Carney's First 100(ish) Days: A Paradigm Shift, with the International Solidarity Pod
In a joint episode with the International Solidarity Pod, hosts Ashwin and Jessa breakdown Canadian PM Mark Carney's first 100(ish) days in office.
Together they go over the details, context and implications of controversial legislation already passed, promised made and foreign policy positions taken by the banker turned politician.
Topics covered:
- Bill C5 (@8 mins)
- Bill C2, The Stronger Borders Act (@27 min)
- NATO / Military Spending (@46 min)
- Foreign Policy (@1h3min)
On top of highlighting what the Liberals have been up to, we go over the resistance mounting to these changes and what the Left's role could (or should) be.
More Resources:
- The Maple: Canada Sold $18.9 Million Of Military Goods To Israel, Despite ‘Pause’
- Joint Statement by the Hague Group on the Conclusion of the Emergency Conference on Palestine at the Bogotá Conference, in Bogotá, Republic of Colombia, from 15 to 16 July 2025 - DIRCO
- CMPAC: On PM Carney's Remarks on Zionist Palestinian State
- Ottawa Citizen: Carney Spending and Public Service Cuts
- APTN News: New NATO Spending
- GlobalNews: Carney and the Golden Dome
- National Virtual Forum on Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act - Assembly of First Nations
- CBC: BC NDP Bill 15
- As mentioned (and rebutted): Fraser Institute on Bill C5
- Bill C-5 (45-1) - First Reading - One Canadian Economy Act - Parliament of Canada
- OpenMedia: Over 300 Organizations Unite to Demand Complete Withdrawal of Bill C-2
- Bill C2
- Migrant Rights Network Condemns Bill C-2's Anti-Refugee & Mass Deportation Provisions - Migrant Rights Network
- The Orchard: Carney Bends the Knee to Trump (Bill 2)
- Journal of International Solidarity
All of our content is free - made possible by the generous sponsorships of our Patrons. If you would like to support our work through monthly contributions: Patreon
Transcript
Welcome to Blueprints of Disruption, a podcast that would love to dismantle the status quo.
Speaker:My name is Jess McLean. It's only been a hot minute since Prime Minister Mark Carney took
Speaker:office, but he has wasted no time in pulling the liberals further to the right. Transformative
Speaker:bills have been passed and a certain tone has been set. None of it is good. Luckily, I was
Speaker:able to team up with Ashwin from the International Solidarity Podcast to get a much better handle
Speaker:on what he accurately describes as a paradigm shift. Ashwin provides some much needed context
Speaker:to the moves Carney's making both at home and abroad. We cover the legislation and commitments
Speaker:made in the first 100-ish days of this liberal government in detail. We also talk a bit about
Speaker:the resistance mounting and the roll of the left in the face of these changes.
Speaker:If you're not already listening to the International Solidarity podcast, you are missing out. We've
Speaker:cross-posted this episode over there. You'll see ways to find them linked in the show notes
Speaker:of this episode, along with a ton of resources and ways you can support our work. It's a longer
Speaker:than usual segment this week, so buckle up and let's just jump right into it. Okay. Hey, Jessa,
Speaker:what are we talking about today? Well, you know, I think we're going to maybe spoil Carney's
Speaker:honeymoon a little bit because Carney's been in office for 100 ish days and it's been
Speaker:a reign of terror so far. And I think a lot of people aren't paying attention. No, that's
Speaker:right. I mean, the wave that got Carney elected initially, right, was, you know, I mean, initially
Speaker:the conservatives were poised to win in December. Yeah, elbows up. What happened to that? know,
Speaker:the conservatives are poised to win. A lot of people on the liberal progressive side of
Speaker:things, you know, were very worried about it. The fallout of Trudeau's leadership and
Speaker:all this, Mark Carney came to lead the Liberal Party. And, you know, it was relieving for
Speaker:a lot of people when he won instead of Pierre Poilier, you know, the prime ministership.
Speaker:you know, we're in the midst of summer. Um, you know, according to the number of people
Speaker:that respond to my emails and texts, like people are very busy and, you know, are maybe are
Speaker:not paying as much attention. Uh, and I guess that's why we're here to sort of break things
Speaker:down how, how, you know, this first bit of, of Carney's, um, government has been and much
Speaker:like, you know, the first couple of days, weeks, and months of the Trump administration, where
Speaker:a lot of things were happening, a lot of things are coming out. Um, It's the same in this
Speaker:case in Canada with the federal government. It's not just the summer either, which is totally
Speaker:valid. get it. I was at the beach this morning myself, but it's the fact that they're coming
Speaker:fast and furious. That became relevant as we're doing our notes, right? We started our notes
Speaker:maybe a week ago and we were just able to feed into them and it was so much. It's like, who
Speaker:knows how much detail we can. get into when we go over the various bills that he's passed,
Speaker:the promises he's made around military spending, his foreign policy or lack of it. You know,
Speaker:like there is a lot that he's been doing and we've seen this style of politics before. You
Speaker:know, I'm speaking from an Ontario perspective, but we can see it happening south of the border
Speaker:where it's just one thing after another. And it's really hard for activists to stay
Speaker:on top of all of the challenges, all of the ways that this is stepping back their work.
Speaker:And it becomes overwhelming, especially when we talk about Bill 5 is one of the bills a
Speaker:lot of people are really upset about. There's provincial counterparts there, right? So people
Speaker:are trying to fight all of these battles on so many fronts and then yes, a lot of it
Speaker:just gets lost in the shuffle because you have to prioritize something. But all of the things
Speaker:that we're going to unpack are equally as troubling and luckily have sparked resistance just
Speaker:as equally. There are people fighting back against all of the things. Bill two is on
Speaker:the agenda today. I've already mentioned Bill five and NATO spending, Palestine, obviously,
Speaker:but You know what bugs me the most? What is like how much I like I'm just a little itty
Speaker:bitty show, but we talked so much beforehand about this happening because if you look back
Speaker:at the leaders debate, Carney used a lot of language. I pulled up my notes here where,
Speaker:you know, building a Canadian economy, one Canadian economy, not 13, like forget Indigenous economies.
Speaker:He didn't even recognize them. In his land acknowledgement, right, it was a nation. Even
Speaker:in his land acknowledgement for the throne speech, right, he talked about getting things done
Speaker:at all costs or consultation but with a purpose. And, you know, there was no shortage of military
Speaker:hoo-ha and nationalism dripping from everyone's campaign. So I'm frustrated with how surprised
Speaker:some people are, but also thankful that they've fallen out of that really, that... that mania,
Speaker:that Carney mania, they weren't just relieved Ashwin, they were like celebrating, right?
Speaker:Like this was a victory of strategic voting. And now we have people openly acknowledging
Speaker:that Carney might be the most right-wing prime minister we've ever had. Yeah. I mean, you
Speaker:know, one thing that I wanted to say was I really think, and you know, maybe we'll know in retrospect,
Speaker:but I think this is sort of one of those moments where there's a paradigm shift, right? It
Speaker:happened, especially you can think of, you know, the neoliberal era in Canada, the Jean Chrétien
Speaker:era where, you know, it was a liberal government, but a lot of spending cuts, public expenditure
Speaker:cuts, winding down basically, you know, the welfare state. you think of Margaret Thatcher,
Speaker:Ronald Reagan in the UK and the US. In the Canadian context, you can think even before
Speaker:that between the Diefenbaker era into the Pearson era was sort of a shift from the sort of
Speaker:British Commonwealth, small C conservatism to trying to build a Canadian national identity,
Speaker:that kind of thing. I don't think it would be unreasonable to suggest that we might be
Speaker:seeing a similar kind of shift taking place. And you mentioned how right-wing Carney is,
Speaker:I think that's part of the shift, right? That, I mean, the center is moving, has been moving.
Speaker:the right and it's clearly continuing to do so. I understand why folks might have been
Speaker:relieved that Pierre Poilier was not elected prime minister and there's no conservative
Speaker:government, but two things. a lot of these bills that we're going to talk about today
Speaker:are passed with overwhelming support from the conservatives. And second, mean, if this was
Speaker:a conservative government in place, sort of passing these bills Bill C5, Bill C2, one
Speaker:would suspect there would be a lot more resistance to it. And just because it's a liberal government,
Speaker:people are able to sort of pigeonhole it, take it a little easier. It's a liberal government.
Speaker:They're not as scary. They're not as bad. mean, I think that's exactly what makes them just
Speaker:as scary. So if we want, mean, just so we can get into these bills, Bill C5 and Bill C2.
Speaker:Let's do it. I think we're going to start off with Bill 5. It's probably got the most to
Speaker:talk about, there's a lot to talk about. 2 doesn't disappoint either. But there's a lot of resistance
Speaker:stirring up for Bill 5. What did they call this? This is the, we were just talking about before
Speaker:we were recording that I think they've got less Aurelian with the names. Like we're at
Speaker:least told straight out with some of these titles exactly what they are, but this is the Free
Speaker:Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act. Okay, that's a little bit vague, but it includes
Speaker:the Building Canada Act. Actually, Jess, I should say the name of this bill is quite ridiculous
Speaker:because it puts two bills together. So it's an act to enact the free trade, etc. That
Speaker:first part of the bill and the Building Canada Act. Anyway, not that relevant, but it's a
Speaker:stupid name. Yeah, so it hits out that one of his biggest promises and that got a lot
Speaker:of traction because I don't think a little, I think few people understood what it meant
Speaker:when he would eliminate inter-provincial trade barriers. Red tape is another name that has
Speaker:given it to him, but that red tape is obviously more encompassing than provincial trade barriers.
Speaker:This is going to give the government the ability to bypass environmental assessments. to pay
Speaker:very little attention to First Nation consultations. Basically anything they deem a national interest,
Speaker:red flag, red flag, is kind of free and clear. A minister can give it the green light when
Speaker:another project maybe wouldn't have. And they've been really explicit. He's talking about pipelines,
Speaker:ports. They include ports and whatever. I don't think anybody needs to ram through a
Speaker:port, you know, like last minute, but we're talking about pipelines. And again, like he
Speaker:made it clear that this was going to be his priority. And at the same time, you've got
Speaker:provinces enacting very similar acts. In fact, First Nations folks, nine different First Nations
Speaker:have launched a legal battle against Ontario's Bill 5. end. Canada's Bill C-5 and they passed
Speaker:almost around the same time. It was very hard to keep up with them I thought I was mixing
Speaker:them up and then I realized no these are almost two identical bills that completely spit in
Speaker:the face of indigenous sovereignty amongst other things No, that's right. you know this
Speaker:this part of Bill C-5 that you're talking about By you know sort of centralizing power in
Speaker:the cabinet to bypass environmental regulations and indigenous self-determination or Indigenous
Speaker:sovereignty. That is the second part of the bill, which is about building Canada. It's
Speaker:called the Building Canada Act. like you're saying, Jessa, there have been comparable
Speaker:bills across the province. So that's why I'm saying across the provinces, including Ontario,
Speaker:like you mentioned, BC as well seems to have a similar kind of bill. I mean, this is sort
Speaker:of like a coordinated effort. Maybe I wanted to contextualize this a bit. You know, since
Speaker:it's so coordinated, you know, it's worth sort of peering back and sort of investigating where
Speaker:that comes from. also, thoughts are getting a little scattered here, but it's also very
Speaker:much related to, you know, what I was saying earlier about how this is sort of a moment
Speaker:of paradigm shift, right? All these governments are looking to centralize power, erode sort
Speaker:of democratic mechanisms of know, checks and balances, accountability, environmental assessments,
Speaker:indigenous sovereignty. And, know, I think the root cause of this paradigm shift really is
Speaker:the paradigm shift coming with the Trump administration, right? The tariff regime that Trump was bringing
Speaker:forward. And, you know, this reaction on the part of, I might be going on for a bit here,
Speaker:Jessa, I'm sorry, but the reaction on the part of, you know, Canadian federal government,
Speaker:but Canadian governments more broadly, is really a move to do two things in my understanding.
Speaker:To one, protect and bolster Canadian capital because it's Canadian capital or capital
Speaker:based in Canada that's threatened by these tariffs. And two, capitulate as well to the
Speaker:US. And by capitulating, you also protect Canadian capital. Whereas the working class and Indigenous
Speaker:nations, they're not even sort of in the equation. They can get screwed. But really, mean, we
Speaker:mentioned that this bill has two parts, This Bill C5. The first part is getting rid of
Speaker:inter-provincial trade barriers, encouraging greater labour mobility across provinces in
Speaker:Canada. That's the first part. And the second part we talked about quite a bit. overriding
Speaker:environmental regulations and Indigenous sovereignty. mean, you can see these two things coming together
Speaker:in the same bill basically as an attempt to find new frontiers by capital to extract profit.
Speaker:If you're getting pushed on one side by the US, if you're getting squeezed on one side,
Speaker:well, what do you have to do? You have to open things up. You have to rejig things so that
Speaker:you can continue to extract, to exploit, reap profits, if not in the same way as before,
Speaker:even greater. And so the frontiers here are the environment, Indigenous sovereignty, self-determination.
Speaker:We can talk about the Arctic as well. Energy projects really seem to be at the center here.
Speaker:We'll talk about a little more. Maybe one last thing I wanted to add on this was that when
Speaker:we talk about Bill C-5 in particular, trying to centralize power in the cabinet to approve
Speaker:projects deemed in the national interest, they're talking about the cabinet, But it's really
Speaker:worth zooming in here. That's right, right? It's just one person. I mean, it's really worth
Speaker:zooming in here to see how cabinet has functioned, especially throughout the Trudeau era, even
Speaker:before that, especially through the Trudeau era. you know, let's see if that changes.
Speaker:But things seem to suggest, right, when cabinet makes a decision, this is really, you know,
Speaker:coming from the top down from the PMO, lot of power has been centralized in the prime
Speaker:minister's office. And as the prime minister, his chief of staff, you know, a couple of other
Speaker:policymakers and staffers, really a room of five-ish that can essentially deem this in
Speaker:the national interest and thus deem it in the interest of cabinet for cabinet to then sort
Speaker:of give the green light here. What happened to democracy? I mean, we talk about China
Speaker:and Russia being authoritarian states. mean, what's going on here? Well, and it's not
Speaker:like it's nefarious of the Liberals either. That's by design. That's how cabinets been
Speaker:designed in our Canadian Parliament. Harper, we were famous on calling Harper a dictator
Speaker:because it was always known that like every single policy that came from that government
Speaker:just came from the PMO's office. And a lot of people don't know that. A lot of people,
Speaker:you know, If you look at it on paper, it does look like it's a team meeting. know we know
Speaker:backbenchers get no say, sometimes the same is true of cabinet ministers. Not all cabinet
Speaker:ministers. Some of them clearly get input. Freeland is always in the mix making critical
Speaker:decisions, but otherwise, yeah, it's very concentrated. And now it's concentrated in the hands of
Speaker:a banker. a banker that has a long history of ties to the US and its military industrial
Speaker:complex and the UK and some of the horrible reforms that went on there that benefited
Speaker:the most wealthy. So watching people celebrate, yeah, the banker coming in as if that wasn't
Speaker:a red flag in itself was something else. But I wanted to go back to something you said.
Speaker:And the way you're helping to explain folks why these different frontiers are opening.
Speaker:But I feel like you framed it almost from like, it's this economic necessity that I know you
Speaker:don't agree with, but just hear me out for a second. Perhaps all these threats of tariffs,
Speaker:although Trump has many, many reasons to behave this way that we could analyze, perhaps one
Speaker:of them is to allow these governments. to make their own paradigm shifts, right? Like, because
Speaker:it was immediately, as soon as the tariffs were suggested, BCNDP was one of the first to act.
Speaker:And they're like, okay, we're gonna start pushing through pipelines that we previously were
Speaker:in negotiations with indigenous people around and this and that. And I'm sorry, we've just
Speaker:got to green light them right now. But when we looked at them more deeply, they involved
Speaker:US investors. They involved a north to south pipeline. that could only go to Alaska. And
Speaker:so it definitely wasn't kind of a insular thing. They were selling it as such as a protection
Speaker:against Trump and his tariffs, but reality, it was facilitating US capital. I think like
Speaker:Carney is not so much worried about these terrorists or Ford as they are looking at them, even if
Speaker:it is a threat to the economy and they have to scramble as such. I think they see this
Speaker:as opportunities to do things they've always wanted to do. Not like just in case a listener
Speaker:thinks like, oh, well, they have to take from somewhere. What are we going to do? And it's
Speaker:like, well, this is just this kind of green light that they've been given because we consolidated
Speaker:around that too, right? The nationalism that we all bought up. When I say we, I don't mean
Speaker:me. Okay, I don't mean Hashwin either. But just generally the Canadian public in that
Speaker:election was like Canada first, Canada first. And like that's always so dangerous because
Speaker:it leads to people rationalizing. Well, if it's in the national interest and I hate Trump and
Speaker:I'm scared of China and Russia, then I'm sorry, Indigenous nations, you're just going to have
Speaker:to get along or not. Right. So it sounds a bit conspiracy theory-esque, but I often think
Speaker:that that's why we can't explain tariffs. Trump's tariffs, the way they go back and forth and
Speaker:they're used as leverage when they're already capitulating to them, everything. When we
Speaker:talk about Bill C-2, that's another capitulation to Trump. Maybe before we get to Bill C-2,
Speaker:Jess, I maybe just wanted to build a little bit on what you're saying about whether this
Speaker:is an economic necessity. And in the absolute sense, it's not an economic necessity. There
Speaker:are other ways to organize an economy. in reaction to these Trump tariffs, right? In
Speaker:a more people-centered way that benefits the working class and works toward decolonization,
Speaker:ecological sustainability, et cetera, et cetera. I guess what I was trying to say was that
Speaker:it's an economic necessity for capital. Capital wants to, as you're saying, they've had these
Speaker:plans. This is an opportunity. If they want to continue Uh, not just making the same amount
Speaker:of profits, right? But like I said, more, it's, more and more it's, it's, you know,
Speaker:uh, uh, crossing new frontiers. Insatiable. That's right. It's, it's crossing new frontiers.
Speaker:This is sort of what they have to do, what they want to do. Um, the other thing I'll say on
Speaker:that about, you know, you know, an economy geared toward capital and the capitalist versus an
Speaker:economy, um, geared toward the people, the working classes, and the dispossessed is
Speaker:a lot of this language is about, we want to fast track infrastructure projects. want to
Speaker:fast track, they talk about energy, but they talk about this more broadly as infrastructure
Speaker:projects. And I think it's worth highlighting here as listeners might know, but that when
Speaker:they talk about infrastructure, they're not talking about people-centered infrastructure.
Speaker:I was in Toronto the other day, if anyone walks underneath the gardener... shouldn't.
Speaker:Wear a hard hat if you do. Yeah, that's right. That infrastructure is eroding. It's horrible.
Speaker:A side note here, I came back from China not too long ago, and the infrastructure there
Speaker:is incredible. When we talk about highways, when we talk about public transit, this is
Speaker:people-centered infrastructure that benefits labor, that benefits the working class. This
Speaker:infrastructure that Carney talks about and the rest of the Canadian ruling class talks
Speaker:about is not that. It's particularly energy infrastructure, oil and gas, fossil fuel energy,
Speaker:which notably has high profit margins. So there's an incentive to going at it with old
Speaker:energy, resisting transition to new energy because the profits are there. So when we talk
Speaker:about pipelines, when we talk about, you mentioned ports, Jessa, ports are also important because
Speaker:I was looking up in preparation for this, some of these proposed projects or projects
Speaker:that are maybe on the table that some companies have in mind that either have been proposed
Speaker:before or are still in the works. A lot of these ports are in the North, in the Arctic.
Speaker:Well, at least one in particular is in the Arctic North in Nunavut. They want to continue to
Speaker:develop the port of Churchill in Manitoba. these are not just ports for ports sake. These
Speaker:are ports to quote, get product to market, right? This is how they wanna extract more fossil
Speaker:fuel. you know, produce energy out of it and then, you know, find new markets and expand
Speaker:abroad, continue to reap profit. So bottom line here is, you know, when they talk about infrastructure,
Speaker:it's not people-centered infrastructure. I mean, in this country, we need, I could go on, but
Speaker:we need high-speed rail. We need public transit. There are, you know, way too many cars. In
Speaker:the meantime, it might be nice to even just have, you know, more electric cars, you know,
Speaker:than gas guzzling cars. We can't even do that, you know, but anyway, but that's, That's
Speaker:people-centered infrastructure. This is not that. No, and just to drive your point home,
Speaker:the bill coming out of BC from the NDP, so that was a victory for progressives over there,
Speaker:keep in mind. Back in May, they passed the Infrastructure Projects Act. So they're pretty
Speaker:clear and they don't, this is energy-driven resource extraction. That's exactly what they're
Speaker:talking about. and it gives ultimate authority, like you said, to a cabinet minister. And they
Speaker:have to use different language. Here we have coming out of the provinces, it's not national
Speaker:interest, it's provincially significant project. So once somebody thinks it's provincially significant,
Speaker:always, always, they mean the economy. They don't mean the people in the province. Because
Speaker:like Carney told you this in the throne speech over and over again, right? His number one
Speaker:underlying priority was a strong Canadian economy. And we know a strong economy never means more
Speaker:for the working class. Our economy is predicated on centralizing wealth and power over and
Speaker:over again, increasingly. So BC went ahead and passed that. They were almost one of the first
Speaker:ones to pass it. And immediately it sent ripples through the environmentalist groups and First
Speaker:Nations that had been in negotiations with them that had been trying to work with this BC
Speaker:NDP. very strong statements came out against it. Obviously, I'm not sure if there's any
Speaker:legal work going on. I imagine there is. And, you know, they don't want to be outdone by
Speaker:the liberals, the federal liberals either. It was a back to back bill. was 14 and 15. They
Speaker:both do almost the same thing as Bill 5 does and Ontario again, yeah, they have their own
Speaker:Bill 5 and it's all about removing barriers to development and grassy narrows and other
Speaker:First Nations here in Ontario. You know, they've been protesting out on Queen's Park since this
Speaker:bill was brought to second reading, at least it's going to be such a blowback for First
Speaker:Nations groups, but also environmentalists. laws that it essentially does away with is
Speaker:the Endangered Species Act. And I know like maybe you're thinking, oh, you know, some
Speaker:really rare bird I've never heard of might not make it. You may not understand the depth
Speaker:of that, what that act does for environmentalists. They're able to protect huge swaths of land
Speaker:by proving it will be a detriment to just one species. So it's proven as quite an effective
Speaker:tool to beat back. development where capital is just knocking on the door, knocking on the
Speaker:door. that's just gone and done. People can't believe it. That legislation has been around
Speaker:for so long. It's like almost one of those like the health act. just assume it's always going
Speaker:to be there. Nobody would ever do away with something like that. that just gives credit
Speaker:to Ashwin's theory there. This is all part of a massive paradigm shift. Do we have a name
Speaker:for it? You know, you had labels for the other ones and I was thinking, don't know. want to
Speaker:know. Let's hope it's the death throes of capitalism. I mean, that would be up to us. Yeah, we have
Speaker:to name it first, right? No, I was going to that would be the death throes of capitalism.
Speaker:That's up to the left to to, you know, act on and to push. That's I understand. Well, it's
Speaker:not sustainable, though, either. Not that we can just sit back and wait for it to crash
Speaker:and burn, but this isn't a sustainable way to do anything. they know it, but it's all
Speaker:like live for the now, stockpile your wealth and those considerations. mean, our politicians
Speaker:are notoriously bad of thinking long term, very short term vision. There's one challenge
Speaker:that I read when I was... reading about the First Nations challenging both of those bills
Speaker:and the idea of national interest. And although they're making like constitutional challenges,
Speaker:like this is a threat to like very specific rights, they're also challenging the idea
Speaker:that national interest doesn't include Indigenous self-determination, right? Because it's very
Speaker:an arbitrary thing to say in someone's interest, in the nation's interest. Like we are in a...
Speaker:homogenous group, what's good for one might not be good for the other. What's good for
Speaker:the economy definitely doesn't mean it's good for me. What's good for settlers is might
Speaker:not be good for indigenous people. So how we define that national interest should include,
Speaker:you know, X, Y, and Z amongst other things like the protection of the environment should be
Speaker:in national interest. Is it? Probably not when they're defining these projects, right? So
Speaker:they want to ensure that First Nations self-determination is part of that discussion on what is in the
Speaker:best national interest. And I would argue that they're right, right? As stewards of the land
Speaker:for so long, but also if you were just talking about political stability, this isn't the way.
Speaker:But I'm not here for political stability. So that's, you piss off more people, more people,
Speaker:we've got more ready with nothing to lose. I get that, but. I just thought that was an interesting
Speaker:way to then challenge that national interest or provincially significant. Are you going
Speaker:to say it out loud that that definitely does not include indigenous rights? Be prepared
Speaker:to say that out loud then because that's essentially what they're doing. Yeah, no, mean, bill two
Speaker:is another one of these very concerning bills. You know, if a conservative government was
Speaker:passing a bill to someone I had read in an article that this would be, you know, Stephen Harper's
Speaker:dream to pass a bill like this, mean, whether that's true or not, Bill 2 is a very concerning
Speaker:bill. It's called the Strong Borders Act, or at least it's colloquially called the Strong
Speaker:Borders Act. Very Trumpian language there. I mean, that's enough to concern people. Well,
Speaker:this one's kind of like a two-parter too, not officially. I imagine it is broken down into
Speaker:chapters. We'll link. the actual bills so you don't have to take our word on any of this,
Speaker:you can read it for yourself, but a lot of folks came out against it as a mass deportation bill.
Speaker:It's an anti-migrant bill, I mean, I say they came out as rightfully so, factually so,
Speaker:it is, but it also raises huge concerns over mass surveillance. So I guess like let's break
Speaker:it down in that way. First, was one of Carney's first bills. And I think that's why it made
Speaker:it so alarming because we were in the throes of watching the ICE raids, or we still are,
Speaker:early days. But we knew it was coming and it was going to get ugly. And then here we are,
Speaker:the Canadian bleeding heart liberals. And their first priority was to pass something that was
Speaker:going to make it even harder for people to seek asylum coming through the United States. There's
Speaker:a lot of things wrong with that bill, but just that alone should get you really riled up.
Speaker:The fact that We should have done away with a third party, safe third party agreement
Speaker:with the United States long ago. I've said it a million times on our show. Amnesty International
Speaker:has been calling for that agreement to be fixed or scrapped for years, long before internment
Speaker:camps for migrants. Okay. Like long before that we knew it was not safe, but now it's almost
Speaker:nearly impossible to come through the United States and claim asylum in Canada. And I'm
Speaker:here to shit on Carney, but this is a continuation of Trudeau's policies, right? That still today
Speaker:see 3,000 people lose their status in Canada every single day right now. Right? And migrant
Speaker:rights warned us that a million people would eventually lose their status in Canada because
Speaker:of the changes the Liberals made, which means they've got to leave or they've got to stay
Speaker:undocumented. And this feeds into that even more. So now the minister, again, consolidation
Speaker:of power here in another department, the minister of immigration holds incredible power here,
Speaker:not just on single cases, you how we appeal to them to do the right thing, to not deport
Speaker:environmental activists, blah, blah, blah. And we can make it case by case. But now
Speaker:they can make sweeping changes to immigration policies that would essentially mass deport
Speaker:groups of people, say, from a certain country or with certain criteria. who knows what doors
Speaker:that opened and that goes on the books for any government to use down the road as do all these
Speaker:things, right? If you're like, oh, it's just the liberals using it. They're gonna use this
Speaker:to build wind farms and just stop fentanyl from crossing the border. That's not true, but you
Speaker:know, either way these are things that will now become Canadian, right? What it means to
Speaker:be Canadian is to essentially turn migrants away. And. I feel so bad for migrant rights
Speaker:groups because at the beginning of Trudeau's reign, he promised them status for all. He
Speaker:promised that he would roll out that and he did for some groups, there were some gains
Speaker:made and then there was just this shift. And it was step back, step back, scapegoating them
Speaker:for housing, this, that and the other thing. And it's just been a completely different story
Speaker:for migrants in Canada. And that's just part of that bill. Yeah, no, I mean, you're totally
Speaker:right about this, Jessa. One thing I maybe wanted to pick up on was how this is sort of a continuation
Speaker:of sort of the, you know, the tail end of Trudeau's time as prime minister, Trudeau's government,
Speaker:you know, this noticeable kind of shift in the attitude toward migrants. mean, let's not forget,
Speaker:I mean, during COVID, you know, when we needed migrant workers, we allowed international students
Speaker:and others to you know, to work longer hours, right? So I mean, the, you know, the basis
Speaker:of the Canadian economy, the fundamental sectors, think of food services, think of trucking,
Speaker:you know, know, meatpacking, all this kind of stuff, industrial work. All of this is,
Speaker:you know, done by migrant labor of one sort or another. I can't forget food production
Speaker:as well, right? Agricultural goods, et cetera. You know, coming back to how this is sort of
Speaker:a continuation of the Trudeau legacy. I would say it is, and it's also not, right? Because
Speaker:on one side, it is sort of continuing the legacy of turning against migrants for a country that,
Speaker:know, boasts its, you know, migration and multicultural credentials. But it's also, I would say,
Speaker:different in the sense that this is really, you know, a reaction to, again, the Trump
Speaker:regime. Whereas Trudeau's, right, was a You know, in the dying days of the Trudeau liberal
Speaker:government where the liberals were polling very low and the conservatives were gaining ground
Speaker:on questions of immigration. I mean, you saw this also on social media. A lot of the proliferation
Speaker:of a lot more anti immigrant, you know, anti South Asian as well kind of sentiment. The
Speaker:conservatives were capitalizing on this. You know, the liberals under Trudeau thought they
Speaker:could undercut the conservatives, you know, by by repositioning. I'm sure there were economic
Speaker:considerations as well that drove that policy forward. This is really a huge step backward,
Speaker:backward, backward. mean, a huge step backward in terms of what I'm trying to say is that
Speaker:it's a big step from Trudeau's immigration policy cracking down a lot harder. And I think
Speaker:the move here really is to, again, capitulate to the US to protect to shield, know, quote
Speaker:unquote Canadian interests to some extent, read, you know, Canadian capital, you know, to shield
Speaker:them to some extent, you know, by capitulating. You've definitely got a point. Like it's definitely
Speaker:hit a different speed and a different tone. And Carney set that tone. Like Trudeau did
Speaker:it with a smiling face and did try to pretend it was solely about fentanyl. But we also have
Speaker:to remember that Trump isn't the beginning of the anti-migrant. uh, you know, the detention,
Speaker:the deportations either these were pressures the U S had been leaning on us probably for
Speaker:some time. And it's not just led to us spending a lot of money at the border, which Trudeau,
Speaker:uh, made sure that we were, we were promised to do on top of that, we're leasing us blackhawk
Speaker:helicopters to do it. So we're just like, it's, they are very intertwined. You'll know this
Speaker:when you cross the border. especially at an airport, right? We've got US customs here at
Speaker:our airports and the way border services work together, which kind of ties into the rest
Speaker:of this bill, is very tied with US, right? Like these agencies work very closely together
Speaker:for years. So I love this. At the same time, he's trying to pretend that we've got to do
Speaker:everything possible. strip everyone's rights to protect ourselves from the US. But at the
Speaker:same time, when it comes to our border or the military spending, it's just like, we're good.
Speaker:It's like there's no threat at all to do this, to have our border services intertwined like
Speaker:that, and to give the US even more power to intrude on Canadian rights. Right? Like the
Speaker:second part of this bill is its surveillance. And it gives enhanced powers to CCIS, to the
Speaker:folks that check the mail when it comes across the border and telecom companies. To the
Speaker:police as well. Yeah. Like it gives US companies the ability to make requests of service providers
Speaker:here in Canada that essentially give them warrantless access to whose databases we're on and who
Speaker:knows what else. Right. At this point in the bill, what the bill seems to be suggesting
Speaker:is It's going to give Canadian law enforcement that power, at least at this point, as it
Speaker:stands, it leaves the door open for data sharing and things like that with the U.S. So, you
Speaker:know, at least at this point, it seems like that's not in the bill, in the bill, but it
Speaker:leaves the door open. that's sort of the point. does leave the door open, but it also includes
Speaker:protection for service providers should they provide more than what they were mandated to
Speaker:do. So it's almost like they've told These service providers like, you give the cops whatever
Speaker:they ask for, you give too much, we won't ever punish you for that. Because obviously they've
Speaker:been in negotiation with these telecom companies, right? What they're capable of doing and whatnot.
Speaker:So they'll hand over your whole file. The way that this is different from the Trudeau era
Speaker:is that it is sort of reacting to the Trump regime in a way that it's trying to harmonize,
Speaker:you know, because borders and immigration and so-called crime is such a big deal to In trade
Speaker:negotiations, et cetera, this is something seen by the Carney government as something
Speaker:to move on, to come to a better agreement, one of Canada's, I guess, negotiating chips.
Speaker:But the move here is really to integrate or at least it seems to be to integrate our
Speaker:sort of immigration law enforcement systems such that, you if the US was once talking
Speaker:about annexing Canada, right, and, you know, taking over Canadian sovereignty, you know,
Speaker:provisions for greater surveillance in this bill really sort of moves in that same direction,
Speaker:at least in terms of information sovereignty, right, data sovereignty. It leaves the door
Speaker:open for the US to effectively have some level of sovereignty over Canadian residents' data.
Speaker:So much for elbows up, right? And standing up to the US. And securing our sovereignty.
Speaker:That was a word thrown around a whole lot, even when they were giving land acknowledgments.
Speaker:He's a complete contradiction, Kearney. Although... he did spell it out, the narratives he's using
Speaker:to justify all of this, flip from one end to the other. There's no consistency, but there's
Speaker:also not a lot of pushback going like, that's a thing when you allow a party to get a new
Speaker:leader too. And then everyone tried so hard to get them elected. So there's gotta be this
Speaker:kind of grace period that not only do they give new leaders just to see how it all shapes out,
Speaker:like give them the benefit of the doubt, but it's also for their. saving face as well. Like
Speaker:how fast can you then turn around and start complaining about the man you told your neighbors
Speaker:to all go vote for? Right? So yeah, there's this deep, deep contradictions that just seem
Speaker:so obvious to everybody who's paying attention. Um, but that's the key word, like who's paying
Speaker:attention. Bill C2 did though mobilize a lot of people. I'm looking at a letter here signed
Speaker:by acknowledging that 300 different organizations demanded a complete withdrawal of Bill C-2.
Speaker:And it's a who's who of migrant rights, civil liberties groups, labor organizations. Obviously,
Speaker:I can't read them all, but I'll link that letter from OpenMedia.org. it's incredible that
Speaker:it was the very first bill, but probably the least amount of controversy over. I think
Speaker:a lot of people are talking more about NATO and the promised military spending perhaps
Speaker:than they are the actual bills that have been passed. And you kind of mentioned it earlier,
Speaker:but it's hard when there's legislation like this and he's going to reign this way because
Speaker:although, you know, seven seats is not a lot for the NDP and you do have the block there.
Speaker:This is legislation that the majority of MPs will just be gleeful to pass and challenging
Speaker:through the electoral system, think is going to be a bit of a lost cause for people under
Speaker:Carney's reign. I mean, everything we've talked about requires a lot of spending. These infrastructure
Speaker:projects and the surveillance and border security and we're going to get into military
Speaker:spending, all of this is going to lead to massive austerity as well. I like that wasn't in our
Speaker:summary of points to get to, but I think it's an important to note that even, you know,
Speaker:your parliamentary budget officer has come out and said like, whoa, you're going to have
Speaker:to have massive cuts to the public sector in order to accomplish this. And sure enough.
Speaker:You know, Carney has issued orders that we saw Rob Ford give really go to every single department
Speaker:except for the DND, right? Except for the military and say, cut 10 to 15 % of your budget. I don't
Speaker:give a shit where you get it. I don't care what the social impact is. I don't care. Just you
Speaker:cut that budget because we've got to spend on war and tax cuts, but a lot on war. think.
Speaker:You safe to go into that one now? Yeah, no, I was going to say that. mean, that that transitions
Speaker:quite well into, you know, this, you know, commitment made by Canada and all NATO members at the
Speaker:recent NATO summit that happened last month at the end of June, where members committed
Speaker:to military spending of five percent of GDP annually, you know, by 2035 in Canada's case.
Speaker:So. I just to give it's it's yeah, it's insane. Just to give some context, right. The the
Speaker:target, you know, for the past, you know, I think it's been several decades is to to
Speaker:get to 2 % of GDP. All NATO members should be spending 2 % of their GDP on so-called defense.
Speaker:Military spending is, you know, better better put. Canada has never attained that 2%. mostly
Speaker:because previous governments have known that it would be suicide to do that. You'd have
Speaker:to cut from elsewhere. And who knows what that might trigger in terms of public reaction,
Speaker:that kind of thing. far, I I should say, even Stephen Harper's government is on the
Speaker:record saying that's not possible. We're not going to be able to do that. So far, I mean,
Speaker:think in recent years, it's been at about 1.4 something, 1.45 % of GDP, Canadian GDP is on
Speaker:military spending. Trudeau was pushed on this, I forget how long it was ago, several years
Speaker:ago, when he went to the White House to meet Trump to bring it up to 2%. Now they're talking
Speaker:about 5 % and that would come to $150 billion. in military spending per year. That's what
Speaker:that translates to. 5 % of GDP is $150 billion in military spending. Let's put that in context.
Speaker:I think there was so much outcry about a couple of years ago about the Trudeau government purchasing
Speaker:the Trans Mountain pipeline. I believe if I'm not wrong, I might be getting this wrong. The
Speaker:price of the pipeline at that time was, I'm remembering it was either 4 billion or 7 billion.
Speaker:Either way now today, I know that you know as as the costs have added up That pipeline
Speaker:is sits at about 34 billion dollars. Okay, so that you know, that was outrageous change
Speaker:now. Yeah, that's right I mean that was outrageous to people rightfully so back then I mean this
Speaker:is we're talking about you know, like what this is for the three Three four more than
Speaker:four times that amount 150 billion dollars per year. Anyway, I could go on but But yeah,
Speaker:that's, that's insane. Well, I mean, we will let you go on. want to go back to that 2%.
Speaker:Um, and the fact that we hadn't met those commitments. And obviously I'm going to work in a way to
Speaker:shit on the NDP. I'm sorry if you don't allow swearing on your show. No, no, it's all good.
Speaker:I do. But I had Yves Engler on and this was one of his sticking points. You know, the fact
Speaker:that there's nobody even challenging that narrative at all. Although you say most people are under
Speaker:the assumption or the knowledge that it's political suicide, no good for the economy, massive
Speaker:austerity would be required. That's really not what the NDP said when Carney starts talking
Speaker:about 5%. What did they say? They chastised the cons and the liberals for never making
Speaker:the 2 % commitment for failing to meet previous commitments. doesn't even close to challenging
Speaker:the concept of NATO. I don't know if we have time to unpack that. Maybe you do. Maybe you
Speaker:could fire through like, forget like whether or not we could afford it. The whole concept
Speaker:of NATO is a problem. But like, even if you shelf that, even if you shelf that, you have
Speaker:the most progressive political option out there going, well, you should have spent two years
Speaker:if you had to spend 2 % every year for the last 25 years, we wouldn't be at this shortfall.
Speaker:And it's like, oh, good. Well, NATO would be really robust, but our social services would
Speaker:be gone. That just doesn't even come out of them anymore. So that pissed me off. And I
Speaker:thought it was worth noting because we talk about resistance to all of these things. And
Speaker:none of it is coming out of the legislature, really. You talk about the bandermine, the
Speaker:conservatives by... you we did this first, now you'll never be able to take credit for
Speaker:it and Lord knows what your next campaign is going to ask for that we haven't given you
Speaker:already. But at the same time, like we don't really have anybody challenging it on the other
Speaker:side either. it, that, that, becomes troubling. And that 150 billion that Ashwin quoted per
Speaker:year is not even close to the total. military spending Kearney has either promised or suggested
Speaker:is a possibility. Right? So he is giving the US and I feel like with my kids if I say maybe
Speaker:they know it's a yes because you don't say maybe and then say no I feel that's mean. It's like
Speaker:I'm going to just tease you with it so my son will even be like oh I know that's a yes and
Speaker:I'm like damn I buy myself some time. I buy myself some time and that's all that it is
Speaker:so when Kearney says that his participation in the Golden Dome, which is a think of the
Speaker:Iron Dome for Israel. If I have to explain that to you, you're on the wrong show. you know,
Speaker:but for the US and again, we're talking about Arctic sovereignty as well. This is a big protection
Speaker:from Russia and China, and it's going to cost billions upon billions. He says that's a possibility.
Speaker:We might get into that. That means he is he's already committed to rearm Europe plan. And
Speaker:then you have to, he spent six billion before he even had the election too, right? Before
Speaker:he was our legitimate prime minister. I love feeding into those con points a little bit.
Speaker:But he spent $6 billion on radar systems for the Arctic. So this man is just throwing money
Speaker:at war, weapons, surveillance, radars, missiles. And that is your that's your liberals. I think
Speaker:that's what's the most scary. Like people are like, oh, this can't be bad. It's the liberals.
Speaker:But like, no, that's how bad Canadian politics has gotten. These are your liberals doing this.
Speaker:I don't how can we imagine what would be worse from the cons? I really don't understand. Now
Speaker:I'm scared. Like when the cons come in, do they feel like they've got to outdo this guy? I'm
Speaker:sure. No. We'll build the Golden Dome ourselves, you know, make it in Canada. And then that'll
Speaker:be At least the F-35s, that was Jagmeet's solution, The F-35s, no, we shouldn't be buying American
Speaker:F-35s. We'll build our own. Yeah, no, I mean, you know, your point about, where do the
Speaker:conservatives then go from here? I think that's sort of the point, right? The liberals are
Speaker:sort of simultaneously, I mean, they're seizing on this moment to outdo their opposition, to
Speaker:undercut them, right? I mean, they, you know, If the liberals become the conservatives
Speaker:and still maintain the aesthetic signifiers of what it means to be a liberal, you take
Speaker:away the conservatives ammunition, right? And they have less sort of political clout to run
Speaker:on. In terms of the Golden Dome, mean, you know, how's the Iron Dome going for Israel?
Speaker:Did it protect Israel against, you know, missile barrages from Iran? Last I checked,
Speaker:he still had Israelis running into their bunkers, getting hit, all this kind of stuff. the
Speaker:Golden Doh, I mean, there's too much to say there. It makes sense if you know who's there
Speaker:to make money off it. no, exactly. The folks behind it are Peter Thiel and he's connected
Speaker:to Carney. And I think we'll just have to have Ashley on to come and explain all of those
Speaker:connections. But it's a banker making his banker buddies a lot of money. One note that I did
Speaker:want to add that helps kind of make sense of some of these connections, like why are we
Speaker:elbows up but then giving the US military money or the companies that make their weapons money?
Speaker:Carney spent a lot of his time convincing Canadian pensions to heavily invest in the US weapons
Speaker:manufacturing industry. so, yes, although that is good for the Canadian economy because our
Speaker:pensions are well-funded, because they're war hawks and they're always at war. Obviously
Speaker:we understand the problem with that, right? So again, a banker with banker's interests,
Speaker:we don't know what he's invested in. Pierre always has me feeding into his lines like that,
Speaker:but it's true, right? Like he has fiscal interests that aren't yours, that won't make sense, like,
Speaker:or to your parents, like they're like, why would they do that? Like, why would they do that?
Speaker:That can't be good for us. Like, no, but they don't act in your best interest, right? I
Speaker:don't know, most people listening probably realize that, but I know you're talking to people that
Speaker:were like, well, that just doesn't make any sense. You know, like why would Carney do that?
Speaker:And there's lots of reasons. Yeah. mean, but yeah, the, whole golden dome thing. I mean,
Speaker:you're so right. This is, think, I think this was, um, this was sort of pitched by Lockheed
Speaker:Martin, uh, right. You know, the golden dome idea. mean, people talk about Indians and Nigerians
Speaker:as being scammers, right. Known for scams, online scams, phone scams. The biggest scam
Speaker:is Western civilization. have these people just, you know, it's making up things left, right
Speaker:and center. It doesn't matter if you have the Atlantic Ocean on one side of your protected
Speaker:continental island and the Pacific Ocean on the other side. You need a golden dome because
Speaker:we need to make money off of it. Trust me, guys. Just trust me. It's crazy. It sounds cool,
Speaker:right? Like people get sold on it. yeah, you build up that environment of fear too, where
Speaker:we're constantly looking at each other sideways that feeds into folks thinking that's justified.
Speaker:The whole Arctic threat though, they've been playing on that for quite some time, being
Speaker:able to spend a lot of money up there, trying to protect it. Meanwhile, not even going into
Speaker:discussions, legitimate discussions on indigenous sovereignty up there. That's always going
Speaker:to be that contradiction, but that Russia red baiting China. constant threat, no matter
Speaker:what, right, has us obviously looking in the wrong direction. Not to be a Putin stan, but
Speaker:I mean, it just has us not looking at capital as the real threat. First and foremost, it's
Speaker:always got to like, it's external. And that makes us come together as a family, as a nation,
Speaker:yay, when there's an external threat, an other. And they just can't decide who that other
Speaker:is, is the United States, sometimes, sometimes it's Russia, sometimes it's China. It's never
Speaker:Israel. mean, so I mean, we've looked at, know, you know, how sort of insane of a plan this
Speaker:is to get to 5 % of GDP on military spending. Let's maybe, you know, uncover a little bit
Speaker:like why is this happening again, coming back to this thing about the paradigm shift, right?
Speaker:You have, you know, NATO commitment spending 5 % on GDP, you know, Canada has to spend 5
Speaker:% of GDP on military spending. have maybe the golden dome. I'd be surprised if it happens,
Speaker:that you have Canada joining hands with Europe, signing strategic partnership agreements
Speaker:in terms of defense, this kind of thing. What explains this? What is happening? You mentioned
Speaker:Russia and China. mean, in Canada, that's used as the excuse to expand northward, to recolonize
Speaker:the north, turn our military attention to the north. You know that as if Russia would ever
Speaker:pose a threat to Canada and the United States, you know, these are not, you know, Russia
Speaker:and China are non-military threats to the West. This is sort of a NATO talking point, right?
Speaker:As if NATO is a defensive organization. That's the assumption in this, right? NATO is a defensive
Speaker:organization. Russia and China are, you know, aggressors. You know, every as many have learned
Speaker:during the genocide and Israel's behavior in the whole region, what is it? Every confession
Speaker:isn't, no, every accusation is an admission or a confession, right? NATO here is the one
Speaker:that's the offensive organization. It is not a defensive organization. If it was a defensive
Speaker:organization, it would have disbanded when the Soviet Union, Collapsed. Okay. I mean, that's
Speaker:now they're talking about forming an Asian NATO, you know, heading eastward to encircle
Speaker:China anyway Russia Russia that's just a side note for now. Yeah, I mean, yeah, there would
Speaker:be a lot to say on that but Russia and China are not military threats to to Canada and the
Speaker:US and when we talk about military threats to Canada, we're largely, you know, that's
Speaker:the question of threatening the US. mean, the US is, if Canada is attacked in any kind of
Speaker:way, the US steps in. mean, no matter how much antagonism, you know, Carney and Trump pretend
Speaker:to have against each other. But Russia and China, and especially China, are, you know,
Speaker:economic threats to the West and to Canada. you know, so how should we see these sort
Speaker:of increases in military spending, you know, this greater posture toward, you know, quote
Speaker:unquote defense. It's because China and the global south are developing themselves, are
Speaker:undergoing processes of economic development that pose a threat to the west, to the global
Speaker:north. For centuries, the west has actively underdeveloped the rest of the world by extracting
Speaker:resources, labor, and wealth from them. The west has only developed today. because it's
Speaker:stole from the rest of the world and of course, indigenous peoples on this continent. Again,
Speaker:coming back to the point about how Western civilization is really a scam. mean, they steal from you
Speaker:and ask you why you're so poor, why you're underdeveloped. If you're indigenous, why are you so lazy?
Speaker:Yeah, a lot to say there. But now that they're finally being challenged on the economic terrain,
Speaker:China especially, on the part of the global south is really redirecting its wealth, not
Speaker:outward toward the global north and to the west, but reinvesting that wealth into its own country
Speaker:to pursue economic development. And if you look at any Chinese city, can see that this
Speaker:is true. This threatens the west. if the west can't economically compete, which it won't,
Speaker:right, because that involves cutting into their profits that involves potentially reinvesting
Speaker:in research and development. They don't want to do that. Reinvesting in their people. heaven
Speaker:forbid. They don't want to do that. What they're good at, what they've been good at is violence,
Speaker:is military coercion. And it also so happens that the war economy is profitable. So naturally,
Speaker:the easiest thing to do is to pour more money into the military, into so-called defense.
Speaker:to be offensive and to act as, you know, to act to deter these powers. think in an article
Speaker:that I was reading, it was exactly those words that Mark Carney had used at the NATO summit,
Speaker:you know, in describing these spending increases that these increases in spending will act
Speaker:as deterrence against so-called aggressors, Russia and China. So that's really what explains
Speaker:this. Aggressors. I should maybe shout out the hyper-imperialism dossier that was put
Speaker:out by the Tri-Continental Institute for Social Research. mean, this is really, they've looked
Speaker:into this, they've looked into the numbers. know, a lot of this is their argument about
Speaker:how when the West cannot compete economically with China, what do you turn to? You turn to
Speaker:military solutions. And if you look at the history of the West, that's essentially what it is.
Speaker:You lead with military coercion, with violent coercion. And then you economically subordinate
Speaker:to the other. did that on this continent in North America. They have been doing that
Speaker:around the world through colonialism, neocolonialism, et cetera. It's a scary thought to think like
Speaker:that. That's what's motivating folks to spend, you know, our tax dollars on, especially when
Speaker:we won't benefit from that competitive edge all that much. You know what I mean? And
Speaker:all these solutions are always just an attack on somebody else's working class, right? Rather
Speaker:than a lot of the solutions even that we suggested in response to the tariffs down South too,
Speaker:we're just like damaging to workers down there and always lack this class analysis on it,
Speaker:on what these bills mean and our reaction. like hearing you call China, I know you're
Speaker:being facetious, obviously, the aggressor. While Trump talks about taking us over. And
Speaker:I just wonder who that's selling with. Who is buying those lines? Like I'm appreciative
Speaker:Ashwin's able to kind of explain why because there's people going like, why none of this
Speaker:makes sense. Because I think they don't see Russia as an aggressor, not to them. I mean,
Speaker:maybe to Ukraine, I can get people looking at that. But China... I think that's becoming
Speaker:harder and harder for people to do, especially with the exposure that we can get now from
Speaker:China and seeing how they live and what we've naturally been told. So it's easier to see
Speaker:them as that economic threat as opposed to a military one. it's just, think, again, drives
Speaker:home that point that Carney is really playing into US hegemony. U.S. capital needs. And
Speaker:that goes the same with his foreign policy that we've seen him take in a very short time,
Speaker:like three months, three plus months. He's been there and, you know, he's given us every
Speaker:reason to believe he's going to be a war hawk himself or green light, any kind of military
Speaker:intervention abroad. During the election, think Carney had, maybe not Carney himself, but the
Speaker:liberals did a good job of trying to rebrand themselves on Palestine a little bit. They
Speaker:had some MPs start to walk a little better of the line, still lacking, and they even
Speaker:managed to get not endorsements, but some favor with folks for calling for a ceasefire. And
Speaker:then when Carney was elected, Again, one of the first things he did besides Bill II was
Speaker:sign a joint letter with Keir Starmer, of all people, the Prime Minister of the UK, and
Speaker:Macron in France. It was a condemnation of Israel of sorts. mean, we could always write
Speaker:a better one, right Ashwin? But it was a lot better than we had ever gotten from the Canadian
Speaker:government. And it was with those two other global powers that had previously been so
Speaker:horrible. on the point, like totally completely facilitating, including the use of military
Speaker:jets. Like we all know that they're aiding in this genocide in more ways than one. So I've
Speaker:heard that was like, you know, I talked to Alex Neve used to run Amnesty Canada and like human
Speaker:rights activists in Palestinians, they saw that, oh, this is a much better position than we
Speaker:ever got out of Trudeau. There's hope there. But then within three weeks, you know, they
Speaker:watched them going into the G7 going, they going to say something? What are they going to say
Speaker:about Palestine? Are they going to say something? Let's build on that letter." And they got
Speaker:nothing. Crickets. But then it got worse. Like a week later, he sits down with Christiane
Speaker:Amapour and he tells us that, yeah, yeah, he believes the Palestinians deserve their own
Speaker:state as long as it's a Zionist one. And I think that was just like a real gut punch for people
Speaker:who hadn't seen Carney for what he was at that point. And then it got worse. Like it
Speaker:was Iran and Israel go back and forth and were like, surely, surely he's going to condemn
Speaker:these attacks on Iranian infrastructure and leadership. And nope, just only condemned
Speaker:Iran. then today, today he's asked or yesterday, July 16th, he's asked specifically about Israel
Speaker:now bombing the hell out of Damascus, including shots right next to the presidential palace.
Speaker:And he reiterates, asked Ashwin, what do you think he said? What do think he said? You know,
Speaker:like which cookie cutter response did he come out with? And you were a little gracious Ashwin,
Speaker:I'm outing you now. You're like, oh, it's going to be the, oh, I'm very concerned of the loss
Speaker:of civilian life, but you know, something, something, something, not even that. It was like full
Speaker:Zionist talking points. Israel has the right to defend itself. That was it. That's what
Speaker:we're getting out of him. So I can't imagine a conservative PM being any worse on foreign
Speaker:policy in this moment. Do you? I mean, I could get worse. have imaginations, but I think things
Speaker:can in fact always get worse theoretically. But what I did want to come back to was the
Speaker:whole thing about the Zionist Palestinian state or, you know, Karney calling for a Zionist
Speaker:state of Palestine. I mean, think this is where it's important for folks to sort of understand
Speaker:the strategy here and sort of the strategic desires of Global Affairs Canada, of the
Speaker:Canadian government, of the PMO, right? When Karney signs a letter with the British government
Speaker:and the French government, and calling for a ceasefire, these kinds of things, I think
Speaker:it's important to not get disillusioned with the spirit of what those demands are. I
Speaker:can see that those moves that might be perceived as more quote unquote positive can be totally
Speaker:compatible with this statement of having a Zionist Palestinian state. idea of the two-state
Speaker:solution in the first place, the implication was that the Palestinian state had to be a
Speaker:Zionist state that would, you know, quote unquote, live in peace with Israel, et cetera, et
Speaker:you know, affirm Israel's right to exist, et cetera, et cetera. But I mean, really the
Speaker:move here is they're looking out for the strategic interest of Israel and the strategic interest
Speaker:of the West and the connection between Israel and the West, right? You know, Let's have
Speaker:some more aid in so that it doesn't get so bad for Israel so that public opinion doesn't turn
Speaker:turn on Israel as much. know, the Zionist Palestinian state. Let's let's do that right now. I mean,
Speaker:even I think there was talk in May of, you know, both the British and French governments
Speaker:looking to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state diplomatically. Right. And I think Israel,
Speaker:according to reports, you know, know, behind closed doors or really push back against that.
Speaker:But I think the move there on the part of the British and French governments is, it's just
Speaker:sort of preempt Israel and say, hey, you know, this is, it's either this or collapse. It's
Speaker:either this or imminent collapse. And you sort of have to save yourself and you have to save
Speaker:yourself for us as well. Right? Like this is, the question of Israel is not a question of
Speaker:just Israel. It's a question of the collective West. coming back to, you know, the bottom
Speaker:line here, when Carney talks about a ceasefire, when he talks about, you know, you know, we're
Speaker:concerned about civilians in Gaza, when, you know, we need to let more aid in. And on
Speaker:the other side of things, we need to have a Zionist Palestinian state. He's actually talking
Speaker:about the same thing. These things are all needed in the view of the West collectively
Speaker:so that Israel has, you know, know, legitimacy longer to survive. Yeah, legitimacy. Otherwise,
Speaker:I mean, People have been doing some work on this, sort of tracking this, think of Shir
Speaker:Hever, who's been on the electronic intifada, an Israeli political economist, looking at
Speaker:how Israel, both economically and within the military apparatus itself, has been taking
Speaker:hits. it's been attrition for them. So it's in the interest of the West to sort of keep
Speaker:the buoyancy of Israel. If you know, even if it means a Palestinian state, which Israel,
Speaker:especially under the current regime in Israel, would be completely opposed to. I read reports
Speaker:this morning that Canada is almost openly working with UN members to thwart the establishment
Speaker:of a Palestinian state. Because, you know, they'll tell us one thing and then do another
Speaker:because right now a Palestinian state. wouldn't be defined as a Zionist state, right? Like
Speaker:if they got to decide what their state looked like and had self-determination, chances are
Speaker:it would not be a Zionist one. So yeah, that's a crafting that the West will have to do, right?
Speaker:They're the only ones that can legitimately form new states, right, in the very specific
Speaker:parameters they have set for them. Just like they did a hundred years ago with the British
Speaker:mandate of Palestine and the formation of Israel, et cetera. And the foundation of Canada. People
Speaker:often wonder why we're having such a bad take. It's an identity crisis for a lot of Canadians,
Speaker:I think, who saw themselves as peacekeepers, right? They were still stuck on that imagery.
Speaker:But you've helped explain, you know, just one of the angles, the foundation, really, but
Speaker:monetary as well. Carney will look you in the face and say that we do have an arms embargo
Speaker:with Israel. And meanwhile, the Maple reports that, well, actually, they're reporting on
Speaker:a global affairs report. So this isn't like some independent investigation, like the government
Speaker:also knows this is public information, but yet they'll still look at us and say, you know,
Speaker:what do you want us to do? We cut off arms. Well, no Canadian companies just in 2024 alone
Speaker:sold almost $20 million worth of weapons right to the IOF that we don't even know. how much
Speaker:they sold to the United States with the explicit purpose of going directly to Israel. That's
Speaker:a loophole that exists. We've talked about before, it's not ever going to be addressed by the
Speaker:current government. They love that that loophole exists. But they did at least try to pretend
Speaker:that they wouldn't put any permits through on Canadian companies and even that, they didn't
Speaker:even bother stop. So, you we saw Carney confronted on the campaign and, you know, will you call
Speaker:it a genocide? No, I won't call it a genocide. Will you stop selling arms to Israel? Oh,
Speaker:we already did. And that that label of genocide that we refuse to give it as well, it just
Speaker:speaks to our history, right? Like it helps explain like our history is very similar to
Speaker:the establishment of Israel. And so every condemnation we make of them is an admission, right? Just
Speaker:it works both ways that all these things that you know, from the apartheid conditions to
Speaker:the ethnic cleansing, this is not anything that's unfamiliar. And in fact, still is the basis
Speaker:of legitimacy for the Canadian government. so like geopolitical reasons, economic reasons,
Speaker:and then just like domestic political reasons, or, you know, legitimacy reasons for for the
Speaker:Canadian state itself. So We can understand from a financial perspective why they act like
Speaker:they act, but when we've seen what we've seen, it's really hard to understand why, you know,
Speaker:again, our bleeding heart liberals of Canada don't have a better position on this, but not
Speaker:maybe when you unpack it. Hopefully the way that we're trying to unpack it for folks.
Speaker:I do want to make note that because it really did piss me off and I could see caps locks
Speaker:through my notes. So I got to just remind folks you've seen the videos, you've heard the noise.
Speaker:$2.8 million worth of arms that I mentioned before were directly under the category of
Speaker:aircraft and aerial drones. So Canadian companies are actively making the weapons that you see
Speaker:the carnage unfold. And on top of that, right, we have a free trade agreement with Israel
Speaker:still. Some people are like, what? And it's like, yeah, no, we still have. Forget sanctions.
Speaker:We have a free trade agreement with Israel and that's something Carney won't address either.
Speaker:So I Wanted to talk a little bit about the emergency conference on Palestine Are we good
Speaker:to move to that? Yeah. Okay, Yeah, I wanted to talk about this because it's you know, not
Speaker:been getting as much attention but in July 15th and 16th this year, which is yesterday and
Speaker:the day before as of time of recording, an emergency conference on Palestine took place
Speaker:in Bogota, Colombia, which basically convened the Hague group. This was organized by
Speaker:what's known as the Hague group. This is a group of a number of countries, largely, almost
Speaker:exclusively from the global south, just to name some. That includes Bolivia, Cuba, Colombia,
Speaker:Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, St. Vincent and the Grenadines,
Speaker:South Africa and others. I listed all of them because I think it's also important to sort
Speaker:of to get a sense of who these countries are. Like, why are they there in the first place?
Speaker:You can see a country like Malaysia has, you know, obviously a Muslim country, but throughout
Speaker:this genocide, they've been, you know, the population has been extremely vocal on, you know, on
Speaker:the issue of Palestine, you know, Malaysian government has been vocal on international
Speaker:and diplomatic platforms about this. If I'm not wrong, I think a number of Western multinational
Speaker:food brands like KFC, McDonald's, Starbucks may not be those ones exactly, in that kind
Speaker:had to pull out of Malaysia or we're losing great amount of money because of boycotts
Speaker:there. So that's just one example. can think of Cuba as having their own politics. They
Speaker:bring to the question of Palestine, but This was an emergency conference on Palestine to
Speaker:sort of end the impunity that Israel has been having to carry out this genocide in Gaza,
Speaker:but also wreaking havoc across the region, being an aggressor and to uphold international
Speaker:law. these countries, the Hague group, they've come out with six measures. concrete measures
Speaker:that are going to be adopted by each of these countries in their own domestic legal and administrative
Speaker:systems. I mean, and, you know, I'll go into what these six measures are. I would say, you
Speaker:know, there are several reasons why we should pay attention to this one, because these six
Speaker:measures are things that those of us on the left here in Canada can, you know, can pay
Speaker:attention to and globally can pay attention to, to echo these demands to our governments,
Speaker:right? This is happening on a diplomatic level. There are real countries in this real world
Speaker:that have convened this real conference. It is possible. It is possible. And it is the
Speaker:task of the left in that case to echo this, particularly because I've looked at Canadian
Speaker:media, the CBC, CTV, Global, all of these. None of them have reported on this emergency
Speaker:conference. And again, that sort of just speaks to how Western media more broadly has been
Speaker:to say the least complicit in this genocide, right? And, you know, has the effect of sort
Speaker:of obscuring measures that are being taken globally, right? To put an end to this and
Speaker:to hold Israel and the US, particularly Israel to account for this. So yeah, I mean, this
Speaker:is a model for us. I'll just go into some of the six measures. I think it's important to
Speaker:read it out. So I will. One, these have been adopted and sorry, I should say, by the way,
Speaker:They have extended this call to other countries to join as well. They've given the deadline
Speaker:of 20th September this year. So, you know, around two months for other countries to join
Speaker:in and to adopt this program as well. Another reason this is so significant is because, you
Speaker:know, these are global South countries, right? These are small countries. Think of Namibia,
Speaker:right? Again, the politics of Namibia coming to the table, they, I think it was last year,
Speaker:you know, stood up to the Germans saying, you know, How dare you have anything to say about
Speaker:the question of antisemitism or genocide when you are the ones that have committed the
Speaker:genocide in Namibia erstwhile, German Southwest Africa, I believe, against the Nama and Herero
Speaker:people, Millions of people killed by the Germans in that genocide. So that's the sort of attitude
Speaker:that the Namibian government and the Namibian political class brings to a conference like
Speaker:this. So this is a historic conference of the Gold South. Okay, I will now read the six measures
Speaker:after long delay. One, to prevent the provision or transfer of arms, ammunition, military fuel,
Speaker:related military equipment and dual use items to Israel. Two, prevent the transit docking
Speaker:and servicing of vessels at any port, if applicable, within our territorial jurisdiction. Three,
Speaker:prevent the carriage of arms, munitions, military fuel. related military equipment and dual use
Speaker:items to Israel on vessels bearing our flag. Four, commence an urgent review of all public
Speaker:contracts in order to prevent public institutions and public funds where applicable from supporting
Speaker:Israel's illegal occupation of the Palestinian territory. Five, comply with our obligations
Speaker:to ensure accountability for the most serious crimes under international law through robust,
Speaker:impartial, and independent investigations and prosecutions at national or international levels.
Speaker:Six, support universal jurisdiction mandates as and where applicable in our legal constitutional
Speaker:frameworks and judiciaries to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future
Speaker:crimes in the occupied Palestine territory. This is ultimately a legal approach, right?
Speaker:An approach to international law that's being taken by diplomats from states from the global
Speaker:south. This is not revolution. This is not going to stop the genocide tomorrow. Nonetheless,
Speaker:this will go down in history as a step taken in favor of humanity at the global international
Speaker:law level when many have abdicated their responsibility. There are also questions of power. How is
Speaker:the global South going to stand up to these imperialists? right, conducting a genocide.
Speaker:And how will they be punished? That's right. Yeah, exactly. That's right. And so even more,
Speaker:you know, historic that these global south countries are coming together at a diplomatic
Speaker:level level to to bring this forward. I just want to make note. You can go back and look
Speaker:at the show notes and see we'll link this letter and these measures so you can reread them or
Speaker:you can rewind and listen again. you know, measures one through three all talk about basically
Speaker:preventing arms and goods going to Israel and although absolutely at a government level
Speaker:this is their responsibility but it can be done without their help. Labour could do one
Speaker:through three all by themselves. All by themselves. You wouldn't even need one non-unionized person
Speaker:if you could just and port workers are notorious. It's not that unions aren't. Oakland is a
Speaker:great example. They have been able to prevent or delay ships there through action. in Spain,
Speaker:port workers have refused to load cargo going to Israel without the government having to
Speaker:pass anything. you know, when we're talking about our approaches and the responsibilities
Speaker:of the Canadian left, yes, we can go to Carney and ask him to do the right thing. But I think
Speaker:we've given you ample evidence that he's not going to. Right. So like Some of these can
Speaker:be accomplished through direct action and labor organizing. Another note, number five talks
Speaker:about complying with our obligations of international law, even like on a domestic level. And people
Speaker:are taking steps to again, make that happen kind of without the government's help. The
Speaker:Maple has published a website that documents anybody living in Canada that has essentially
Speaker:bragged about going over and being a part of the genocide, being part of the IOF. Ideally,
Speaker:this database will be used down the road to persecute these folks. We do have it under
Speaker:our laws, the ability to do that. I'm not for the law and order approach. However, you know,
Speaker:people are taking steps to kind of do this on their own because they've lost hope in the
Speaker:Canadian government doing some of these. then and then some of them, you absolutely need
Speaker:the state's help or where it falls completely under their jurisdiction. One of the comments
Speaker:I saw Most people are very excited by this letter. Like it's, shocking to see this many
Speaker:countries take these measures. you know, one day, uh, we wish they had done it months ago.
Speaker:There's always something like that could be better. But one of the comments that I thought
Speaker:was somewhat justified, especially when we talk about the billions of dollars that Canada
Speaker:will be spending on military, it would have nice to see a commitment to physically stopping
Speaker:the genocide. Because we talk about like, let's say NATO is a defensive group. It's not right.
Speaker:But if they are, why aren't they doing anything? Right. We know why we've unpacked it, why
Speaker:it's not like actually a puzzle. But the idea that collectively across the globe, we spend
Speaker:an unfathomable amount of money on weapons, preparing soldiers for this, that and the
Speaker:other thing. And even doing military interventions when our economy can benefit from it. We have
Speaker:no problem sending soldiers somewhere else and even defying international law and orders,
Speaker:right? But even in this circumstances, all of this money that will be taken from the social
Speaker:safety and not one of it will be put to protecting the people of Gaza or actually upholding international
Speaker:law. I think so that is the biggest proof you need to like, will NATO do good things with
Speaker:that money? No, they will not. They could have and they never did. They've had ample opportunity,
Speaker:these states included. mean, I see Libya on there. I don't think they have a functioning
Speaker:government at the moment. People might wonder why Yemen's not on there because Yemen's government
Speaker:doesn't actually support Palestine. It's the Houthi rebels that do. Some of these nations
Speaker:have other resources other than the more passive kind of actions that they are proposing, right?
Speaker:It's like we will... not help them anymore, right? We won't make, we'll make sure weapons
Speaker:don't get there. We'll make sure any criminals that do it, you know, only the last one talks
Speaker:about preventing, but it's kind of reliant on universal, like international law and the global
Speaker:community doing it first. And that's just not happening. So, um, I'm not a tanky. I don't
Speaker:know. People might call me that or an Excel, but you know, at some point you have to wonder
Speaker:like, why, why do you spend all that money then if it's not to stop a genocide? I the whole
Speaker:premise of the UN was predicated and created on the fact that never again, right? Never
Speaker:let a genocide happen again. So I don't understand how Canadians could greenlight this kind of
Speaker:spending knowing when we had a chance to do the right thing, we did it. Yeah, we kind
Speaker:of got sidetracked. It's not all about Carney, right? Like, although we can demonize and
Speaker:that's the danger of leadership cults too, right? Like this episode will be labeled Carney who
Speaker:might even use his imagery on the cover art, who knows, right? The idea that it's just
Speaker:like him and his mission or Trump and his mission. That's not very helpful. I use that language
Speaker:sometimes because it helps tell the story. the representatives, the representatives, people
Speaker:kind of look at you funny when you say capital with a capital C, right? They're like, oh,
Speaker:you're one of those, those commies. They everything's all business is bad. know, but that is the
Speaker:reality, right? Like these are the plans that. predated both of those folks. know, at least
Speaker:is going to face our ire. He is the representative of all of this. So I don't discourage people
Speaker:from trying to hold them accountable and, you know, stopping Carney in his tracks if you
Speaker:could. However, I think maybe using your energy towards enacting some of these measures,
Speaker:whether you're talking about Palestine or you're talking about Indigenous sovereignty. I think
Speaker:you're going to have to think a little bit out of the box to make sure that pipelines don't
Speaker:go through land that it's not supposed to go through. I don't think a petition is going
Speaker:to cut it. that note, Jess, I was thinking if we're thinking of closing out, I have a
Speaker:question for you. Uh-oh. No, I just want to ask you, what do you think is sort of the through
Speaker:line then, you know, between all of these things that we've discussed today? We discussed Bill
Speaker:C5, Bill C2, you know, just, you know, to recap that's, you know, plowing through energy infrastructure
Speaker:projects, cracking down at the border, enhancing surveillance, spending on military, continuing
Speaker:to support the Israeli regime. What's the through line here? And then what are the tasks then?
Speaker:What does our discussion today reveal about the tasks of the left in Canada at this juncture
Speaker:where I argue there's a paradigm shift. Like, what are the tasks? are our tasks? think like
Speaker:part of that paradigm shift that you talked about, we haven't used the word yet, is fascism.
Speaker:I think capitalism, like, as I said, is not sustainable, and it's going through stages.
Speaker:And we joked, but it is essentially the death throats of capitalism where they have been
Speaker:forced to take all of their masks off. But unfortunately, that's also freed them up to do some really
Speaker:shocking moves, right, that I think they wouldn't have gotten away with, say, eight years ago.
Speaker:And it's a time to, you know, secure the states, its monopoly on the use of violence, those
Speaker:that military spending, that border spending, that RCMP spending. It's not just for external
Speaker:purposes either. Although we didn't talk about it, Carney was really eager to enact a federal
Speaker:bubble law. And so I think the powers that be understand that there is discontent growing
Speaker:amongst the masses and they're going to have to take steps to be a more strong armed version
Speaker:of capitalism. And that will of course require mounting a defense against the people. So
Speaker:they're doing it legally. That's the consolidation of power allows for that to happen a lot faster
Speaker:and without recourse. or oversight. so it's also normalizing that, like normalize it against
Speaker:migrants, normalize it at the border where we're all afraid, normalize it in foreign policy
Speaker:where we don't really understand. And again, there's really bad actors out there that they
Speaker:can kind of justify it with. But all of that will then be also applied to us when we
Speaker:can't take that austerity that's coming, that hypercapitalism that's coming. The Fraser
Speaker:Institute tries to, we kind of left that in our notes, but one of their concerns about
Speaker:Bill 5 was that it does consolidate power in the cabinet, but how do we know they will take
Speaker:capital's interests? You know, how do we know we should be central? Like they're saying it
Speaker:out loud and clear that fine, you can consolidate power, but it should be with us. And Carney
Speaker:believes that to be true. We know from the folks he hangs around with, with uh just what he
Speaker:shared with us that he absolutely believes in scapegoating as a means to secure power
Speaker:and and all the the other things um that go along with eventual fascism you know you you
Speaker:most people will picture you know hitler as that figure but let's replace like that madman
Speaker:figure with just like that more of a mr burns vibe right like it's it's Because you can't
Speaker:really understand Hitler because it was so awful and it was just like, you know, the way that
Speaker:we've learned that story. It's just, seems unfathomable. Same with the genocide in Gaza. Like if you
Speaker:just try to understand it like that. But if you understand it as just like the consolidation
Speaker:of wealth and the richer wanting to get richer, you can understand that. Right. I think people
Speaker:get that and we're getting there, right? They can't possibly get away with what they're getting
Speaker:away with anymore. And so we're coming up with this. Yeah, I don't know what the label will
Speaker:be, but it's like strong arm capitalism. Like we've gone through vampire capitalism already,
Speaker:but now it's, mean, when you get stronger capitalism, you really do by definition of almost have
Speaker:fascism. Yes. very important point about how, you know, as this goes on, as the sort of decay
Speaker:continues, they're going to have to, I mean, this is not the sixties anymore. You don't
Speaker:have a post-war boom, you know, where you can give little treats here and there to the working
Speaker:class in the global north and the west to buy them off. Wealth is being concentrated further
Speaker:and further upward to the elites, to the 1%. There's less to go around for the working
Speaker:class, for everyone else, migrants, indigenous nations. So naturally, what do you have to
Speaker:resort to? You have to resort to more violence and the stability of the regime, the Canadian
Speaker:regime, the American regime, all these regimes in the West is increasingly, as you're saying,
Speaker:Jessa, going to be upheld through violence. see that violence and centralization, we see
Speaker:that with Bill C-2, greater surveillance. This is important. It's not violence directly,
Speaker:but it's part of that process of coercion. you know, to increase your leverage and
Speaker:violence, you need to have something on them. And that's where, you know, data collection
Speaker:and surveillance comes in, et cetera, et cetera. So that's one through line that I really appreciated.
Speaker:The other thing I maybe want to highlight is, you know, this whole time we're talking about
Speaker:indigenous nations and indigenous sovereignty. You know, when we talked about NATO, we were
Speaker:talking about the imperialist sort of offensive against the rest of the world. under development
Speaker:of the rest of the world and sort of now reacting to the global south trying to develop itself.
Speaker:There's a direct connection, I should say, between Canada's need to continue to dispossess
Speaker:Indigenous nations within the borders that Canada claims, including with this Bill C-5 trying
Speaker:to override environmental regulations, override Indigenous sovereignty. trying to mine more
Speaker:for critical minerals, all this kind of stuff on Indigenous land that's going to pollute
Speaker:their land, pollute harm ecosystems. There's a connection between all of that on the harms
Speaker:that Canadian capital causes to Indigenous nations. And then on the other hand, to the offensive
Speaker:imperialist campaign that Canada and the rest of the West takes against the rest of the world.
Speaker:I mean, after all, right? the connection between what you can call the third world or the
Speaker:global south and indigenous nations quote unquote within Canada or at least within the borders
Speaker:that Canada claims. This is a connection that goes back since the beginning of colonialism.
Speaker:They expanded to the rest of the world, to the global south, they expanded to North America
Speaker:and some of the other settler colonies, genocided the populations, et cetera. This contradiction,
Speaker:this dynamic, this relationship between Indigenous nations here and the underdevelopment imposed
Speaker:on the rest of the global south, that continues to be something that as capital looks for more
Speaker:frontiers, they're going to push against those two frontiers as well. That's something I wanted
Speaker:to highlight. The other thing I wanted to highlight, at least in terms of the tasks for the left
Speaker:is, well, if this is a paradigm shift, it's not going to come without ruffling some feathers,
Speaker:right? You know, Canada is a project that needs to be held together. This has always been the
Speaker:case. I mean, as the Bloc Québécois leader said recently that Canada is an artificial
Speaker:country with very little meaning held together by not so much something along those lines,
Speaker:very good quote. you know, it might offend some people that Canada is not quote unquote
Speaker:a real country. mean, but An important way to think about it is that it is a project,
Speaker:right? It's a project that needs to be held together. It has always been so. States craft,
Speaker:right? That's right. That's right. know, this is not the nation state model that, you know,
Speaker:evolved in Europe where, you know, the French people of France get a French nation and a
Speaker:French state and the English, etc. That doesn't quite apply to Canada or the United States.
Speaker:So it needs to be held together. And, you know, they've Even if you go back, recently learned
Speaker:that Engels, think Frederick Engels had visited North America at around the 1900s or just before
Speaker:that. he wrote something where it was like, surely Canada is going to eventually be absorbed
Speaker:into the United States, which I found hilarious. mean, but that just shows how long that contradiction
Speaker:between Canada and the US has been and how Canada has sort of been trying to resist. you
Speaker:know, factionalizing and break up and to hold these things together. Quebec, now you have
Speaker:Alberta. Do we not think this move by the Carney government to bolster sort of energy capital
Speaker:in particular or oil and gas capital in particular has nothing to do with, you know, the rising
Speaker:sort of sovereignist sentiment in Alberta. This is an attempt to hold things together,
Speaker:right? So I think this is a very useful way to view things because it also shows where
Speaker:things can be pushed, right? Where left movements and others in coalition can push, right?
Speaker:Do we think that greater energy and infrastructure projects getting quote unquote product to market
Speaker:is not going to ruffle feathers in Quebec? There's a long talk of the energy east pipeline that
Speaker:would send some kind of fossil fuel, I forget what it was, from Alberta, from the West.
Speaker:through Quebec and to, you know, out east to the Atlantic, you know, to export to new
Speaker:markets. Quebec was heavily opposed to that and it never happened. You know, this is,
Speaker:you know, so, and of course on the part of indigenous nations, it's, you know, great
Speaker:to see that there are already nine First Nations in Ontario, or, you know, that are asking
Speaker:for, you know, these new bills, especially particularly Bill C-5 and Bill 5 at the provincial
Speaker:level to be declared unconstitutional. This is something that's going to continue. And
Speaker:the task of the left, at least in my humble view, is to get on board with this, to identify
Speaker:the shifts that are taking place and to respond to them. View Canada as a project that is not
Speaker:this absolute thing. It is contingent. It is contingent on being held together by different
Speaker:forces and those forces can be disrupted, as Jessi would say. Well, because some people
Speaker:listening might think, know, pragmatically speaking, holding the country together is a good thing.
Speaker:Right. Like, I feel like that's another episode altogether on why, why that shouldn't, why
Speaker:states craft is a bad thing. Why nation building, for the most part, is detrimental to the
Speaker:working class. But some people don't see it that way, right? Still, right? Like that is
Speaker:important to the economy, for our sovereignty. If we all start infighting, we'll lose ourselves
Speaker:to the United States. But when you look at it, absolutely it's going to ruffle feathers.
Speaker:I think it's a cost balance sheet for them, right? What feathers can they handle? What
Speaker:can they legislate away? What protests can they just subdue? I think that the purpose of the
Speaker:left now or the task of the left, one of them, is to back Indigenous sovereignty, be there
Speaker:for land offenders, make sure these legal challenges are highlighted and supported, but also like
Speaker:support land back, support Indigenous sovereignty. We have almost lost at the electoral level.
Speaker:there's really no strong voice there or strong motion that's going to happen. Like no politician
Speaker:will save us from the resource extraction that's going to be mobilized. And we can't just leave
Speaker:it to land defenders as we always do, who are protecting our waterways and our land, right?
Speaker:And the land we all depend on. So support Indigenous movements. that's not already part of your
Speaker:organizing, all you Marxist groups out there, if you're not addressing land backer Indigenous
Speaker:sovereignty, you are missing a massive tool in the chest of preventing capital from doing
Speaker:whatever they want to do. And the other thing is to diversify your tactics. You already
Speaker:hearing me over and over encouraging you to spend less energy in the electoral sphere.
Speaker:Everyone has a different role to play and some will take more risks than others. And like
Speaker:that's not for judgment. Everyone's in a different position to play that different role. And that's
Speaker:okay. There's lots of mutual aid behind the barricades. You know what I mean? Like it's
Speaker:not just about being violent or, you know, physically standing up to the iron fist of fascism, but
Speaker:for some it will be. And I think you have to, those who that is uncomfortable with. folks
Speaker:who are preaching nonviolence, you know, no matter what, that can be your strategy. I get
Speaker:that. And like, we can have an argument about the effectiveness of that and that that's
Speaker:fine. But, you know, you're going to have to leave space for the anarchists. I think we
Speaker:need to grow a little bit more in what our ideas of the right way to resist. There's going
Speaker:to be a lot of people resisting in different ways and like not to condemn anybody to understand
Speaker:that. no matter what stage we go through, whether it's like hyper-capitalism completely unchecked
Speaker:or revolution, both will be very difficult. Neither of them are going to be good times.
Speaker:I hate to say that, right? But that's why we build up the networks of mutual aid and
Speaker:support at the same time that we fight the resistance so that we can kind of like... carry each other
Speaker:through that really difficult period. And at the same time, all of those networks we're
Speaker:creating, they will be like the birthplaces of something new, right? Because we've learned
Speaker:how to do it better and cooperate on more effective levels and take care of one another outside
Speaker:of the capitalist system and all of that. So, you know, it's a mix of getting ready for the
Speaker:ugly, both physically, like materially and mentally. And that could be hard because it already feels
Speaker:like shit. A lot of people are already in a dark place, we're witnessing a genocide, we're
Speaker:broke, politics suck, COVID exists, and we're overwhelmed. So the idea of pushing it to a
Speaker:point where it might get worse before it gets better is really hard for people to grasp.
Speaker:But either way, it's going to get more difficult, right? It's just like where you're going to
Speaker:choose to put your energy and your support. I think this was a helpful discussion. I think
Speaker:not only did we highlight some of the things that people might be missing about what Carney's
Speaker:doing, but we offered alternatives as well. It's not like we're saying that the threat
Speaker:of Trump's tariffs don't exist or all these other situations don't exist for Carney to
Speaker:be able to respond to, but we're telling you he is responding in all the wrong ways, ways
Speaker:that build up our so-called enemies. placate, not just to Trump, right, we've put a name
Speaker:and a face to it, but to capital in general. And again, I'm at a loss as to explain why
Speaker:anybody can possibly be surprised why Carney would do that other than maybe they fell for
Speaker:his biography. I think if anybody read the book, it was like drinking the Kool-Aid. I mean,
Speaker:I think now maybe they stepped away and people can look back and see this and going, Oh,
Speaker:you know, we kind of stepped in it and I mean, to be fair, they didn't really have any other
Speaker:choice. It's not like I'm blaming people for choosing Carney over Pierre Poliev. Like,
Speaker:no, no, no, don't. I'm not cheering for conservatives, but it really bothered just how gleeful everybody
Speaker:was about it. And I just wanted to steal a little bit of that joy that you might have
Speaker:had that we didn't win that election. There's still a lot of work to do and we really can't
Speaker:wait to do it. Nice. think as you would say, Jessa. That's a wrap on Blueprints of Disruption
Speaker:and the International Solidarity Pod. So reach out to us and let us know what or who
Speaker:we should be amplifying. So until next time, keep disrupting.
