24:18.180 people jetting into a very expensive place to clink champagne glasses. I mean, it's just a nightmare.
00:24:23.120 And so just avoid that altogether. If you obviously as a prime minister or the government,
00:24:28.180 uh, ministers, you're going to need to meet your counterparts from other countries. That's
00:24:31.880 fine. But normally there's a, there's a very sort of open, transparent process about that.
00:24:36.060 Um, it's not all about money. It's not something where like you, if you're the foreign affairs
00:24:40.400 minister, for example, you go meet your counterpart in another country because of the role they have.
00:24:44.600 It's not some, you know, guy who happens to be wealthy, who comes in and gets your time. That's
00:24:48.920 not the reason for the meeting. So I think, um, I just think, like I said, I'm not, I'm not a
00:24:54.360 believer if only because I have so much experience watching governments, they're too incompetent to
00:24:59.240 impose, uh, a global conspiracy theory. Um, but, but I just think that these meetings are not helpful.
00:25:05.280 I think they are people that are usually spreading bad ideas. And so just not being there, um, it would
00:25:11.480 be good and frankly would restore some trust. And to me, that's the biggest concern. I, I do share
00:25:15.900 the concern of a lot of people that we have massive, massive loss of trust in all our institutions.
00:25:20.300 If simply not going to an event like the world economic forum will help improve that trust even
00:25:24.620 a little bit. I think it's worth it. Okay. Well, thank you so much, Aaron. And, uh, thank you once
00:25:31.020 again for sharing your insights with us. And, uh, this was a great discussion and I'm sorry, I'll have to
00:25:37.100 leave it there, but I hope to have you back again soon. Okay. Always a pleasure. All right. Thank you.
00:25:45.900 Thank you.