China Relations, Online Privacy & Quebec Secularism


Welcome to this week's episode of Blue Skies Tragedy Groups a Canadian podcast. Will you need to know about this week in in Canadian politics. I'm Alison Fair. And this week I am joined by my colleagues Jeff. Turner Cam Hallstrom morning and Neo Brody pretty good morning. Ra guys happy Friday. It's been a busy week. On on the hill we saw A lot of interest in is this China Canada relations committee. I know you guys some of you have been watching it with interest and and I just wanted to get your thoughts will neal. We'll start with you. A lot of commentary on the Conservatives being a little harsh on Dominic Barton headed as ambassador to China has has this turned into a partisan committee. Now when it wasn't supposed to be well a few things I think most of the questions were good asks of of the of the of the ambassador. I don't think there's any question that was Untoward perhaps dwelling on questions or or badgering during Mr investor Barton About certain topics was a disservice It it as a former political staffer I understand stand the need to have a partisan political theatrics at certain committee meetings That serves your political interest But as a Canadian I was hoping for more from the the candidate China relations committee. This is a as as Ambassador Gardens said This is a country that can't be ignored their got a rising middle class. They've got needs for agriculture energy and other experts. That Canada has Candid handed in most of the rest of the world is reliant on them for certain amount of manufacturing capabilities and And doing a study on this relationship. Hip for Canada should help the government plot its course in relations with China for the next ten or fifteen years But delving into whether Mr Barton when he was ahead of McKinsey did this or did that a relevant question but dwelling on it for six or ten minutes of committee was was is No useful What was not useful time? Spent Cam it too much theatrics and not enough substance. Since I'm less concernable theatrics immortal. The tone and I agree with Neil a former staffer myself who spent a lot. Who that was? My daily Wick was prepping for committee writing writing questions and doing that research. tone matters and I'll be honest. It's kind of traditionally taken that when you have civil servants or people in serving serving in civil service rules like as an ambassador they get a certain degree of respect when they come before committee. They're not partisan they're treated with that kind of respect and they're not attacked and to have seen Particularly Mr Janice even used probably the worst offender of the group especially with his comment rate. The start. Basically saying you weren't. I don't believe you should should have been in this job and I still don't believe it. I think that set a tone that was regrettable and I don't think it helped the case and I think undercut some of the very good substantial questions they ask because really at the end of the. I've been watching. What the parts are trying to do in trying to accomplish in this space and we see the government really tried to talk a lot of current policy and get more information out there on which is needed? I see the conservative really drilling down. Maybe a little too deeply but drill down in specific points and wind documentation. They've asked for lots of documentation. We saw this with Mr Barton or master Burton where he was asked. We want list of meetings. Who you met with Monday? met with him. Once you talked about in Table Out the committee we saw that with the what prior witnesses says well and for the end EP. It's been there constrained in fact. They only have so many questions time. They can ask but they've been more circumspect and how they're going at trying to get those same details as well to me the interesting to watch the block in this because the block. Frankly I don't think they figure out what they want from this committee up there. But didn't they defend him. Talk to two hundred to two degree. The example that I'll give is that the block member Mr Barroso as had basically eight minutes to ask questions and he spent about seven of asking the exact same question three times over that not a sign of someone who's exactly gotten agenda but I think the important thing to take away from this. Is that going forward word. I think the The ambassadors of appearance first appearance. I'll say because he could be so call back again I think it shows you. What's going to come from this committee and give we now have good idea what everyone's trying to get out of this The one thing I will say is that. I don't think that this committee was ever intended not to be partisan minority parliament. There's always GONNA be some partisan angle. The question is how far you take that and really what are you trying to come up with a policy position. That's that helps your political ends. Or are you just trying to go out and KNEECAP recap people make the government look bad and I saw more of the latter than the former this time and I think if that continues is not that that's not serving us very well especially our interests with China because one because Mr Dot ambassador and was right about this we are seeing in the international scene. Now our biggest ally the Americans taking more of a step back leaving vacuum and we're seeing nations like China step into that vacuum to fill it not just between us but in other nations we see them more more active of an Africa and the Caribbean on aid on development. And everything else so we that relationship we have with Zan becomes all the more important because they are taking taking a bigger role on the world stage dumb. The Ambassador Barton said the chill is real is that you agree with that. Jeff husband for for over a year. I don't think anybody is is under an illusion that we're not in a relationship crisis. I don't overplay the crisis word but a relationship crisis and I think that what we're seeing is the division on whether That is a useful moment to change. How we Treat this relationship and and treat the issues that associated with it or how we Continue to try to build that relationship so that we may influence that so I think that's a that's division we're seeing. I agree with my colleagues that in the minority parliaments Everything is political and what we are talking about in the partisanship side is is whether it's too political or not. I mean it's always going to be political political and and I and Mr Barton was obviously the most important guest of this last week A bit of a crescendo. Following a number of public service Senior levels idioms deputies briefing the committee And I think two cans point I. It is a shame that that that some of those people were not treated with a bit more respect to public servants But really it's it's pretty transparent. I mean the opposition has been spending their energy trying to get blood in the water. Because this is just a preview this is just the opening act this is. This is literally the trailer of the the film that we just saw this week because next is going to be coming the Prime Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other other high value targets. So I think what the opposition doing is trying to scare up some drops so blood in the water out of these official briefings right who've you met with. When did you meet with them? You know D- And and and actually point out in the meeting. What is the most damaging thing that came out of that meeting? That was the the highlight of question period. The next day he flubbed his answer about whether dual citizen was a false citizen or not I think his answer was intended. That in the eyes of the Chinese government he is is not a Canadian citizen. Therefore I'm I'm not having access. They took that. You're you're muddling the issue on whether citizenship is a citizenship. This is this is showpiece issue has actually very little to do with the work of this committee right because what they're trying to do is find those little things to throw at the big the big fish when they come in and bring in and Jerry Butts actually tweeted he said spent a lot of time recruiting people into public service the callousness with which people who should know better are treating him the ambassador and the guests is a vivid example of why so many people say well sure and and and I think that's a comment on our larger politics right now. We can talk about any number of those angles including what's happening in south of us in terms of how people treat government or think of government as as a as outsiders I think But look at this this behavior if you WANNA call it out of this strategy strategy I think it underlines the importance of this committee. This committee is actually a very very. I think it's going to be come down. As one of the more important things happened in this minority term because inevitably it's going to impact how the Canada China policy file is managed in the future and it may not be because we make it you. You know there's some stark policy change that directly flows. You know the committee. It's to be reminded has no direct policy. Levers all they can do shame the government into doing something or propose Novel or good solutions at the government adopts or is forced to adopt by political necessity But either way it's going to bend the curve From starting a couple of weeks ago through the term and this community. It's going to bend that curb and the question is how does it bend that curve As a political instrument that then becomes policy reality down on the road. And so I I oh my only other thing I would just say for those who are hearing media. Maybe for the first time Hopefully on this podcast but in in media stories and other things it's not to be underestimated how important this committee will be for those Institutions businesses universities. Right school systems. Anybody that actually has a direct linkage to To to China in terms of export or import people have directly China in terms of foreign students or research. Money any you know And then obviously on the business skaters. There's a whole depth of relationship there. That committee is we'll have ripple effects on those things they need to pay attention to it and that's why blue sky is also paying attention to give a quick plug for over sure so anyway. You've alluded that we've been watching this closely. And that's that is a good a good point to say We are following this community. We have a product that is available to subscribers and We basically do a full analysis of every meeting. We we give a bit of a blow by blow in a dispassionate view and then we provide our analysis To just try to help people understand what happened today and where it's going to be able to. Because he touched on thinking real real key thing of this about the way the all the different going at it and it wasn't what happened in the last meeting with the ambassadors happening the previous meeting because when we when we have the big witnesses witnesses we do pretend to pay more attention and we see things but in the previous meeting we had officials coming from From from a global affairs and for the Ministry of Justice kind of bathroom and certain things and wh and the second testimony win the Ministry of Justice officials were there towards the very end Mister Genus actually asked a series of questions questions regarding extradition to China. And have we have we had discussions and whatnot and the answer made question. Lead question compare the next day and I think this is a cycle. You're going to see happen. Is that all of a sudden these answers they elicit more information than they kinda start leads down the rabbit holes. I think that's where this committee becomes so important to what not just the for the job. Not just the operation of our government but the political I too because when all of a sudden you have a departmental official coming before they're saying yes there's been informal discussions Russians with China in the past about extradition treaty. But we really can't tell you about that that That raises a lot rates. I think we're GONNA see more. It goes through. It's more people could brought out and I I honestly it isn't much must watch stuff and it's going to spiral for this'll be as big as the Afghan detainees committee in I for your when that was two thousand eight two thousand nine. So what are you looking ahead Neil in this committee in the committee as I think it was camera are Jeff while those the only two. There's another person I'd be surprised you know. The the the approved mandate of the committee is to call the prime minister. And the Minister of if Foreign Affairs and another minister who keeps me at the moment maybe trade. I can't remember Before the committee that's That'll be that'll be complete three ring. Circus The committee meetings tend to go two or three hours long so getting the prime minister in front of a committee for two hours or forcing him to say I'm not coming for two hours Only coming for an hour will be the tip of the iceberg of the three ring circus and following on from that will be as as As was mentioned every witnesses being asked for a list of meetings who you met with. How long did you meet with them when did you? When did you talk about them? Those lists will then provide died Fodder for witness lists going through the rest of the spring and into the Early part of the summer of the hosts sitting and it'll be corporate people people it'll be other government officials June officials senior officials. Anybody who's who who whose name is Is Is Put forward on a on a on a submission from a witness will have the potential to be called I'll note that Mr Albus asked The ambassador boat The masters meetings with while we executives and asked for a list to be submitted to the committee of who they met with from hallway. Wonder they meet with them. What was discussed and I expect you know? I don't think it's surprised that we expect away to be called before the committee and as this goes along they'll be more and more people on that list being called before the committee. I want to bring up something else that happened of interest this week. Take Canada's privacy watchdog. isn't the The favorite social media giant facebook to court. I want to get your thoughts. Jeff good thing to declare that facebook brought the law and are we. It's about time. I know this is taken awhile on facebook and the Privacy Commissioner of had a hate relationship right now but where do we see this going so zooming out from facebook just for a second. I mean the broader Tack Revolution of the Last Ten tanner twelve years in particular with the smartphone revolution. You know to use their own verbiage. Anthony to use FACEBOOK's own verbiage. They moved fast and they broke stuff and they wanted. I do that and we rewarded that as a society Because it was intriguing and they were an obviously the the sky was the limit. And all these new things and it was amazing using. But you know let's just focus. They move asking. They broke things and and the things. They've broken her are starting to cut our feet right. And that's the hard part so I think what's happening happening is they're starting to get caught up to actually don't want to ascribe to much moral blame although I do have a serious reservations about facebook In their spread of disinformation such it just specially in the US context quick sidebar. I've read a piece in the Atlantic just recently published by McKay coppins. It's it's called. The billion dollar disinformation campaign pain and just the the for the narrative of signing up a pseudonym facebook account signing up to all the magazine and then just the the pipeline of crazy that is funneled by facebook into that that person's eyeballs isn't isn't credible which translate that. This is a real world policy problem. That now is a result of. You've the the genie being out of the bottle. And I don't know whether I'm not trying to say that. The G should never come into the bottle but the reality is we are now facing very real world problems generated by the virtual the world's explosion into our every facet of our life And so I think we have to catch the playing catch up the governments. I think Having been in some who are trying to deal Jio with Necessarily social media other tech disruptors you know governments really paying themselves to be flexible. And maybe that's being generous but I think they. They weren't sure what to do. The industry was not really interested in engaging them to say this is what we think you should do because they just said. We're here break stuff and and I think of Uber. The other one is Uber. Driver drove told me crazy for years. All it was was one accident in quadriplegic away and somebody's insurance saying well. That person's insurance doesn't cover you an uber so we're just offer company. I am sorry that person's paralyzed. That's not cool and there are real world consequences of those things are now. That's what's catching up to us. Neil do you think what do you make of this a I challenge. -Tarian is not backing away from facebook anytime soon. Well to disclosures upfront I'm not a facebook user. Never have been I. I can't maybe when I retire. If it's still around I may be Have that sort of time too. But you still have. You'll be solve your minds base. Pay Trade No actually my stage stage either. A hotmail account and and second disclosure. I was on the Search Committee for the Privacy Commissioner when Mr Terry was selected as privacy commissioner so so I don't know what that means. I thought I'd say that just to to to to let listeners know come clean listen I not speaking of facebook specifically just like Jeff said is is hard because we have now over the last ten or fifteen years Allowed are allowed allowed ourselves as individuals to be gobbled up by data data searching companies Whether it's Google whether it's Amazon whether it's facebook whether it's twitter whether it's any number of other ones that I don't know about because I'm not keeping cool survey The the ability to the processing power in the connectivity that allows large companies to gather your data and then monetize it somehow whether it's through through ads or through Selling you things In in case of Amazon ads. But you know selling your product so if you bought this product you might like this product to Having those purveyed into things like I go to the nut to whether I go to the Global Mail or National Post they all say too so where they go to national national national poster Global Mail. I get ads for stuff. That I've searched on Google I'm of a generation where I've it Kinda accepted that I g account if I'm the most exciting person on g mail and my emails get out It's a sad reflection on this world if I'm the most interesting person out there Where this gets into government policy I applaud Mr -Tarian. They did a He he brought facebook to the attention of the public in two thousand nine for data breaches or privacy. Breaches I can't remember what this latest one In his report he talks about six hundred over six hundred turned twenty two thousand Canadians whose data may be a whatever happened in this instance May May have had their privacy violated. I think that's great. I think people should be more worried especially younger. People about their what they're doing online and the privacy Impacts on that later in life But these companies have have run unchecked for ten or fifteen years they all have multibillion dollar valuations now as a conservative I I hear all the time about the conservatives being in the pocket of big oil where that's true or not I i. I've not realized any benefit from that. Personally But somebody's but he's GonNa be in the pocket of big data and trying to you. Know Mark Zuckerberg I think. That's his name. Mark Zuckerberg went before US Congress and kind of thumbed his nose at us. Congress because facebook has billions of dollars to lobby the government with and I applaud a you know without respect to Mr Mr Mr Taryn in his office. A small fish like the Canadian privacy. Commissioner office trying to bring down a company that's worth billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars Who can spend you know who can hire a thousand people to help? Fight this where Mr Terence office has. I don't know two hundred people and they've got eight files working under ten thousand thousand twenty files So after that scattered little ramble. I think this is good. I think more needs to be shed on how large data companies are managing your personal information. But I can't see the data companies ever losing okay. Cam is now before the courts. So it's going to be there it's now going to be held up to law You and I are very engaged on social media. So I'm pretty sure they got a lot of data on on both of us just like what do you make of Tyrians move You know I'm glad to see him do it. And I honestly this is a discussion. I agree with the Jefferson Neil of this discussion. I should've happened ten fifteen years ago. And we've seen the cycle throughout history in our society and our our our economy where new technologies of risen in an government has been slow to react and there's this period of time where they relatively unregulated. And there's this jostle to get them regulated and then life goes on and Ice and this is not just An issue with a facebook we saw last week when the Yale report came out broadcasting and Net flicks very clearly clearly entertained. Well you can regulate it's not a broadcaster. I'm sorry netflix broadcaster if Netflix Netflix is not a broadcaster. I'm just an eloquent Moose and nice ace jeans okay like they broadcast shows. That's what they do maybe online but they do it right and I think governments have been loathed. Take this step to actually the regular late online business whether it be whether it'd be because it's difficult to do because let's face it is when it comes to international jurisdictions and whatnot interesting that they've been nailed on PIPPA because that's one of the first real opportunities that governs have taken to try to do this and obviously knows at it and at some point that just cannot be allowed understand because at what point do we reach where these companies are company like lake at lake Facebook like apple like alphabet become too too big to be able to govern while and that just brakes on our society that brings out our democracy. I'm just a believer. This is not some classes argument on my part. It's it's more the idea of everyone at some level has to be answerable to the law because if we don't we don't have that. Then what do we have. And and and and. I think that's where I'm glad. Let's see Mister Tehran taking this step. Because let's face it we can. We can other threats all day long we can shake fingers out them all we like but if we never actually follow follow through on any of the threats they're just hollow and they're going to keep pushing so to my mind. I think it's only fair that we've seen that for and I can. I was going to mention that Piecing Atlantic I cannot Ri recommended enough. It's a long read but it's worth at any see what's being done in this in this void that's been created in our law and the malicious malicious intent behind regardless side of the of the political spectrum. You're on just the method and the intent are awful and to me. The sad thing is seeing the one thing I took away from the peace. It seen the methods that have been used by the Russians and used by the Chinese and us by authoritarian regimes being adopted by political critical operatives in this country. You guys exactly. We'll take that will live and we'll make it better right and it's like he wanted to add so I I can't conveniently agree with Cam more on if we don't have the law. What do we have a slightly more optimistic tone? The kneel on the court elements I think the I think the court is probably one of the better places to settle. Settled these policy issues. Because I think judges can can arbitrate this issue in a very nuanced way and they also carry the weight of saying Thou Shalt do what I tell you to do on the other end of it and I just wanted the opportunity just one more thing. I thank you for your patience because I I wanted to say something in on this because I say this in private conversation all the time I'm struck by in this revolution. We've had in the last couple of decades Of our information just being freely available. You know literally your phone tracking every movement you make every store you walk into you know every phone call you make who you make. It reads every team mail. You have all of this combines into your personal profile and I am looking for I really need to get off so I need to get the summer vacation or something so but and I'm not others generation so maybe I have a a a vastly inland. Pardon especially but in older eras think of the fights that that we as civilization governments and courts especially hat around personal privacy when it came to state surveillance so the the the the limitations on police and in a state where they can and can't do like to get a phone tap to be able to read. Your mail was a process and involved hundred people's and millions of dollars and then we just gave it away and people people used to defend those rights quite literally to the death I think in the case of people going to war to fight for those kinds of values people certainly didn't want their state. Knowing what the which store they were going to on a daily basis or whether they had a mistress or not right one or listening to your conversations at home and they somehow Alexa I am from our podcast. Microphones we all. We have about six microphones stable so all this is a as as a society we all of a sudden became extremely passive acid on protecting our own rights. And I think it's because we got a trade off in the service. Yeah but I I just find the whiplash of those that sort of era shift. It's just a little bit mind boggling When you think maybe it's because I don't know it's because we trust corporations more than we trust the state I think that's backward but that's because I'm a liberal but anyway no no I? I just wanted to bring that point to the table because I bring it to the private conversations from time to time all right speaking about the courts here. We go in Quebec another half an hour. Well let's make it short and sweet but Quebec is slamming the federal government for heard their funding over the bill. twenty-one Cam Federal Government has kinda gone in a diff- has gone into this in a different way to challenge which it and what do you make of Quebec's response and Ottawa's well the thing is I'll I I'll say the federal government hasn't done anything here. The Federal Government has a court challenges program the the minority groups can use and as a person as a minority in this country. You know I have a lot of my rights. Thanks to that program and I will defend it to the death and unfortunately the prior Harper did remove. It was one of those people definitely raising more than a few loud voices about it to me. This whole episode is brought brought to things to Miami one was a reminder of what life was like with the block in parliament because you get the block in parliament I remember during the campaign. The odd sight of seeing the Bloc Quebecois leader coming across the Ottawa River to go into eastern Ontario and talk about how they're going to defend the rights of Francophones outside of outside of Quebec. And how they're the defenders of the French French language yet now that very same program that francophones across the country outside Quebec used to protect their language. The blocker saying no. ooh You should not be allowed to use. That is awful. It is terrible stripping away because how Lo and behold the anglophone minority in their in their province decides is to use it. It's hypocrisy it's rank hypocrisy and it is the stock in trade of the Bloc Quebecois and. I'm in this week. Has Been a reminder it kind of forgot about what life was like with the block and there are some things where things almost agree with them on on policy and whatnot. But then they're situations like this that bring this right to the surface that somehow that they're law into the argument that they use is repugnant. Is anything else is that well. It was passed unanimously in the National Assembly majority of Quebeckers polled supported. You know what that may very well be the case but that's been our case throughout our history. The country there. There was a time in this country. Nicest person when it went a majority people. The House of Commons supported and the majority of the public supported the hanging Louis Rail. They thought that it was a grand idea. They thought the idea of taking me off the land. The residential schools was a popular policy that passed democratically in the house and was supported by the majority and now today we know it was genocide. I'm sorry the as much as I support democracy and a popular vote. The people are not always right when it comes to protect the minority rights and minority groups need to have the the levers to defend themselves and the idea that Mr Blanchette and and miss you go stand there and say look. We're on a press minority in North America and we need to be protected which there's truth to but then turn around and say that that means we get to. That means we get to get to take the boots to you and your rights. I'm sorry I can't stand for that and I'm glad I'm glad to see that worked up over this. I'm glad to see they're upset. Because because it's showing us why it is back in twenty eleven. We reduce them to four seats. And we're putting towards history's dustbin where they belong. Okay if anyone can ham right now resolute. Absolutely nothing Neil big mistake by Quebec. Listen I'll get two quick hits out of the way and then I'll go into my the point I want to make It's amazing because this is I think is the first time a Quebec premier has ever called for cutting spending by the federal government shots fire. Also I'd like compare and contrast the Quebec government's desire to have the federal government out of the the the bill c twenty one jurisdiction. They have in their your own problems but yet desires the federal government to get involved in another provinces issues Most recently the the approval for the Tech Frontier Mine in in Alberta so compare and contrast those disparate positions but specifically to the court challenges. I'm just program I it is an interesting little wedge. That Mister Trudeau finds himself in today. He needs votes in Quebec. So do they de-fund the court challenges program or do they Give the the premier of Quebec a reason to bash the federal liberals. I see this perhaps going down the same vein as the Danny William's desire fire to have conservatives never take federal power ever again Mister Llegado can beat this. If if the if the court challenges program continues is which is a liberal program If Justin Trudeau can't back away from supporting the Court Challenges Program for all the reasons nations cameron into but if he does but if he doesn't then then premium ago who was a p Q minister separate as Mr for ten years who sees Quebec as a distinct society which great. But but this will i. If if the the Court Challenges Program continues to fund this this I think it's a school board if I'm not if a Macho Macho the school board if the Court Challenges Program continues to fund the School Board. Mr Logo will go on an anybody but Justin Trudeau Tirade for the rest of the life of this government and as a conservative. I'm very happy to sit back and watch that unfold. All right I chat will. Maybe it won't be surprising to say that I disagree a little bit. I think this is a flash in the PAN I think this is another little silliness eruption around this very serious issue. United Cam kind of put the nail in the head. On on some of the silliness that brought to Parliament Hill via the surrogates. It's but I don't see this being thus sustaining issue. The fact is the court case dating issue and one of the court case is funded by this program or not. I don't think dictates whether it goes forward. I honestly don't think Justin Trudeau or anything. One of his members of cabinet ministers would endorse. The notion of getting rid of this program is something that means a great deal to them the liberal movements the history of the charter et Cetera. So I don't see that happening. I think important just to point out for listeners. Who May who may just want some clarification? The program is administered are the University of Ottawa and independent unit. So it's not Justin Trudeau saying but case in this case and I don't like that case so let's not do that one. That's not how it works. That's what our justice system tends to work so in this case. That's the thing but I wanNA make one political point and it's an interesting one and maybe it's a little bit self serving as the liberal voice on the table but I'll use it anyway So I probably can because I feel exactly the same way I have no doubt the liberal people talk about feel that same very same passionate about this and to Neil's point they are caught in a difficult political situation and they are also having to be the government where they are not. They're not just barking. They have to actually walk there. Talk so I'm curious whether this actually may end up being an example of Of the quiet path succeeding. So there's to paths if you look at this bill twenty one issue all the way back through the election. Stand up. Beat your chest call them. Call Them Jerks You know and and and stamp your feet and maybe come up with so you know maybe lead the charge of the court case. I think that was the most extreme example people were calling for lead the charge case. Well the case happening the court will hear it. I have a lot of confidence. The court will say this is unconstitutional. I have every confidence every court after that will say this is unconstitutional. And eventually people like premier. Go walk the walk away with the tail between his legs on this issue but let the court do that. And so is this quiet support and not caving on this particular issue. So I think what's happening here is. They're trying to catch a little underbelly so if they're allowing this in this case proceed they're providing the allowing the space for that necessarily support to flow to it. They have notionally said. We want to see this proceed which is inherently supporting this process. And if you assume that it will end up the way it will probably that's a pretty good way to get to where you WANNA go without than the political show being the prime vehicle So I think both of those vehicles are are have merit especially if you're using the the loud vehicle as a patriotism. The next is for unfortunately though unfortunately not for everybody in Canada as we know from the polls. This policy is popular among some people. I wouldn't be surprised if you ask people across Canada. Ah The percentage of people across Canada would say this might be a good idea in their province but so rather than stoking that division are driving that wedge deeper and driving that the piece of wood further into our national grain. Why don't we just let the courts to you a little bit like what we just talked to one side of that the one thing? That's interesting about this. I agree with Ah. I like to approach the prime minister's take on this because it has been quite approach is been antagonist and we have seen `specially with law. twenty-one we've seen this throughout the process of it's ah been introduced past everything that that the Quebec political class has been very keen on criticizing going after anyone who dares suggest. There's something wrong with what they do. And I remember when Manitoba Premier Powell's step forward in Iran and ad campaign trying to recruit Franklin people to come work Manto because they I need Francophone civil servants and how Lago went after him and started attacking them. For how dare you hypocrites. How exactly and to Mediatek? Well wait a second. You've made a decision used binders and people have the right to move around. So the idea that again anything that even hints at a criticism says of their approach automatically tap political blowback. Because that's the same thing. That's the approach that this government in Quebec decide to take and it's not one that that could be sustainable over time. It's definitely not but I think that's an interesting. I mean that's where I appreciate the Prime Minister's done you could very easily turn this into a back and forth screaming match. That could be easily done but isn't going to who actually improve the issue. And yes I I have faith in the courts in this but again the fact you actually have to go there and I think that's just kind of part of the part of the price. It's part of the price of admission of being a minority in this country. And you know what it is what it is. But but that's why we have courts there to defend those rights but see twenty th doesn't build twenty-one have they they have used it yeah but but again. This is what that means going before the courts. All the case has taken a charter. That doesn't have the knowledge to apply but it's novel argument that they're trying to I. I and I'm not smart. I'm not informed about your smart informed enough. have to argue one way or the constitutional law class at Teachers College. So let's It's an interesting I. I don't know if that'll mean. The court cases longer shorter than usual. I I let's just go back to politics. Pure and simple. I think this is one of the few. Active examples of a little bit of trump is coming into Canada. It's the Well we don't need the sort of legal structure. Sure we have the popular back and then leave aside the content of the the intent I think it's a little experiment in that and I think we'll see how that plays out but I think there's not a auto tight for that in Canada. Well let's it's it's before the courts We have the facebook challenge from private before the courts and A interesting candidate China relations meeting ahead of US Committee we might have a legislative through a self supporting legislation. Let's just give it all the courts to decide. That's very liberal longer podcasts. That we normally do. I hope our listeners enjoyed it. That was a great discussion guys. Jeff Cam Neil pleasure as always have a great great weekend and thank you to the listeners for tuning into blue skies strategy groups team of political observers for this week's a Canadian. podcast what you need to know about politics. This Week in Canada Strategy Group is one of Canada's leading public affairs firms for government relations lobbying and strategic communications advice across Canada. visit us at blue sky. Strategy Group DOTCOM Blue Sky Strategy. Group is a proud member of the global. Oh Communications Alliance

Coming up next