Your support and words of encouragement mean more than you can know.

And it’s that very team - including our volunteers on the ground and voters who were shocked by what they saw - that has overwhelmingly asked me to appeal the results.

A 19 vote difference.

While it’s tough to lose a close one, it’s even more taxing on me to keep fighting. And I thought long and hard about letting it go because that would just be easier (for any future politics, for my own personal life, for my sanity, etc.).

But doing politics differently is why I left law in the first place, and honesty and integrity matter more than whatever might be easier for me personally.

So we have appealed.

It’s about the integrity of the process, not about me.

And to make that as clear as possible, I will remove myself from any future process or consideration in Scarborough Southwest if it means the party will actually investigate and take action.

We’ve now done a full debrief with our team of scrutineers, who are made up of accomplished lawyers and experienced election observers.

Here’s what you should know:

First, there were 34 more ballots ultimately counted than there were recorded voters and no reasonable explanation for the significant discrepancy. If the same error rate occurred in a federal election, it would mean over 400,000 unaccounted-for ballots. Not acceptable, obviously. Especially when the margin was only 19 votes.

Second, there were repeated and serious inconsistencies with respect to proof of identification, and problematic actions in the voting area that completely undermined any ballot secrecy.

But don’t take it from me.

Our Chief Scrutineer, Andreas Katsouris, has 25 years of experience working with political campaigns and promoting democracy. He has trained, supported or participated in election observer groups in Armenia, Belarus, Egypt, Tunisia, Venezuela, the West Bank & Gaza, Uganda, Yemen, Ukraine, and more.

Here are his words, not mine:

1. There was an organized effort by Mr. Hafiz’s campaign to direct, monitor and pressure people throughout the voting process, from the time they walked into the building to after they cast their ballots. We saw many, many cases of people hanging around watchfully in the voting area, telling voters explicitly what they should do. Multiple people took calls on speakerphone or video so they could get instructions in the voting booth, while marking their ballots.

2. There were countless cases of individuals taking pictures of their ballots. When brought to the attention of Party officials, they acknowledged they’d all seen the same practice taking place throughout the day. In most of the world, this would be considered clear evidence of vote buying.

   

3. Among the large number of temporary residents who voted, many could not initially state their address when asked and defaulted to documentation. An unusually high number of people claimed to have “just lost” their driver’s licence or “just moved” to the area.

4. The party provided a list of IDs it would accept and then broke its own rules. Dozens and dozens of asylum seekers voted with their refugee claimant documents. Others were able to prove their addresses using just an apartment lease, sometimes unsigned and two of which improbably listed voters under 18. Other non-standard forms of ID accepted included digital report cards and Amazon orders. One man even voted with a visitor’s visa and foreign passport.

5. In the last hour or two, the OLP lost control of the voting process nearly entirely. Various people came and went, moved throughout the room, or hung around with little scrutiny. Our team witnessed repeated irregularities: people voting and then returning to the credentials line, people staying in the voting area long after they had voted, people entering the voting area via the exit.

There’s a lot more that could be said. For example, hundreds of Ontario Liberal voters and citizens were struck from the list in advance of the vote, while Mr. Hafiz’s campaign manager Ted Lojko - yes the same one who ran Han Dong’s 2019 nomination - was joined by other party establishment to get out hundreds of temporary residents to “save the party” as one prominent insider put it.

The party needs saving all right.

And to start, it needs to get to the bottom of what took place through a full investigation.

A new nomination meeting should be called or a new candidate appointed - and again, not me.

And to protect the integrity of our democracy, a full investigation needs to be matched by serious reforms.

It is obvious, for example, that we need to amend voter eligibility rules to limit participation to citizens and permanent residents.

With the Party unable to enforce basic rules central to the democratic process, such as ballot secrecy, and with 34 extra unexplained ballots, we need Elections Ontario to be tasked with managing nomination processes to safeguard their integrity and restore basic trust.

Yes, we need change across Ontario. We also need change in the Ontario Liberal Party.

We deserve truth and accountability.

And that change starts in Scarborough.

After a big win for our federal Liberals, the Ontario Liberal Party has officially called the nomination election in Scarborough Southwest for Saturday May 9 (timing TBD).

The deadline to register to vote in that election is Saturday April 25 at 5 pm.

Anyone who is 14+ and a resident can register for free. The riding boundaries are the east side of Vic Park to the west side of Markham Rd, and the south side of Eglinton down to the lake.

Register to vote

Sign up, spread the word, and help us build a different kind of politics.

We can’t take anything for granted in a contested nomination race. And this is an important step towards delivering serious leadership, rebuilding the Ontario Liberal Party, and ending the Ford government’s incompetence and corruption.

We deserve so much better.

We deserve a smart, fair, and honest government.

A smart government that creates economic opportunity, builds housing, transit and energy infrastructure at speed and scale, drives competition and innovation instead of protecting insiders, manages public finances responsibly, and prioritizes excellence in public education and youth employment because our future depends on it.

A fair government that delivers dignity, tackles the cost of living and inequality, prioritizes efficient and effective public healthcare, improves home care for our seniors, reverses Ford’s OSAP cuts, and ends homelessness.

An honest government that acts with integrity, strengthens transparency rules and accountability watchdogs, empowers parliamentarians as voices for their communities, and works across the aisle to get things done and to rebuild trust.

There’s a lot more to add to the above, and I hope you’ll join us and add your own ideas.

To long-time followers, thanks for the support over the years. I wouldn’t have been able to do politics differently in Ottawa without your support. To those who just subscribed, welcome. We’re out to make an even bigger difference with your help.

Stopping Doug Ford starts in Scarborough.

Register to vote

I hope everyone is able to enjoy some of this beautiful long weekend, and I hope some of you will also enjoy this Uncommons episode with the always thoughtful Karina Gould.

We met in Karina’s stomping grounds of Burlington at Peach Coffee Co., and we cover a lot of ground, from AI and online safety, to Ford’s OSAP cuts, to school food. But the broader conversation is really about the future of progressive politics.

Karina is a friend, she was an excellent minister (competence is underrated in politics!), and I still think she’d make a great premier, even though she’s opted out of the leadership race.

A reminder that it’s advance polls for the three by-elections from today through Monday.

And another reminder that we’re marching in this Sunday’s Beaches Lions Easter Parade, and you can join us at 1:30 pm at the RC Harris water treatment plant (the most important Easter tasks are rhyming clues for the kids’ Easter hunt and ironing my yellow/purple suits for the parade).

I’ve been asked to be the grand marshal this year, which is pretty fun considering it’s my last year marching as an MP, I volunteered in the parade with the Lions before I was elected, and I watched this same parade as a kid.

Follow Karina on Facebook, Instagram, X.

Watch more episodes of Uncommons on YouTube: click here

A deep dive into section 33 of our Charter is a little wonky, but it matters because it has a huge impact on our individual rights and freedoms.

Subscribe now

There’s a real risk to our civil liberties if we normalize the use of the Charter’s notwithstanding clause.

Simply, it allows politicians to pass a law that infringes Charter rights unreasonably, and courts are neutered from striking the law down.

Take Quebec’s Bill 21, the central focus of litigation before the Supreme Court. The law banned public sector workers from wearing religious symbols. So Muslim women who wear the hijab can no longer find public employment as teachers, doctors, judges, you name it.

It was passed in the name of secularism but, in effect, it is an extreme infringement of religious freedom. State secularism, properly understood, protects both freedom of and freedom from religion. It means neutrality. Not Bill 21 style suppression.

Now, our individual rights aren’t unlimited at the expense of the collective good, and section 1 of the Charter provides for reasonable limits on rights in pursuit of important public goods. Two guardrails operate here: first, there has to be a pressing and substantial policy objective and, second, the rights limitation has to be reasonable.

The notwithstanding clause is an extraordinary provision precisely because it allows politicians to infringe a right even where a court finds that infringement to be unreasonable.

Why does the Charter’s notwithstanding clause exist?

You might wonder why in the world anyone would think it’s a good idea.

Well, the federal fathers of the Charter didn’t. Pierre Trudeau envisioned courts having the final say on Charter interpretation, as they do with the division of powers.

Western Premiers disagreed. Judges are fallible, of course, and these provincial leaders argued for the supremacy of elected parliaments over appointed judges.

The notwithstanding clause was, in the end, a compromise to reach a consensus.

As Alberta Premier and the clause’s architect, Peter Lougheed put it:

“Mr. Trudeau got his Charter and the Western Premiers got both the Alberta Amending Formula and a notwithstanding clause.”

Thoughtful academics have called it a “very Canadian solution,” striking a balance between the British parliamentary tradition and the strong judicial review of the United States.

But it was also to be a solution saved for extraordinary situations. Those around the table when it was adopted have called it a “last resort” to be used in “exceptional situations” and “after careful consideration.”

Contrary to that original intent, the notwithstanding clause has been invoked by provincial governments more in the last 10 years than in the first 35 years of the Charter’s history. The feds have never used it.

Most recently, the Alberta government invoked it four times: once to pre-emptively prevent judges from striking down a law that violated the collective bargaining rights of teachers, and three times to protect new laws that limit the rights of transgender youth.

These moves followed Saskatchewan invoking the clause pre-emptively to insulate its own law policing names and pronouns in schools.

And, of course, that move followed the Quebec government using it pre-emptively in 2022 to protect an expansion of French language laws, and yes, the controversial Bill 21 passed in 2019.

Here in Ontario, Premier Ford has used or threatened to use the clause three times. A law that explicitly preferenced political parties by restricting third party spending, proposed legislation that would have banned education workers from striking (abandoned in the face of pushback) and a threat to use it when he messed around in Toronto’s 2018 municipal election.

These are all controversial uses of the notwithstanding clause. And mostly pre-emptive uses - not where a parliamentary body, after careful consideration, believes that the courts have gotten a decision wrong on a matter of important public policy, but where parliaments are afraid of judicial scrutiny entirely.

If we aren’t careful here, Charter rights will mean less than they should.

And sure, there is no doubt that judges are fallible. Just look at Citizens United in the United States, and the damage it’s wrought on American democracy.

It’s also true that populist decision-making through parliament can lead to the tyranny of the majority versus minority rights. History is littered with these rights violations.

The notwithstanding clause was the trade-off here, but new rules are clearly needed to constrain the clause’s misuse.

Interestingly, Peter Lougheed, yes, the same Alberta Premier and champion of the clause, offers us a useful way forward.

25 years ago, he argued for three straightforward amendments:

1. If the notwithstanding clause is used, a legislature should be required to spell out with specificity the purpose of the law.

2. Such an extraordinary measure should require a “higher level of authorization than a simple majority.” Lougheed argued for a supermajority of 60%. I’d go higher, but the general point stands.

3. There should be no pre-emptive use of the clause. It should only be used after careful consideration of a judicial decision.

Our Supreme Court can and should address this last point, at least in part. If anything good comes from the Bill 21 case, it’ll be that judges can still weigh in with reasons that explain whether or not a right has been unreasonably infringed, even if the notwithstanding clause prevents a more meaningful judicial remedy.

Of course, a paper judgment might help inform public debate, but it means little to those who have had their rights infringed.

Parliaments, both federal and provincial, should act together to amend the Constitution and establish stronger guardrails for the use of such an extraordinary measure.

We should act together to ensure Charter rights are respected and protected.

The rundown on the Ontario Budget can be found below. We also just finished recording a piece on the notwithstanding clause (with the Bill 21 hearing before the Supreme Court earlier this week), which should be out soon. And the Uncommons podcast is returning after a hiatus, with guest Karina Gould.

Quick federal update.

At the federal level, by-elections are underway likely to lead to a Liberal majority, and the Carney government has maintained a relentless focus on the economy and trade, affordability, and defence. The groceries and essentials benefit was a major spend to address affordability, and lifting the HST on new homes will help to some degree as well. We’ve also already hit our 2% NATO target (promise kept), and Carney has been leading the push for a new defence and resilience bank.

More should still be expected to come on the housing and clean energy / environment files, as neither is operating yet at a scale commensurate to the challenge. And some caution is warranted on the importance of improving legislation with the help of experts and advocates at committee. We’ve seen mistakes and missed opportunities on a few occasions now - C-3, C-5, C-9, C-12 - and these are even more important lessons to learn if we earn a majority.

Carney’s Davos speech has also been tested, as Trump and Netanyahu’s ill-considered war against Iran and Israel’s plans to occupy Lebanon have created chaos and instability, killed too many civilians, and led to skyrocketing gas prices here at home when affordability was already a top concern. After an odd initial statement, the Canadian government has more recently and rightly remained critical of the Iranian regime while also emphasizing the importance of international law, protecting civilians, and restoring shipping routes as part of a ceasefire. Perhaps the MAGA base will remember the “No New Wars” pledge at some point in advance of the midterms.

Of course, Carney brings a seriousness to the role that stands in stark contrast to the alternatives. It also stands in stark contrast to the glaring lack of serious leadership we see here in Ontario.

Ontario Budget 2026: there is no plan.

It’s more apparent than ever that it’s past time for change.

The Ford government released a budget yesterday that might well have been entitled “tired and short on ideas” instead of “a plan to protect Ontario.” A series of re-re-announcements more than anything, mediocre past hits on repeat.

The temporary move to lift HST from new homes (in partnership with the feds) and the tax cut for small businesses will help a little for sure. Of course, it’s all deficit financed in a bloated and mostly directionless budget that would have the Tories screaming if any Liberal thought to introduce it.

Transit policy still reads like it’s scrawled on the back of a napkin, and the uncosted tunnel is top of that list. The One Fare Program extension is welcome, but it pales in comparison to the delays and mismanagement of the GO Expansion we need to connect our province. When we talk at the federal level about building with speed and scale, this isn’t it.

Public education is an embarrassing state of affairs, with total education sector funding now at the lowest percentage it’s been in thirty years. An entire generation is getting less than they need and deserve. Yes, there is some modest increase in funding for autism services, but it won’t go nearly far enough for the tens of thousands of kids on the waiting list. And while the government correctly identifies a real need - namely purchasing gaps for teachers - their proposed solution is more friendly to Staples than it is for the classroom.

Overall, funding for public education since 2018 hasn’t kept pace with inflation, and this year is no different. It is cuts by stealth and a clear signal that our kids don’t matter to this administration. They somehow find funding to put cops in our schools when we don’t have enough teachers.

And for higher education, the Ford government is moving forward with deep cuts to OSAP, pushing post-secondary opportunities away from the students in the greatest need and saddling those who can least afford it with more debt.

On housing, starts have fallen off a cliff, the Minister tells us he doesn’t even think about meeting the government’s own target - “I’m not a housing expert” is the refrain - and while the tax cut is decent short-term relief for some, there’s no support for municipalities to speed up timeline approvals, no move to use new technology, and no effort to address homelessness or support non-market housing.

On healthcare, expanded homecare is welcome as is continued funding for building new hospitals. But there remains a gap from what the Ontario Hospital Association needs, and the Ford cuts to safe consumption sites will be measured in lives lost and increased emergency department visits the system can’t afford.

Hallway healthcare is worse than it has ever been, an issue Ford told us he’d fix back in 2018. If he can find “a few billion” for a Toronto convention centre no one asked for, the rest of Ontario should be asking why “a few billion” can’t be found for healthcare.

On public safety, the focus on expanded prison capacity is an absolute necessary. But so too is making the justice system function, and that’s a continued failing. It all comes on the heels of a cartoonishly failed attempt to silence protest, instead of focusing seriously on the effective enforcement of existing laws against harassment, intimidation, and hate.

On energy, the government is deficit financing untargeted consumer subsidies but leaving it entirely to the federal government to finance long-term clean energy investments that will create jobs and opportunity. We need a serious and strategic plan to drive economic opportunity through clean, affordable, and sovereign energy.

That’s just it, though. There is never a plan. Never has been a plan. Never will be a plan.

Ontario is overpriced and mismanaged, and there’s nothing in the budget that takes seriously the cost of living.

There is, though, a little change buried in the budget to our freedom of information laws. Yes, they are gutting transparency laws retroactively (retroactively!) because Ford doesn’t want the business of the province he’s conducted on his personal cell phone to be made public. After the Greenbelt and Skills Development scandals, why bother with transparency anyway?

We deserve better. It’s as simple as that.

Students here in Ontario are in a different fight. Doug Ford has slashed OSAP support, trying to balance the post-secondary books on the backs of low and middle income students and their families. It’s regressive, wrong, and should be reversed.

Which brings me to the main reason for writing today: a move from federal to provincial politics.

Thanks to everyone across Beaches-East York for the ongoing support.

Our politics is built on trust and we’ve worked hard to earn the trust of east end voters through four elections since 2015.

That grassroots approach has worked, I’ve been lucky to serve Beaches-East York for over a decade now, and our community has shaped me as a person and a politician.

Thanks to your support here at home, I’ve been able to do politics differently in Ottawa and bring a sense of principled independence to the role.

And we’ve been able to make a real difference. Delivering affordable housing and transit support for our city. Funding for pediatric cancer research. Stronger climate action and clean innovation. New protections and income supports for workers. A public health approach to addiction. Support for urban Indigenous communities. Rules to strengthen public safety online. Advocacy to defend human rights and civil liberties. And more.

We’ve also faced major challenges head on together, from a global pandemic to the tragic Danforth shooting.

We’ve made a difference, together. There is no doubt. And now there’s an opportunity to make an even bigger difference with your help.

A new chapter and a bigger difference.

I left law for politics more than a decade ago to make a difference for our community and country by rebuilding our federal politics.

Today, the biggest opportunity to make a difference is at Queen’s Park. Ontario is overpriced and mismanaged. We need to hold Ford accountable, and to deliver the smart, fair, and honest leadership that’s sorely missing.

We came close to leading renewal in 2023. 46.5% on the final ballot. And a lot of lessons learned along the way.

We’re now building an even stronger team. Ready to win, together.

Change starts in Scarborough Southwest and our shared east end.

Mary-Margaret McMahon is already working hard in the legislature and there’s now a provincial by-election in Scarborough Southwest.

Our path to deliver change is clear: win the local Liberal nomination, flip a by-election where the party has come in 3rd for the last three elections, win the leadership of the Ontario Liberal Party, and deliver overdue change at Queen’s Park.

If you live in Scarborough Southwest, register to vote in the nomination race here. And encourage others you know in the riding to do the same.

Register in Scarborough Southwest

Anyone across Ontario can help our campaign — join the team at teamnate.ca

Register across Ontario

I’m all in for Ontario. And the change we need starts in Scarborough Southwest and across our shared east end. Anyone who lives here knows that life happens across our shared communities on both sides of Victoria Park.

Through high school, I played baseball at Birchmount and for Scarborough, as just one personal example. My family knows Birch Cliff, Cliffside, and the Bluffs all too well. My kids would live at the Eglinton Town Centre if they could.

As an MP, I’ve advocated for housing, transit, and affordability for residents across our city, and supported organizations that serve both ridings because they are shared communities.

These are communities that I know well and we will work relentlessly to deliver for.

To deliver economic opportunity, affordable homes, reliable fast transit, accessible healthcare, and excellence in education.

To deliver a serious government that works. And that works for all of us, not just Ford’s friends.

We deserve better. And if you want better, the answer is participation.

Q&A

How does the nomination process work?

You need to be a member of the Ontario Liberals (it’s free to join) and a resident of Scarborough Southwest to vote in the nomination.

If you live in Scarborough Southwest, sign up now!

If you know others who live in Scarborough Southwest, let us know by emailing info@teamnate.ca, and please share this with them and encourage them to register too.

When will the nomination take place?

We don’t yet know when the vote will take place, but expect it to happen shortly after the federal by-election in Scarborough Southwest.

There is some urgency to registering as many new members/voters as we can, so please help us grow the team!

When will you resign your federal seat?

I will resign my seat as soon as the provincial by-election is held, which is up to Doug Ford to call. I expect that to happen after the House rises in June, because Ford has suggested he’ll wait the full 6 months to call the race (he obviously doesn’t want me in the legislature).

In the meantime, I’m committed to supporting Prime Minister Carney’s government where every vote counts.

Why Scarborough Southwest and not another riding?

Our leader needs to be committed to seeking a seat in the legislature at the first available opportunity. I’m all in for Ontario.

And luckily, Scarborough Southwest is right next door to Beaches-East York, a shared community where I have strong connections both personal and political. It’s also where local name recognition and our broad base of volunteers across our shared east end can play a huge and positive role.

Doly Begum has been a strong progressive representative, she’s going to make a great Liberal MP for our east end community, and I have no doubt that she’ll make a bigger difference as a member of our federal team.

I’ll continue to support Prime Minister Carney and our federal Liberal team.

At the same time, I know that the biggest difference I can make is rebuilding our provincial Liberal party to deliver for Ontarians.

We’ve been working hard to build a provincial team that’s ready to run, win, and govern together, and the rules for the leadership race will be announced soon.

When it comes to Ontario, I’m all in.

To that end, I’ll seek the Ontario Liberal Party’s nomination to run in the Scarborough Southwest by-election. I’ve communicated this to interim leader John Fraser, and I will continue to support Prime Minister Carney as an active member of our federal caucus in the meantime.

We deserve better than this tired, incompetent, and self-dealing Conservative government.

We deserve smart, fair, and honest leadership here in Ontario.

The answer is participation. Join our growing team at teamnate.ca

Kidding aside, the subject of the sermon invitation was a serious one: Canada’s role towards a just peace for Palestine and Israel. Given the absurdity that is the “Board of Peace”, I spoke too about the loss of trust in international institutions and the difficult task of rebuilding them based on shared values, applied consistently.

Subscribe now

And I also touched on other human rights catastrophes, from Tehran to Minneapolis.

You can watch or read the full text of my speech below.

Prime Minister Carney’s incredible Davos speech was a useful context as he presented us with the right challenge on the world stage: “building what we claim to believe in.”

After that Davos speech and the strategic China deal, Carney talked Ford down from the ledge over a slice of pizza, he side-stepped another tariff threat (though yet another threat has been made as I write this) and announced a groceries and essentials benefit built on the number one priority ask from Food Banks Canada.

He’s certainly had a good run recently. And there’s more on the way, with a much needed auto strategy coming soon (GM announced major layoffs just today).

For my part, I’m currently working on questions around responsible AI in my federal policy work, and welcome any feedback or experts you think I should engage with.

And we are also actively team-building as we explore what another provincial leadership run could look like. I hope you’ll join us in that effort.

Speech/sermon at the joint Holy Land service hosted by Trinity-St. Paul’s United Church, together with Bloor St. United Church and Bathurst United Church.

Thank you for hosting me. And thank you for braving the weather.

I was invited to discuss human rights and Canada’s role in a just peace for Israel and Palestine. I wanted to start, though, with the tragedy unfolding closer to home.

In Minnesota, we are witnessing the brutality of fascism in real time. Masked agents, encouraged to enlist to defend homeland and culture, are killing American citizens in the street with no legal justification or excuse, and with no legal consequence. The administration defends the indefensible, telling us to ignore our eyes and ears.

It is horrifying to watch the video evidence of this brutality. And it is horrifying to watch our neighbouring democracy lose itself.

Over the last year, we’ve seen abuse and threats levelled against Canada and other democratic allies abroad. And now we see America trampling on its own democracy and rule of law at home. Acting inconsistently with its own foundational values.

For a Republican party that has traditionally prided itself as grounded in a faith-based political morality, it has so badly lost its way.

Now, I’m not a religious person. The few times I found myself in a beautiful church like this was as a kid was when I tagged along with my good friend Tim. Some of you will know his mom, Norah.

Some of you will also know my mom, Sara. She’s here today. And while ours was not a religious household, it was a household where right and wrong mattered. Where values mattered. Where our treatment of others mattered.

In Parliament over the last decade, I’ve had the good fortune to work alongside faith-based advocates on ending poverty, advancing climate action and reconciliation, and defending human rights. Shared values make for a common cause.

In preparing for this morning, I was asked by members of the church what scripture I’d be relying on. Scripture is not overly familiar, but certain passages do communicate the shared values I want to emphasize this morning.

Micah 6:8: “And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Act justly, love mercy, walk humbly.

Isaiah 1:17: “Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.” Or as Proverbs 31 puts it: “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

These are all verses that speak to universal truths about how we should treat others and the aims we should pursue in our lives. Treat others with dignity and seek justice.

If you’ll bear with me, allow me to read two more passages: “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Now, that is a different text. That’s the preamble and Article 1 to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an enduring document of 30 Articles in total that offers a foundation of rights and the realization of one’s full potential.

Everyone deserves inherent dignity and inalienable rights.

It is both a self-evident truth and a moral pursuit because that truth is so often unrealized.

Interestingly, the preliminary draft of that document was written by a Canadian, John Peters Humphrey. It’s a fact we should celebrate, as Canadians. An example of moral leadership on the world stage. An idea that many of us take to heart, believing it is not only the right thing to do but also part of who we are, part of our history.

We should celebrate that history without rewriting it, though. When it came to the adoption of the Universal Declaration, Canada was one of only 8 states to initially abstain. In a speech to mark the declaration’s 20th anniversary, Humphrey described embarrassment by Canada’s decision to abstain and his continued disappointment with the government’s lack of commitment to international human rights.

One could well imagine him giving the same speech today.

After all, we are reducing foreign aid overall, today. And while we’ve made important commitments to the reconstruction of Gaza, and certainly to Ukraine, too often vocal commitments to human rights are not matched by real substance.

Now, in fairness, it can feel like chaos in today’s world, with little semblance of any international rules.

A UN rapporteur warns that the Iranian regime may have killed more than 20,000 civilians in its criminal crackdown on protesters. The UN human rights chief says Sudan’s civil war has put people through “horror and hell” - it is a genocide of systematic killings, sexual violence and ethnic cleansing. Russia’s illegal and brutal attack on Ukraine is going on four years now, with hundreds of thousands of casualties.

And then there’s Israel’s indiscriminate destruction of Gaza and the dehumanization of the Palestinian people. Last summer, Israeli human rights organizations B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights Israel concluded that the mass killing, decimation of basic infrastructure, forcible displacement on a huge scale, and official policies and statements led to the “unequivocal conclusion that Israel is taking coordinated, deliberate action to destroy Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip. In other words, Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”

In August, I wrote to Minister Anand to emphasize the need for action. I wrote that the world watched the heinous October 7 Hamas terrorist attack on innocent Israeli civilians in horror. And ever since, we’ve watched Israel’s mass and indiscriminate killing of innocent Palestinian civilians, forced displacement, intentional starvation, and wholesale destruction of health, educational, religious, and cultural facilities. All while Israeli leaders dehumanize the Palestinian people.

I emphasized that Canada cannot be complicit in Israel’s crimes and that we must proactively advance peace in every possible way. To recognize steps taken towards an arms embargo and to call for more complete and transparent action. To commend the symbolic recognition of a Palestinian state, and to call for multilateral cooperation to establish a peacekeeping presence that would facilitate the distribution of critical humanitarian aid, secure an overdue ceasefire and release of hostages, and ensure peace and security for any future free and fair elections.

So much, of course, depends on the United States here. As Prime Minister Carney put it recently, “we knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient…and…that international law applies with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.”

In a brazen reinforcement of this reality, we’ve watched the United States sanction prosecutors and judges at the International Criminal Court for applying the law, including for issuing an arrest warrant for Netanyahu.

Given the reality of international law, it was always the case that a ceasefire depended on the US acting or a strong enough coalition of like-minded middle powers asserting a more forceful role.

A ceasefire was realized in October because the United States finally acted. But in the interest of truth-telling, let’s not misstate the reality here either.

The United Nations Office for Project Services tells us that critical lifelines have remained closed and that “people continue to be killed, day in, day out.” There have been countless ceasefire violations, hundreds killed, and I received this email earlier this week from an UNRWA representative:

I regret to report that yesterday (January 20) Israeli forces stormed UNRWA’s headquarters and began demolishing our facilities. Recall that this complex has been used by the Agency since before the 1967 War.

Underscoring the political nature of this illegal action, Israeli Minister Ben Gvir and MK Yulia Malinovsky were present at the demolition, arguing over which of them should get the credit for this unprecedented attack against a UN Agency. Jerusalem’s deputy mayor made matters worse saying: “With God’s help, we will destroy, we will eliminate, and annihilate all UNRWA personnel”.

Subscribe now

UN Security Council Resolution 2803 offers a very imperfect path towards a more enduring peace. Positively, it guaranteed the freeing of remaining hostages and called for the entry of distribution and aid in the Gaza Strip to proceed without interference. Hamas is to have no future in the governance of Gaza, and the IDF is to withdraw completely as a multilateral “International Stabilization Force” oversees security.

But let me read you a few recent headlines and let’s consider what the prospects are for an enduring peace that respects the self-determination and safety of both Palestinians and Israelis. These are just from the last 24 to 48 hours:

‘Israeli drone strike kills two children collecting firewood in Gaza’

‘Cold and malnutrition claim more victims in Gaza amid winter rains’

‘3 journalists killed in Israeli airstrike on car in central Gaza, health officials say’

‘Trump unveils his vision to rebuild Gaza into a seaside metropolis’

Yes, the so-called Board of Peace is a grotesque absurdity. Participation is based on who can curry favour with Trump or outright buy their way in. Putin is welcome. Carney, not so much. Netanyahu is welcome. Any Palestinians representative, not so much.

As Donald Trump, the self-appointed Chair of the Board for life, put it: “Once this board is completely formed, we can do pretty much whatever we want to do.”

Canada needs to pursue two actions.

First, at home, it’s the same action as ever. Being crystal clear that criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza is not antisemitism and to respect and protect free expression. At the same time, ensure that when voices do intimidate, harass and engage in antisemitism, there are consequences for those actions. We need to make sure we respect and protect rights here at home: free expression and security.

Abroad, Canada will need to work with other like-minded countries and engage directly with the Gaza Executive Committee to restrain the worst excesses of the real estate baron’s dream. And, perhaps, to ensure that the stabilization force functions effectively. We’ll see where that goes.

Carney spoke recently of a rupture:

The multilateral institutions on which middle powers have relied - the WTO, the UN, the COP - the architecture, the very architecture of collective problem solving are under threat.”

What does it mean for middle powers to live the truth? It means naming reality. Stop invoking rules-based international order as if it still functions as advertised… It means acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and rivals… And it means building what we claim to believe in, rather than waiting for the old order to be restored. It means creating institutions and agreements that function as described.

The absurdity that is the Board of Peace exists because of a failure of existing institutions. But these institutions still matter.

A friend of mine, David Adler - he’s one of the organizers of the PanAmerican Congress and was on the Global Sumud Flotilla - he wrote in the wake of US actions in Venezuela: “We may never have had international law, but you will miss it when it’s gone.”

Or consider the words of John Peters Humphrey who said: “Surely a world that can achieve the atomic bomb but fail in the creation of the United Nations is morally bankrupt. And this moral bankruptcy is the reason for our failure to organize peace.”

The answer to Carney’s challenge, to Adler’s, to Humphrey’s is to rebuild international institutions that function in keeping with our values.

That act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly.

That embody our shared values not only in name but in practice, applied consistently.

That carry the ability to not only recognize everyone’s inherent dignity and inalienable rights, but the ability to ensure they are realized.

The Canadian government should lead the way. It did so, once upon a time, in the creation of NATO. Clause 2, the “Canadian clause” respecting non-military cooperation, was a testament to Pearson’s leadership.

But Canadians can act too, even without their government. We know this, again, because of the story of John Peters Humphrey. Despite the Canadian government abstaining on the creation of the Universal declaration of Human rights, he helped to lead the way.

Share

Subscribe now

He also recently landed a deal to reset trade relations with China. It’s a practical response to the fact we can’t rely on the US as we once did, and it’s an immediate win for Canadian farmers and fishers.

Yes, there are reasons for caution. But as I explain below, critics like Doug Ford entirely miss the mark.

Canada can’t rely on the US, a country that is trampling on its own democracy at home, and abusing other democracies abroad.

So Carney goes to China, the world’s second largest economy and already Canada’s second largest trading partner in spite of a series of trade disputes. And he resets trade relations in a clear-eyed way. “We take the world as it is - not as we wish it to be.”

To put it simply, he largely resolves an outstanding dispute from the summer of 2024. Trudeau had imposed 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs in lockstep with Biden. China retaliated.

The world has certainly changed since. It now makes no sense at all to march in lockstep with the US at the expense of Canadian farmers and fishers, if it ever did.

Yes, of course there are reasons for caution. Human rights. Authoritarianism. And there are risks considering China’s recent history of weaponizing trade against us. But it’s also true that as we work to double Canada’s non-US exports, China is a piece of that puzzle.

Many Conservative premiers embraced the deal. “Welcome News”. (Newfoundland). “Pleased to see the reduction of tariffs.” (Smith) “A positive day.” (Moe)

But Ford and Poilievre finally found common ground in uneducated bluster. Poilievre tells us the agreement will jeopardize our security and auto jobs. Ford called it a “totally totally unacceptable” “terrible terrible miscalculated decision” and even talked about spy cars.

So let’s actually look at the deal:

China significantly drops its retaliatory tariffs on billions of dollars of agricultural products from Canada, canola seed, lobsters, crabs, peas. Yes, it’s tentative. Yes, the drop from 84% to 15% on canola leaves some room to improve. Yes, pork should be part of the deal too. There’s obviously more work to do, but it can’t be overstated how welcome this is for working farmers and fishers today.

In return, Canada gives up little. China is the world’s largest producer of EVs. We don’t have EV auto manufacturers here to protect.

Canada moves off the 100% EV tariff imposed in the summer of 2024. In its place will be a quota of 49,000 Chinese-made EVs at a much-reduced tariff rate of 6.1%. That quota grows slowly over 5 years.

It’ll mean cheaper prices for Canadian consumers, and it’s an opportunity for potential new investment in Canada’s auto industry.

Ford called it “a flood” of Chinese EVs, except that the quota corresponds to volumes in the 2023 year and represents less than 3% of the Canadian market for new vehicles.

Ford tells us “it’s going to be a big, big problem” for the existing auto manufacturers. Except that half of the quota is reserved for affordable EVs with an import price of $35,000, a car that doesn’t exist in Canada today. Consider that Europe has over 20 EV models selling for less than $40,000 Canadian. Canada has one, barely. And EV adoption is booming everywhere except in North America.

More broadly, the numbers don’t lie: the modest number of EVs Canadians currently buy just aren’t made here in Canada. Hopefully that changes, and that brings us back to the deal.

As American auto manufacturers abandon their Canadian promises, the agreement explicitly emphasizes an expectation that we’ll see Chinese investment through joint ventures led by Canadian companies to create new auto manufacturing careers for Canadian workers.

And it’s all subject to review in three years to gauge progress.

The PM rightly articulated it as “an opportunity for Ontario…for Ontario works…for Canada, done in a controlled way, with a modest start” :

And spy cars? I can’t believe I’m going to quote Danielle Smith, but she’s right: “Canadian security authorities will take any measures necessary to ensure all vehicles and other products sold into Canada post no threat to our nation’s privacy laws or national security interests”

There is the risk, of course, that we’ll piss off the Americans. Ford raised this too, forgetting about his own ad, I guess.

But Trump, for his part, called the deal a “good thing” and said “if you can get a deal with China, you should do that.”

It is true, of course, that not everyone south of the border felt the same way.

Nikki Haley, former US ambassador to the UN, wrote: “Canada cozying up to China to welcome more investment puts all of North America at serious risk.”

I’d phrase it a little differently though: Canada’s effort to reset relations in a modest way with China is a direct and reasonable response to the vicious incompetence of the United States that threatens us all.

The Iranian administration has once again cut off communications to and from its people, shutting down internet and phone access, and violently suppressing any dissent.

This isn’t new. It’s a tactic the regime has repeatedly used when civilian unrest intensifies: to isolate protestors, prevent documentation, and carry out arrests and killings away from public scrutiny.

This time, however, the scale and intensity of the violence and repression appear more severe. We don’t yet know the full extent of what’s happening. But multiple media and human-rights reports already point to at least 2,000 people killed and more than 10,000 detained, and those numbers are almost certainly higher, and still rising.

For many Iranian Canadians, this is not distant news. It is fear for family, friends, and loved ones.

As an MP, I’ve spoken publicly to condemn the regime’s repression and to amplify voices calling for Iranian democracy. I also work alongside an Iranian-Canadian in my constituency office, Sara, and given what’s now at stake, I wanted to share her perspective directly.

Sara: We have seen waves of resistance to the Iranian regime before, from the Green Movement in 2009 to the protests following Mahsa Amini’s death in 2022. This pattern did not begin in 2009 or 2022. Since coming to power in 1979, the Islamic Republic has consistently responded to dissent with repression, through executions, the dismantling of opposition movements, and lethal crackdowns such as those seen during the November 2019 protests. Opposition has persisted, and so has the punishment of those who lead or join it.

What we are witnessing now, however, appears broader, more sustained, and more determined, driven by years of economic collapse, repression, and the absence of accountability.

While the Iranian regime claims solidarity with Palestinians, it simultaneously denies those same fundamental rights to Iranians at home. Freedom, dignity, and safety are not causes that can be selectively defended.

It’s also important to recognize that Iranians are not a monolith. Iran is an incredibly diverse society, and that diversity is reflected in the range of views about what change should look like and how it should happen.

In recent days, debates have intensified within the Iranian diaspora about leadership, opposition figures, and the role of outside powers. Some voices argue for international intervention; others warn, based on the experiences of Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, that foreign military involvement often deepens civilian suffering rather than ending it.

These disagreements are real and deserve to be acknowledged, not flattened or dismissed.

What should not be debated is this:

Peaceful protestors should never be met with lethal force.

Information should never be treated as a weapon.

And human rights shouldn’t be applied selectively.

Canada’s role is not to dictate Iran’s future. That must be determined by Iranians themselves.

But we do have a responsibility to consistently defend civilian protection, access to information, and accountability, wherever those principles are violated. Silence only enables further harm.

We must continue working with like-minded countries to stand with and support the Iranian people.

Bob Rae had a good piece about might making right making a comeback. And Dan Gardner has been spot on about the major rollback of international rules.

Here’s my short take on it, for what it’s worth.

A fake pretense of drugs to impose illegal tariffs one day, and a fake pretense of drugs to oust a dictator the next.

But of course, the pretense was dropped immediately. There is no quiet part anymore.

“We’re going to take back the oil that frankly we should have taken back a long time ago.” - Donald Trump

As former UN Ambassador Bob Rae aptly put it: leaders unhinged from the rule of law and morality pose a threat to us all.

It’s in Canada’s interest when international law is respected. When might makes right, we are at greater risk.

Prime Minister Carney rightly emphasized the importance of respecting the will of the Venezuelan people and of upholding international law, though he also carefully avoided the obvious fact that the US has no intention of doing anything of the sort.

Too many other world leaders similarly offered lukewarm reproach.

We should, of course, be more critical of unilateral, pre-emptive, and unlawful actions undertaken by the “very stable genius” in the White House. Yes, even when it comes to deposing awful dictators who should be held to account on the basis of natural justice.

And yes, for Venezuelans, the outcome here could be a positive one in the end. If, that is, the dictator responsible for countless human rights abuses wasn’t being replaced by one of his cronies. If, that is, free and fair elections take place. Which of course they should, immediately.

But apparently those can wait until the oil starts flowing?

Now, it’s no surprise that the conservative leader offered uncritical congratulations to the President, as if it was “mission accomplished.”

As if he’s completely forgotten the last year of our lives, where we’ve been on the receiving end of threats to our sovereignty. As if he can’t see that the same disregard for any semblance of international order has led to crippling illegal tariffs on important sectors of our economy.

Those applauding should consider the record of unilateral and unlawful US actions and perhaps hold their applause until we see where this all goes.

What next? Greenland apparently. Cuba, Colombia, maybe Mexico. It’s all arbitrary. We should stand in solidarity with Iranian protesters and with Ukraine if we are serious about values and democracy, yet Putin received a warm Trump welcome despite his genocidal war.

It’s obvious enough that international norms mean little to unconstrained American power. Even if it undermines our collective ability to promote democracy and human rights without irony. Even if it gives cover to other strongmen and opportunity for soft power to authoritarian regimes.

And if the MAGA base isn’t a constraint on Trump, then it’s not clear that anything is. As Marjorie Taylor Green put it: “This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong.”

But hey, we’re not talking about Epstein anymore right?

Happy new year, everyone.

2025 felt like a decade, and it was nice to close it out with more relaxed time with friends and family. Building a snow fort with the kids. Playing crokinole and euchre. Learning that you need to store vermouth in the fridge. Much needed recharging.

Looking back

A year of successes and frustrations, notably marked by an epic federal political comeback in the spring election to an incredible fall postseason run for the Jay.

Trump’s descent into the old king’s madness continued at great economic cost here at home. Carney thankfully brought a serious contrast to all of that, as we rallied around our flag. And I was back at work to play a constructive accountability role on a range of issues, including Bill C-5, the federal budget, and the Alberta MOU. With some lessons learned along the way.

Looking ahead

I’ll continue to bring honesty to our politics and to push our government to be the best it can be. And with Poilievre likely to win his leadership review later this month, it’s important for us to be at our best.

I’ll also aim to see through some work already underway, including holding digital platforms accountable, legislation to better protect kids online, a larger conversation around generational fairness and income security, and more.

The biggest question mark for 2026 is the Ontario Liberal leadership race.

It’s still a huge opportunity to make a difference, which is why I ran the last time. And it is past time for change. We shouldn’t accept the Ford government’s obvious mediocrity, incompetence, and corruption, even if it’s folksy.

We don’t know the timeline of the race yet, but we’re now building a team. One that is ready to run, win, and govern together.

Everything depends on the strength of that team, including the decision to join the race when it’s officially called.

So join our growing team. Help rebuild our politics in Ontario. And encourage others to do the same.

The answer, as always, is participation.

Join our growing team

On this episode of Uncommons, I’m joined by Ava Hill and Willie Littlechild, two incredible Indigenous leaders. We talk about the state of reconciliation and what real partnership could and should look like, with a specific focus on their work to advance Indigenous participation in sport.

Ava Hill is a former Six Nations Chief, and Willie Littlechild is a former TRC commissioner, former MP, and residential school survivor.

They also touch on Raffi’s advocacy against fascism, the power of music in activism, the urgent need for climate mobilization, protecting children from digital harm and his belief in having courage to speak out and be engaged in democracy.

Raffi is a global troubadour, children’s entertainer, author and founder of the Raffi Foundation for Child Honouring. Called by the Washington Post as “the most popular children’s singers in the English-speaking world”.

And it’s generated wildly different reactions.

Here are my thoughts on what the MOU means, for better and worse. There are merits to collaboration, of course. At the same time, talk of a grand bargain feels like déjà vu, and this government needs a clear-eyed ambitious climate plan.

You can read the full text below.

It’s my own honest assessment (seems fitting after this article in The Walrus), but worth acknowledging there have been a range of different takes so far. The National Observer’s Max Fawcett, Evan Scrimshaw at Unscripted, and Clean Prosperity’s Michael Bernstein all offer more positive takes. Meanwhile, it not only prompted Guilbeault’s resignation, but those of two top climate advisers on our Net Zero Advisory Body. And former Minister (and recent podcast guest) Catherine McKenna has reinforced these concerns too.

Recent Uncommons episodes

Best-selling author, historian, and progressive activist Rutger Bregman joined me to talk about his new book Moral Ambition (and new school of the same name), a call to arms to stop wasting one’s talent and dedicate oneself to solving big challenges.

Award-winning journalist and author Tanya Talaga joined us for a live event focused on her recent book The Knowing. It’s a deeply personal story in which she traces her own family’s history, and it is a story of Indigenous people in Canada, injustice, reclamation, and outlasting.

Upcoming guests include the amazing troubadour Raffi and Indigenous leaders Ava Hill and Willie Littlechild. If you have suggestions for guests or topics, you can always reach us at info@beynate.ca

In case you missed it

I wrote about the reaction to my budget reaction here, and reflected on the role of MPs and reasonable disagreement in our politics.

And The Walrus also wrote a profile about our approach to politics, highlighting the benefits and challenges of authenticity and honesty as we work to make our politics about ideas. And no, not a usual headline/question for a politician ha.

Grand bargains, déjà vu, and a review of the Canada-Alberta MOU

What should we make of the memorandum of understanding between Canada’s Prime Minister and Alberta’s Premier?

Well, it’s certainly caused wildly different reactions across the spectrum. Danielle Smith was booed by her base at mere mention of the MOU, and environmental champion Steven Guilbeault resigned his cabinet post based on his strong opposition to the deal.

So what does the deal do exactly?

On the one hand, at a high level, it’s a collaborative document in a moment when national unity is critical. It’s an attempt by the feds to buy political peace with Alberta, to address a sense of western alienation, to diversify our conventional energy exports from the US, and yes, to secure a less confrontational path to some climate action.

But less action than one might have expected, if we’re being honest. We gave up a lot - probably too much - for any short-term peace. It represents climate backsliding and a distraction from the ambition we need.

In fairness, let’s start at the start. The MOU’s preamble tells us that Alberta and Canada are “committed to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050”, establishing Canada as a global energy superpower,” and respecting Indigenous rights-holders.

It then sets out a series of mostly laudable objectives, from cutting red tape to providing economic opportunities for Indigenous communities. The main and obvious tension is the goal to “increase production of Alberta oil and gas while simultaneously reaching carbon neutrality.”

Is it possible? Well, in theory, maybe.

The idea is that so long as the world relies on fossil fuels, Canada should reap the economic benefits. And there’s a logic to that, of course. Better us than the United States or other countries with poor human rights records.

But it’s also true that it’ll be a real challenge to make the intensity of oil sands emissions globally competitive for those final barrels. Knowing this, the MOU ties a potential new pipeline through northern BC directly to a massive carbon capture and storage project. The downside is that it’ll cost billions in public subsidies, and experts call the tech “expensive, unproven” and a distraction “from global decarbonization efforts while allowing the oil and gas industry to conduct business as usual.”

The truth is that in a future net zero world, there isn’t a strong business case for new fossil fuel infrastructure today. The oil and gas sector is already our largest single source of emissions, and a significant expansion of production is likely only viable in a non-net zero world.

Which seems to be what the MOU is betting on because that’s what it commits to - a significant expansion of oil production and export of at least one million barrels a day above the status quo of over 4 million barrels, through a combination of a new potential pipeline and expanded capacity on Trans Mountain. The only trans rights Premier Smith seems to support.

Still, it’s fair for the private sector to bet on that world, and the feds have said that there won’t be public money for any new pipeline. That’s the right answer and we should ensure that it doesn’t happen indirectly through loan guarantees.

It’s also fair for governments to approve weak private sector bets so long as the environment and Indigenous rights are protected and respected. Which is where the proposal will likely fall down, in the face of BC and Indigenous opposition.

At the same time, while companies are free to bet on runaway climate change, it’s incumbent on governments to take ambitious climate action seriously. Does the MOU get us there? Not nearly enough.

On the positive side of the ledger, Alberta commits to the construction of large transmission interties with BC and Saskatchewan. That’s good.

Alberta also commits to an industrial carbon price of $130 per tonne and methane rules in exchange for Canada doing away with the oil and gas emissions cap and giving Alberta a carve out from national clean electricity regulations.

The industrial price of $130 is well below the $170 federal benchmark and the methane regs have been ready to implement for a year now, with a view to slashing 75% of emissions by 2030. That timeline’s now pushed back to 2035.

The Canadian Climate Institute warned that the MOU could trigger a race to the bottom on climate policy and the Pembina Institute called it a “missed opportunity” opening the door to delayed climate action and investor uncertainty.

It’s hard to understand where on the path to net zero all of this leaves us. After dropping the consumer carbon price, winding down Greener Homes, and pausing the EV mandate, there were already gaps in our plan that hadn’t been made up.

And now there are additional gaps to fill. So, what’s the plan? We can’t manage what we don’t measure.

And yes, I understand that the instinct for someone who had a front row seat to Brexit is to work together, to get buy-in from provinces, to establish a Grand Bargain as it were. Of course it is.

But we gave up a lot - probably too much - for whatever short-term political peace we’ll benefit from. After all, the last grand bargain was the $35 billion Trans Mountain pipeline in exchange for Alberta’s commitment to carbon pricing and climate action, in part to address western alienation.

And almost a decade later, it’s déjà vu all over again.

Except with even less time to act with the sense of urgency required to build the sustainable future we deserve.

The energy transition will happen with or without us, and we can’t afford any distractions. We need a clear-eyed ambitious plan for net zero to become a clean energy superpower and because the carbon budget won’t balance itself.

As a wise former central banker once wrote: “Value in the market is increasingly determining the values of society. We are living Oscar Wilde’s aphorism - knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing - at incalculable costs to our society, to future generations and to our planet.”

Or take this from our platform in the spring: “as we build the strongest economy in the G7, we cannot lose sight of the impact our choices will have on our children and grandchildren; we must always be mindful of long-term sustainability and the kind of economy and environment we want for them.”

Words and promises we would do well to heed.

Rutger joins me in this episode to explore how his ideas on moral ambition connect to social change, the big challenges we need your talent to solve, and what he hopes to accomplish with his new school.

She’s also a constituent, which is how we happened to connect again recently when she was hosted by the House Speaker together with other finalists for the Shaugnessy Cohen Prize in political writing.

Talaga joined me a number of years ago at the Fox Theatre to talk about her 2017 award-winning book Seven Fallen Feathers.

This conversation focuses on her recent book, The Knowing. It is a deeply personal story in which she traces her own family’s history, and it is a story of Indigenous people in Canada, injustice, reclamation, and outlasting.

With her own background one of both Anishinaabe and Polish descent, Talaga writes: “From the legacies of these dual branches of genocide, one on Turtle Island and one far off in eastern Europe - comes my knowing.”

I recommend reading the book and you can also watch her docuseries at CBC Gem.

• Events: join our local holiday party on Tuesday December 16 at The Local and our NY Levee with MPP Mary-Margaret McMahon on Sunday January 11 at The Naval Club

• Canada Summer Jobs: if you’re an employer who can hire a young person this summer, the deadline to apply for a federal grant is December 11

• Local calendar: if you’ve got a good photo of Beaches-East York, email it to info@beynate.ca and we’ll do our best to include it (with attribution) in our 2026 calendar

After 10 years of political life, it’s still possible to be surprised.

For example, I was surprised that our budget reaction video earned as much coverage as it did.

I just didn’t think the occasional (and measured!) disagreement from here in Beaches-East York was still national news. Although being quoted out of context by the Conservative leader at a strange press conference (not surprising) no doubt helped.

At that same presser, Poilievre imagined turmoil in the Liberal caucus, tried to pronounce my name correctly, and railed at the media (also not surprising). It was all deflection from his own leadership troubles, with no reflection on how he leads.

Of course, a little self-reflection never hurt anyone.

Our budget reaction video was yet another moment in my political life where I was deemed “not a team player” by some. It prompted pundit handwringing about keeping the disagreement in caucus. And it was selectively edited such that it became the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

I even joined Power & Politics to respond to the silliness of the week.

At the same time, I received a lot of positive feedback from constituents, The Star’s Althia Raj argued that Poilievre could learn something in welcoming reasonable disagreement, and the Globe’s Robyn Urback made the case for more empowered MPs.

As I told Raj, not only did Prime Minister Carney welcome my specific budget response as constructive, but welcoming thoughtful disagreement more broadly is both good politics and policy.

Overwhelmingly, people locally want someone who’s going to stand up and speak their mind, show principles and a sense of honesty and integrity. And if you’re a strong leader who cares about ideas, you’ll only get better ideas and policies when you welcome that kind of challenge function.

And yes, some MPs and pundits will maintain a different view, still insisting that message discipline is everything and any disagreement should be behind closed doors.

Unsurprisingly, my view is different. As I’ve written before, so long as that disagreement is respectful, reasonable, and focused on ideas there is no reason to limit it to a private conversation with a minister or the confines of our caucus walls. As Liberal MPs, our responsibility is not only to raise issues forcefully in caucus, but to participate in and help shape a broader public debate.

Now, this may all seem like doubling down on a particular view of the role of an MP, what professor Alex Marland (in his recent book) describes as “a form of principled dissent that is increasingly rare in Canadian politics.”

But while I’m not going to change how I see the role of an MP, that doesn’t mean I always get every call right in that role. In reflecting on the last ten years, my least effective moments have been when I reacted with personal frustration and forgotten that central premise: that our disagreement should be focused on ideas.

Honesty and authenticity remain essential and we can’t shy away from sharing ideas simply because they might be taken out of context by bad faith political attacks. But we can avoid making it personal when our politics should be about ideas.

Share

Subscribe now

Here’s a rundown with what I see as the good, the bad, and the ugly in Budget 2025. In short, it meets the moment in part, on questions of sovereignty and spurring economic growth. At the same time, it fails to live up to its promise of generational investments.

You can read the full text of my budget response further below.

Upcoming events

First, I want to make sure you’re aware of a few upcoming events in our east end:

• Remembrance Day services: 11 am at the Kew Gardens cenotaph and at the East York Civic Centre, 1 pm at Branch 345 on Peard, and 2 pm at the Naval Club.

• Beaches Santa Clause Parade: Sunday November 16 at 1 pm, starting at Kingston and Victoria Park. Thanks to Centre 55 for making it happen.

• Uncommons Live with Tanya Talaga, award-winning author and journalist: Wednesday November 19 at 7 pm, at Beach United on Wineva. RSVP here.

Recent Uncommons episodes

Having passed legislation to ban the captivity of whales and dolphins, there remains the important question of what will happen to the animals still at Marineland. In this episode, I speak to a former Marineland trainer turned Whistleblower. And there are also other ideas among those who care about what should come next.

Catherine McKenna joined us for a live event last month to talk about her new book Run Like a Girl, climate (in)action, and the challenge of encouraging good people to join politics when there can be such a nastiness to it.

With a greater emphasis on public safety and border enforcement, we can’t forget about civil liberties and privacy rights. Kate Robertson is an expert at The Citizen Lab at U of T and Adam Sadinsky is with the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.

There’s a broad need for stronger digital governance to better address privacy, competition, and online harms. Taylor Owen is an expert at McGill and founding director of the Center for Media, Technology and Democracy.

If you have ideas for future guests or topics, let me know here: info@beynate.ca

Budget 2025: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

I’ve seen the budget described as investment-focused, as austerity, as reckless. Can it be all of those things at once? I won’t go through all 493 pages, I will spare you from that, but here’s a rundown of what I see as the good, the bad, and the ugly from Budget 2025.

Let’s start with the Good.

In the face of threats, the government is rightly prioritizing actions to secure our sovereignty. That includes support for businesses and workers affected by tariffs, a Buy Canada procurement policy, significant new infrastructure spending, and a huge commitment to the Canadian Forces.

There are also smart forward-looking ideas, like the sovereign fund for critical minerals, taking a lesson from Norway. And there are new dollars for innovation and to attract talent and research from the US, whose administration seems intent to run intelligence out of its country.

There are also useful actions to respond to rising youth unemployment, to create a Youth Climate Corps, to support PSWs, to protect the Canada Disability Benefit from taxation, and more.

Lots to like in many ways, and more generally, I welcome the focus on productivity, both to drive economic growth in the private sector and to get the most out of public services. Although, yes, care is required to ensure those efforts don’t go sideways.

Now to the Bad, or more fairly, where expectations were set at a level that we failed to meet, including on the question of generational investments.

First, stalled climate action. I don’t want to be too dismissive here, as the Canadian Climate Institute rightly highlighted the importance of a strengthened industrial carbon price. But apart from that promise, there was nothing new. Yes, we’re moving forward with strong methane rules and clean investment tax credits, and these are key pieces. But we’re also cutting tree planting, moving away from an emissions cap, winding down Greener Homes, and the budget offers no new money for climate action.

On housing, we’ve got the beginnings of Build Canada Homes, a tax cut for new homebuyers, and some dollars for housing enabling infrastructure that are unlikely to move the needle on development charges as much as we’d like. It falls short of the specific promises in our platform, and it unfortunately falls well short of the war-time effort that many of us thought we’d deliver.

The fiscal frame of “spend less to invest more” is actually one that I like. Operational books generally in balance, and capital deficit-spending more easily justified. But the budget adds $140 billion in new spending over 5 years - $90 billion net after savings - and only 36% of the net new spending is capital.

Related, there’s a lot of deficit-financing here to cover non-capital new spending. Honouring our initial 2% commitment to NATO made sense and a middle class tax cut was a platform promise, but these are far and away the two largest financial commitments, they are non-capital, and they should be paid for. And much needed OAS reform - the largest non-capital growing expenditure - still isn’t part of the conversation.

Now, the Ugly, and there isn’t a lot that falls in this category thankfully.

First, we see the budget commit to a new inefficient fossil fuel subsidy for LNG facilities. If there’s a business case for LNG, there’s a business case. We don’t need more public dollars chasing fossil fuels.

Worse, we see major cuts - over 2.5 billion over 4 years - to International Development Assistance. Real Keir Starmer energy that unfortunately caters to a prevailing albeit short-sighted current view among wealthy donor countries. A Pearsonian budget this is not.

Conclusion:

I know these aren’t easy times, and a budget process involves tough choices.

It’s also only a first budget - it can’t be expected to solve all problems. And the devil will be in the details of implementation in many cases - from infrastructure and housing, to innovation spending, to the industrial carbon price, to finding efficiencies in government in a manner that is fair and effective.

Overall, the budget meets the moment in part - on questions of sovereignty and with a focus on spurring economic growth at home. And it’s certainly not a budget that should throw us into an election at such an uncertain time.

But fairly, it does not live up to its promise of generational investments.

I joked with colleagues that it’s a pretty good Progressive Conservative budget. A joke! But hey, some conservatives agree.

Back then, we were fighting to pass Bill S-203 to end whale captivity in Canada. The law passed in 2019.

Now, the fight is to save the remaining 30 beluga whales and 500 other animals who remain trapped inside as the park has ceased to exist. At one point, recently, Marineland even threatened to euthanize the whales if governments didn’t provide emergency financial support.

Phil “The Walrus Whisperer” Demers was a trainer at Marineland turned whistleblower. He spent over a decade fighting Marineland in court after leaving his job there in 2012. After 13 years of legal battles and public advocacy, Marineland is finally on its last legs. But the fight to save the remaining animals isn’t over.

We discussed what happens next, short-term and long-term solutions, and why governments should lead on this instead of playing only a reactive role.

Chapters:

0:00 Standing Outside Marineland

6:21 Why China Might Actually Be Better

10:04 The Sanctuary Myth & Rescue Reality

14:08 30 Dead Whales

18:13 500 Forgotten Animals

19:30 13 Years of Legal Hell

24:37 Conclusion: The Divorce Analogy

Read further:

The Walrus and the Whistleblower - Documentary (CBC Gem) https://www.cbc.ca/documentarychannel/docs/the-walrus-and-the-whistleblower

7 years ago with Phil:

Transcript:

[00:00:00] Nate Erskine-Smith: All right, well, welcome to Uncommons. It’s an interesting episode because I’m joined by Phil Demers, who actually joined me at the Fox Theater many years ago, four years ago before we started the podcast actually. And it was just a, a local town hall event. We showed Blackfish. Right. And you were there to talk about your experience as a whistleblower at this horrible place behind us.

[00:00:19] Uh, it is interesting how far we’ve come, but also that the issue is so acute still. Uh, at the time we were talking about a bill that had to be passed. To end this kind of production and make sure we were protecting institutions in captivity. And you were adamant we had to get this bill passed. Hmm. Well we got the bill passed.

[00:00:37] Yeah. And yet we’ve got marineland, uh, beside us now, and it was grandfathered through in a way. And now we’ve got 30 beluga whales. We’ve got 500 other animals that are, that are in here. Mm-hmm. And all of which, all, all of whom need to be saved in, in, in one way or another. And, uh, it didn’t [00:01:00] have to come to this, really did it.

[00:01:02] Phil Demers: Well, we’ve, what, what has glossed over in much of, of your story is we’ve got a unwilling marine land in all of that. Yes. To evolve in any way, shape or form to be a, financially viable, uh, you know, for the security of their own future. Uh, but b, to adhere to any of the laws that we essentially passed, both provincially and, uh, and federally, although we did ban the breeding of the whales. Yep. Had we not banned the breeding of the whales. So, so currently there’s 30 belugas remaining. There’s four dolphins. Uh, we got two sea lions and a, and a host of, uh, land animals there. Had we not banned the breeding of belugas in 2019?

[00:01:41] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yep.

[00:01:42] Phil Demers: And albeit, the pregnant belugas of 2019 were grandfathered in.

[00:01:47] So there were some whale birth births there. On average, Marineland had five to seven belugas born per year. A couple would die. But there’s, you know, it’s conceivable to say that whereas [00:02:00] we have 30 right now in there, we would have had an excess of 50. Right. They would’ve kept probably 60.

[00:02:05] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yes, of course they would’ve kept the business model broke down with that law.

[00:02:08] But if they would’ve kept going otherwise, I mean, they’re, they were the bad actors. It’s the, it just wants to keep it active

[00:02:12] Phil Demers: At this point. It’s the only, it’s the only part of the law that they’ve, ad they’ve adhered to outside of importing, of course, which, which, uh, we ban. So it’s, it’s beyond their control, but.

[00:02:21] Um, you know, the breeding, they, they stopped, but had they not, we’d be talking about 50 to 60 whales in those tanks. It, it was, uh, you know, that’s something to really hang our hat on. That was a huge, uh, and super progressive, uh, lawsuit. But it does interestingly, take us to this place now where marine land is, you know, we essentially bankrupt.

[00:02:39] I, but we should stress owns a lot of land sitting on 700 acres of prime land meant to fuel or feed the, uh, the whole family trust. That’s, those are the heirs to it. You know, the operation is essentially sucking the money out of that. And so they’re looking for the, be it most lucrative or least expensive [00:03:00] way to get outta this thing.

[00:03:01] The sale to China was to be a profitable one. Uh, should be stressed that here in North America, none of the facilities wanna do business with marine land, right? A few years ago, five belugas were sent to Mystic Aquarium, three of which died within weeks and months. Uh, all having to do with, uh, preexisting conditions from Marineland.

[00:03:20] Nate Erskine-Smith: So, so pause, pause for a moment. ‘cause I think for those who are listening, they may not know you’ve got 30 belugas here. And there was, uh, a deal that Marine Land wanted a broker, at least with a facility in China. Ocean Kingdom time, long Ocean Kingdom. The decision of the federal minister was to say no animal welfare first.

[00:03:41] Uh, the primary purpose here is entertainment and, and we’re not convinced that they’re gonna be putting animal welfare first. Akin to the concern here, right? And, and why we don’t want this to contain to exist. But then the knock on question why is so acute right now is okay, but then what? Because marine land comes out as proper monsters. They say, well, if we don’t get emergency funding, we’re gonna, we’re gonna euthanize these whales,

[00:04:05] Phil Demers: which is a familiar theme with Marineland. In all of my years of dealing with them, it was always do this or else. Uh, again, I I, this morning alone, I watched a, a YouTube video. It was pretty.

[00:04:14] Pretty thorough history of marine land and in it is always the familiar threat of, well, if you don’t do this, I’m gonna, and it includes ship the park to the, to the US that includes, you know, a whole host of things. But that’s all, that’s marine land’s bluster when it, they don’t get their way right. But that said, the, the spirit of the law was to give, uh, to give final say to the minister so that they can ultimately consider the interests of the animals in it, which is a level of personhood, which is not.

[00:04:39] Which is atypical of most laws, especially of animals.

[00:04:40] Nate Erskine-Smith: Of, yeah. Yeah. An incredibly important step. Yeah.

[00:04:43] Phil Demers: Really, really, uh, progressive, you know, the spirit is to end captivity and, you know, and if you can stamp that out here, the, the idea is that it, it’s, uh, it’ll evolve to the rest of the world. And to be fair, uh, France adopted a very similar law recently passed, [00:05:00] uh, as well as, uh, new South Wales.

[00:05:02] The province in Australia adopted a law. It’s actually picking up around the world. So, so it’s, you know. I always stress when we, we look at, hey, we wanna end captivity, I always stress that’s a hundred year, that’s a hundred year fight. If all goes extremely well, you know, you’ve got burgeoning business in China, some in Russia, right?

[00:05:20] And we’re still ending sort of ours here, sort of choking that off here and that’s still expanding there. So, you know, we’ve, we’ve started something that’s gonna continue elsewhere, but you know, it’s gotta end here. It’s gotta end here first and ending.

[00:05:33] Nate Erskine-Smith: You can put a law on the books and, okay, so. Uh, on a going forward basis, you, you might avoid problems and, and avoid cruelty, but you still have 30 belugas here.

[00:05:44] And then the question becomes, well, what happens next? And, and I don’t wanna pretend that it’s just a marineland problem because you were just, uh, commenting on the fact that in Miami you got seaquarium that’s now shut down, that this is going to happen in other places too. Well of Mexico just banned it.

[00:05:59] Phil Demers: [00:06:00] And now all of their animals, now captive and legally captive can no longer perform in shows, can no longer do the swim with programs, et cetera, et cetera. So what happens is it becomes unviable to the owners. They lose their incentive, their incentive to have and use these animals. So what becomes well, unfortunately, in, in, in my estimation of what is available to us.

[00:06:20] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yeah.

[00:06:21] Phil Demers: You know, I’d always had hope that the much of these animals would go to the us, but it’s not gonna happen by way of a broker deal because again, none of ‘em wanna touch marine land for obvious reasons. Again, I, I mentioned the five whales that died at, uh, mystic.

[00:06:33] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yep.

[00:06:34] Phil Demers: They also know of the bad PR.

[00:06:36] Marine land’s been getting here for the decades. I mean, it’s been global news, you can’t ignore it. So SeaWorld also had to sue Marine Land a number of years ago to get an orca back. So SeaWorld doesn’t wanna touch marine land, so I don’t think. Anyone in the US wants to associate with buying animals off marine land or brokering any type of deal affiliations, et cetera, et cetera.

[00:06:54] But you know, I’d had this hope that this government, the provincial [00:07:00] Animal welfare society, especially with their policing powers and their ability to seize animals. You know, you have, you have essentially an opportunity to seize these animals and send them to these places, whereas those places might be receiving of them if they’re by way of a rescue versus of, of a broker deal.

[00:07:15] But again, this is me talking, theorizing, trying to figure this thing out.

[00:07:19] Nate Erskine-Smith: But let’s imagine that so, so the federal government. Has done its part in passing the law. I, I think the federal government could play a strong convening role here. And, and we’re starting to, I mean, in the wake of the minister turning down those permits, uh, to, uh, ocean Kingdom in China, I mean, uh, there is a role for the federal government to show some leadership here, but the actual law, the power that you’re talking about, the seizure power that exists, provincially, provincially, and you got Doug Ford over here talking about caring about dogs and okay.

[00:07:46] I, I like that. Okay. Yeah. Let’s, let’s have concern for, for all animals. Uh, but in this particular case, as soon as Marineland says, well, without emergency funding, we’ll euthanize them. They should be coming in here, seizing and using their authority. And, [00:08:00] and, and by the way, I mean even as part of, uh. Uh, I was reading, uh, as part of the settlement back in 2017 and driving the lawsuit.

[00:08:07] I mean, they agreed to monitoring. I mean, like, what are we even talking about here? Have animal welfare experts, animal science experts. Well, they’re in there. They’re in there. And why, and why can’t, and then why can’t Doug Ford sees these and say, now we can broker a deal with the animal welfare top of mind instead of marineland trying to extract top dollar.

[00:08:25] Phil Demers: So in the think tank, that’s become, since all of this and the Yeah. You know, sort of the, where does this go? I do have to say with limited options, China might be atop the very best options. And let me explain why if those animals were in a neutral place right now. Just let’s just, let’s just do this as like a, a sort of a thought, uh, uh, experiment if this animals were in a neutral space right now and yet to elect where they’re going.

[00:08:49] Yeah. Outside of the laws themselves, which is, you know, for the most part, it doesn’t exist in China. That I, that I know, I don’t wanna be quoted, but I don’t know what the animal, uh, oversight and, [00:09:00] and, and laws are like over here. But we know what they are here. Yeah. And we know that they exist here. But that said, they’re not really do serving so, so much.

[00:09:07] Uh, these days, if there was a choice between the facilities, it’d be hands down, you’d be sending them to, to China. It wouldn’t even be a question. There wouldn’t even be a question. These are brand new facilities that massive I had. A team member was there two weeks ago, a a, a former, uh, friend of mine that worked at marineland Works there.

[00:09:24] These are brand new massive, expansive facilities, the conditions of which are good and in fact maybe even be said to be great in the realm of captive facilities. I don’t want to be a defender of any facility. I don’t wanna say, Hey, that’s a good one, but what, on the scale of, you wouldn’t consider this for a moment, but because they’re in there, it becomes a little bit more complicated because it’s a question of, of removing them, but.

[00:09:48] Because of the limited space of where those animals have and being against the clock, they’re gonna have to go somewhere. And, uh, again, I stress the us I ideally, first and foremost, if it doesn’t work out [00:10:00] there, or if, you know, obviously they don’t have the space for 30, we know this already, some are gonna have to go to China

[00:10:04] Nate Erskine-Smith: So let, let’s walk, let’s, I, let’s take some time to walk, walk through those options. Because again, some people might say, well, why not return them to the wild? We’ve seen the consequences of that in, in, in some ways. You, uh, in, uh, there was a return to, uh, facility in, in, in Iceland at one point, I think in.

[00:10:24] So, well, that’s not, that’s not gonna work. And so there, there are just knock on challenges to, to that option.

[00:10:28] Phil Demers: There is no such thing as a perfect scenario. Also, that needs to be stressed because I think we’re, we’re, and we have been wasting a lot of time and thought on what would be perfect. Right? And it doesn’t exist.

[00:10:38] We have to scale that. Our expectations back to what is. And, and also stress that these animals are not very healthy. Now, I’m not gonna call them sick. Do we know? Do, is it Well on a, on a scale of the, they all, they’re all unwell by virtue of the conditions that have been here.

[00:10:58] Nate Erskine-Smith: But do, uh, is there that [00:11:00] openness with, uh, say.

[00:11:02] Uh, nonprofit or, or government experts and, and animal scientists who have access into properly not a chance.

[00:11:09] Phil Demers: And, and for that matter, anything that you would’ve access to look at would be changed,

[00:11:12] Nate Erskine-Smith: right?

[00:11:13] Phil Demers: So, so anyone that has a pen and, and putting it to paper has an interest in some people not knowing everything that’s going on.

[00:11:20] Nate Erskine-Smith: So Wildes out and then you’ve got, uh, wild is out and there have been proposals. For animal sanctuaries, there’s one in Nova Scotia that, that is, that is closest to realization. No. Uh, having spoke well, having spoken to the, the folks there, they said, well, the earliest is really next fall. And that’s an optimistic timeline.

[00:11:38] And, uh, and then you’re, they’re talking about a max of taking 10 of the whales, which today, in the environment that we exist, uh, doesn’t seem like the most plausible option when you want to protect these animals and, and put animal welfare in their animal interest first. Today. So, uh, the answer does, you know, first it’s just who’s the decision maker?

[00:11:59] And it can’t be marine land that is deciding what the deal on the table should be.

[00:12:03] Phil Demers: Well, clearly they’re not, they don’t make the decisions in the best, the best interest of the Yeah, exactly. Just to stress the point of the, of the whale sanctuary in Nova Scotia. I wish it more than anyone to be an operational place, but it’s not.

[00:12:13] I’ve gone, it can’t be, it’s not going to be. Its decades and hundreds of millions. And who’s foot in the bill? This is. A theory at best, and we got to move beyond theories or else what happens is people start hanging their hats out. People start talking, talking, talking. But the specific needs of those animals, and that’s outside of a perfect world, if we’re gonna have a sanctuary for animals, that has to be tried.

[00:12:36] In the best cases, not in one of duress and, and emergency, et cetera. It’s, this is an experiment for the most part, but those animals need to get a access. So we’re talking about a, uh, this monster sanctuary, but did they, in all of that, go through the what is required to actually care for these animals?

[00:12:53] You need a, a rising floor of a tank to be able to access sick animals so that you can give them, uh, medication, et cetera. You gotta be able to [00:13:00] access the animals, but an animal’s sick in the middle of your sanctuary. How are you gonna get them? And get them on a, on back to the shoreline, back into a tank where they can be monitored and then, you know, be given drugs and et cetera treated.

[00:13:12] And you’ve got the, the challenges that these animals already face is just outside of the scope of what an experiments at this point can offer. Right? These animals need facilities with people that know where to inject The animals know where to draw blood, know, you know, they got the book on the meds and they got access to those animals because that’s essentially what they need.

[00:13:32] When we’re talking about what the. What’s happening here? It’s essentially a rescue and it’s, it’s how it needs to be framed. It’s how I’ve always said it. And again, I I’m, I’m sounding like a broken record because I’ve been saying this for a decade, and if you read it, it’s, it, I don’t think I’ve done a single interview in the last decade where I said, if we don’t get those animals out, they’re gonna die.

[00:13:50] And, and, you know, it’s easy to say, well, of course they’re all going to die if they don’t move. But you know, if you watch. At the rate that I was saying it and the rate that the animal [00:14:00] started to die, we’re talking about a scale that’s grading up and speeding up and accelerating. So 30 animals have died there, essentially.

[00:14:08] I, I know it’s in the records as, as 2020 whales, but you know, if you add the three that died at Mystic as being marineland whales, right. If you add the, uh, while we know that in the, in 2019 there’s an affidavit that Marineland sworn of having 58 beluga whales. But we know that they would’ve pregnant ones.

[00:14:27] So five to seven more born there. Deduct those numbers. ‘cause they’re, they’re no longer in that inventory. Um, you’ve got 30 whales that have died essentially since about 2018. More than 50 since I quit, which will have been 60 or more if we hadn’t have passed the, the breeding bin. Nothing here is new.

[00:14:55] Marine land’s, bluster, et cetera, et cetera. You’re finally hearing their actual voice. You’re not seeing [00:15:00] the jingle on tv. You’re not seeing them talking about their, their animal welfare record and, and boasting it as the best in the world. You are seeing the, the people here have seen the marine land, the, the real marine land for the first time.

[00:15:09] Yeah.

[00:15:09] Nate Erskine-Smith: Big difference between everybody loves marine land and we’re gonna kill the whales if you don’t gonna sip on. Right. And this is a, this is a theme I’ve known for far too long because, you know, they don’t like me. But, uh, so just to close the, close this, uh, what’s on the table? It could be on the table.

[00:15:24] So. You’ve got, uh, sanctuaries talked about promising in the longer term, potentially

[00:15:30] Phil Demers: Well, if, and when that exists, the belugas hopefully are alive no matter where they are in the world to one day be received there.

[00:15:36] Nate Erskine-Smith: Right, right, right.

[00:15:38] Phil Demers: There’s so there if they’re alive, which we have to stress.

[00:15:39] Nate Erskine-Smith: And so, but in the immediate term, uh, you’re looking at, in an ideal world, when it’s not an ideal world, uh, you’ve got the premier acting, you got the provincial government that would seize. Control in order to make decisions in the best interest of the animals, you’ve got a situation where then you would survey what’s available across North America and [00:16:00] and elsewhere and say, we’re gonna proactively reach out and try to place these animals, putting animal welfare interests first.

[00:16:07] Phil Demers: And if I was negotiating those moves, I would say any re, any facility that receives these animals. Have to adhere to the spirit of the 2019 law. Right. Which is, and I think North America would, would be glad to adhere to that. They already generally do. I don’t think they’re breeding belugas. Uh, you know, most of these places have their own, despite it not being law, they’re sort of in-house no longer breeding.

[00:16:27] Definitely orcas that I know of, hopefully dolphins one day, but we’re, we’re not there yet. Uh, but that, yes, so with the caveat that, hey, if we can follow this, you know, it should be noted that. The spirit of of S two S 2 0 3, which is the law that passed, was that we’re, we’re gonna eradicate captivity in Canada.

[00:16:44] Sort of the idea was, you know, we’re gonna end this situations of captivity. And well, with the idea of that globally, this build had this, this effect. But that said, these animals who are already here, sadly, and with, with zero to minus zero option of ever being returned [00:17:00] to the wild, and I hate to be this voice.

[00:17:04] But if they go elsewhere, it may very well spare some live ones from being captured. And that is in the spirit of the law. So there is some salvation in this ending in Canada. The animals moving on to better places. Yep. And no more whales ever returning. And that practice being said and done, and we wash our hands of it.

[00:17:24] And that’s the biggest win that can be done. The noise of our bullhorns out here. Follow them to the next place. They’ll hear us out there. The fight continues where they go. That’s, that’s the reality. We got a hundred year problem ahead of us if everything goes well.

[00:17:43] Nate Erskine-Smith: And let’s talk about the other animals.

[00:17:45] I mean, you are known as the walrus whisperer. You didn’t start fighting. Just for the whales. I mean, you were fighting for the walrus smooth. She, and there are an estimated, what, 500 other [00:18:00] animals? It’s a lot of deer in there. Yeah. And, uh, and so is that also part of the picture here? I mean all obviously the public focus has overwhelmingly being on the whales, but, uh, what do we do with the other animals?

[00:18:13] Phil Demers: Well, that I know of, the Toronto Zoo expressed some interest. They were visiting the facility in early October. Those animals are likely destined for, uh, I mean, ideally, some sanctuaries that we know do exist. They, there are some, yeah. Um, the bison are already gone. No one seems to really know where there, there’s theories, but they’re gone.

[00:18:37] Uh, the bear, they that they’re gonna have a tough time because bears are, are solitary animals. They shouldn’t be confined to a tight space anyways. It’s already really, uh, antisocial and dangerous for them. It’s like a really unnatural environment. And so the coat is sort of stunted and no place is looking for a bunch of bears.

[00:18:53] So, you know, I’m, I won’t be surprised if a lot of them get euthanized very quietly, uh, and, you [00:19:00] know, the deer, 500 deer or so, what are you gonna do with that? So, I, I don’t know. Again, I, I, I leave this to, you know, I, I’m, you know, I’ve had my sort of, I, I got a decade plus of fighting against this place.

[00:19:14] That’s the extent of my knowledge of animal rights. And a lot of people come to me and say, Hey, this, this, and that. I’m just like, uh, talk to an organization that knows this stuff.

[00:19:23] Nate Erskine-Smith: Right. So they, I mean, the last time we spoke, uh, where we were, we had an audience in front of us.

[00:19:30] Yep. Uh, that’s, that, that you were still Yeah. Yeah. You were still deep in litigation where they were taking you on and trying to silence you. Mm-hmm. Uh, I mean, it’s interesting, you know, you’ve come to animal rights, but also, uh, you’ve. Really been, I think, uh, uh, you’ve, you’ve shown what it is to be a whistleblower in a, in a, in a publicized important way.

[00:19:53] And the, and the importance of whistle blowing protections despite the fact that they came after you with everything they got. And, uh, where [00:20:00] is all of that at now? I mean, you’ve, uh, uh, before we started recording, you’re talking about smooshy ended up where, so we

[00:20:07] Phil Demers: essentially, you know, so they sued me in 2000, early 2013 for plotting to steal smooshy the walrus.

[00:20:12] Yep. You terrible verse you and I could have done it, but I didn’t. And it had nothing to do with Marine le, but if anyone could have done it, but I wasn’t going to, you’d have to be crazy. And much as they tried to make me out to be crazy, uh, you know, I, there’s some percentage of crazy, but it’s not, not to the scope of what they had described in this lawsuit.

[00:20:31] So, you know, it was baseless. It, it did inspire antis, SLAPP legislation, uh, provincially, which was great. It didn’t help me, but it’s, you know, it, it’s there for the future. It’s important.

[00:20:40] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yeah.

[00:20:41] Phil Demers: And I also stress when you, when you say, you know, you did, you, you were a whistleblower and you know, we, we, we passed a, a host of different sort of whistleblower protection laws and everything.

[00:20:49] I, this wasn’t an animal rights issue. It, it, this was an animal rights issue when I left. It wasn’t animal rights. It was a, here’s what I’ve experienced and if something [00:21:00] doesn’t happen to this, this, this, these animals will, you know, their suffering will increase. Tell you, I know me suddenly being sued.

[00:21:07] Like these were, these were my friends, these animals and, and the employees. This is like, these were, you know, you’re gonna see your neighbor’s dog like that and you walk ‘em every day. You’re gonna have some concerns. Like, so this was that for me. It spills over into an animal rights realm, of course, because animal rights, people who had, you know, to their credit, been fighting this forever, suddenly, you know, I, I show up, but you know, to be fair, I’m not really an animal rights guy.

[00:21:31] She was your friend, smooshy. Yeah, of course. Right. That’s of course. But I’m just, when it comes, those you love mistreated when it comes to the history of, and what is. The box of animal rights activists, which I get very often. It’s like, no man, it’s just, it’s not, that’s not really what this was for me.

[00:21:49] What this was, was, let’s say, professional asshole versus semi-professional asshole. And it was a clash of all crazy proportions if you weren’t witness to it. I, I could only [00:22:00] imagine how much fun it was on the sidelines. I mean, I, I, I, I like to do it up for the people, put on a show, and we did. Uh, but that’s what this was, this was every corner.

[00:22:08] This was a fight. Tooth and nail in every aspect and element of every which way of my life outside of that, of the animals. It was a, it started as an animal thing and it’s taken on an entire other, uh, entire, entire other, uh, uh, level.

[00:22:24] Nate Erskine-Smith: But, but with that said and taken over your life, I mean, uh, well, the litigation and just the, I mean, all of that takes an incredible amount of toll and time

[00:22:33] Phil Demers: I would not have imagined when it happened that.

[00:22:36] That this was going to be like the most forever decision. I, I’ll be honest, and this is ambitious and in retrospect, super naive of me, but armed with the truth at the time, I thought in my mind, this is gonna take six months to resolve the, again, my objective was not, let’s shut marine land down six months.

[00:22:53] Well, what did I know about litigation, about anything? I just thought, well, listen, if the people know, well, not even the people. I thought if the, [00:23:00] if the authorities knew the, you know, if they knew, and here they were here, it was, they knew. And that was like the beginning of my journey. And here I am 13 years later and it all wholly and entirely reshaped into a, a pretty efficient marineland busting machine.

[00:23:19] Like it’s, it’s been a pleasure. But, uh, but yeah, there’s an element of almost, it’s a weird one and, but I, I almost chalk it up to what retired NHL players might. I feel like when they, when they’re so engaged in something that, that, that requires so much energy and, you know, like, and, and levels of execution and like, you know, you really gotta psych yourself up for some of the shit I’ve been through now I’m trying to take a breath from it all.

[00:23:48] Then we got this thing going on still. You’re like, ay, ay. So no, it turned into, i, I guess what will be a decade long, uh, life identifier. It’s become. [00:24:00] You know, I’m, I’m kind of married to this place now.

[00:24:02] Nate Erskine-Smith: Right, exactly. And, and, and you live through personal challenges and then coming after you legally and then all of that.

[00:24:11] But you, you, I mean, you, we stand outside this place today and it’s, you’re gonna out survive it. You know? This is on his last legs. And it’s, uh, in a, in large measure the law we passed in large measure the public outcry and large measure because you were able to shine a light on it and, and called attention is something that was wrong.

[00:24:32] Phil Demers: It kind of looks like a divorce and now we want the kids

[00:24:37] hard to, hard to find a home for the kids. That’s the problem. Well. But here we are. Uh, but again, exactly, I, I, I do stress. I think that all of this will be revisited by the feds because there is gonna have to be some extra consideration give to the immediate conditions. Yes. As just this, the extent of, of how awful all of this is.

[00:24:54] Should other things be considered first? Yes, I think so too. I don’t think marine land should stand on, uh. [00:25:00] Hey, do what we say or, or give us money and this and that

[00:25:03] Nate Erskine-Smith: No. They’ve, they’ve found their way to profit. It’s a, they should care for the animals.

[00:25:07] Phil Demers: It’s a, it’s a breath of fresh air to not to see nobody caving because, uh, Marineland has known that for too long.

[00:25:12] Yeah. Uh, but, you know, so there, there should be a, a very diligent work done as into what can be done for these animals. But, you know, given the fact that we are super limited, I think there’s gonna have to be some reconsideration. To the Chinese facilities. It just is. It would be great if they came with the caveat of don’t breed them and don’t do this.

[00:25:32] Maybe that could be negotiated. I don’t know.

[00:25:35] Nate Erskine-Smith: But I think, uh, and I think it’s useful to close here. I mean, in the end, in the same way that, uh, you’ve got individuals including yourself who have shown leadership. I mean, at this moment in time, we need governments not to react, not to say, well, it’s our job to review a permit, or it’s our job to review.

[00:25:51] If there’s a complaint or there’s an investigation to say, no, no, no. We are gonna proactively find a home for these animals. We’re gonna proactively pull the stakeholders together, [00:26:00] together, pull the organizations together across North America and elsewhere. Say it’s not a perfect world. So what exists here?

[00:26:06] What what is possible, and to, and to show some leadership and, and to not just react and to try to solve the problem in a proactive way and not leave it. To these guys who are not intending to solve the problem at all and are didn’t want the law passed in the first place.

[00:26:20] Phil Demers: They’ve proven themselves as being irresponsible caretakers.

[00:26:24] It’s time for other people to have a hand in what becomes, and uh, you know, they may not like it, but they’ve set the stage for exactly that. So now other people will have a say.

[00:26:33] Nate Erskine-Smith: Appreciate it

[00:26:34] Phil Demers: Anytime