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

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”.

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.

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

Catherine served as Environment and Climate Change Minister from 2015-2019 and Infrastructure Minister from 2019-2021. She’s now the founder and CEO of Climate and Nature Solutions and chairs a UN expert group advising the Secretary General on net zero commitments.

Read further:

Run Like A Girl - Catherine McKenna (2025)

https://www.catherinemckenna.ca

Chapters:

00:00 Introduction & Run Like A Girl Book

05:32 Lessons from Politics: Hard Work & Balance

08:52 Climate Barbie & Political Harassment

15:26 Running for Office in Ottawa Centre

23:17 Being a Team Player vs. Speaking Truth

32:05 Leaving Politics

40:30 Climate Policy & the Oil & Gas “Grand Bargain”

48:24 Supporting Others in Politics

52:56 Carbon Pricing Communication Failures

59:13 Gender Balance, Feminism & Cabinet

01:04:04 Final Thoughts & Closing

Transcript:

Nate Erskine-Smith

00:02 - 00:38

Well, thank you everyone for joining. This is a live recording of the Uncommon’s podcast, and I’m lucky to be joined by Catherine McKenna, who has a very impressive CV. You will know her as the former Environment Minister. She is also the founder and CEO of Climate and Nature Solutions, a consultancy focused on all things environment and nature protection. And you may or may not know, but she’s also the chair of a UN expert group that gives advice to the Secretary General on net zero solutions. So thank you for coming to Beaches East York.

Catherine McKenna

00:38 - 00:56

It’s great to be here. Hello, everyone. And special shout out to the guy who came from, all the way from Bowmanville. That’s awesome. Anyone from Hamilton, that’s where I’m originally found. All right. Nice, we got a shout out for Hamilton. Woo-hoo.

Nate Erskine-Smith

00:57 - 01:19

So I ran down a few things you’ve accomplished over the years, but you are also the author of Run Like a Girl. I was at, you mentioned a book launch last night here in Toronto, but I attended your book launch in Ottawa. And you can all pick up a book on the way out. But who did you write this book for?

Catherine McKenna

01:21 - 02:58

So, I mean, this book has been a long time in the making. It’s probably been five years. It was a bit of a COVID project. And you’ll see, it’s good, I’ve got my prop here, my book. But you’ll see it’s not a normal kind of book. So it has a lot of images of objects and of, you know, pictures, pictures of me getting ready to go to the state visit dinner that was hosted by Obama while I’m trying to finalize the text on climate. So it’s got like random things in it, but it’s intended for a much broader audience. It’s really intended to inspire women and girls and young people. And I think that’s particularly important right now because I work on climate and I think it’s really hard. Do people here care about climate? Yes, I imagine here you care about climate. I mean, I actually think most Canadians do because they understand the wildfires and they see the smoke and people are being evacuated from communities and you can’t get insurance if you’re in a flood zone. But I do think in particular we need to bolster spirits. But also it’s a book, it’s really about how to make change. It’s not like people think it’s like a political memoir. So I think, you know, fancy people in politics will look at the end of the book to see if their name is there and maybe be disappointed if it isn’t. But it’s not really that kind of book. It’s like I was a kid from Hamilton. I didn’t want to be a politician. That wasn’t my dream when I grew up. I wanted to go to the Olympics for swimming. And spoiler alert, I did not make the Olympic team, but I went to Olympic trials.

Nate Erskine-Smith

02:59 - 02:59

You’re close.

Catherine McKenna

03:00 - 04:05

I was, well, closest, closest, but, but it wasn’t, I mean, you know, life is a journey and that wasn’t, it wasn’t sad that I didn’t make it, but I think it’s just to hopefully for people to think I can make change too. Like I didn’t come as a fully formed politician that was, you know, destined to be minister for the environment and climate change. So in particular for women and young people who are trying to figure out how to make change, I think it’s a little bit my story. I just tried to figure it out. And one day I decided the best way to make change was to go into politics and get rid of Stephen Harper. That was my goal. He was my inspiration, yes, because we needed a new government. And yeah, so I really, really, really am trying to reach a much broader audience because I think we often are politicians talking to a very narrow group of people, often very partisan. And that’s not my deal. My deal is we need everyone to be making change in their own way. And I want people who are feeling like maybe it’s a bit hard working on climate or in politics or on democracy or human rights that you too can make change.

Nate Erskine-Smith

04:06 - 05:17

And you were holding it up. I mean, it’s a bit of a scrapbook. You’ve described it. And it’s also honest. I mean, there was some media coverage of it that was sort of saying, oh, you said this about Trudeau, calling him a loofer. And there’s a certain honesty about I’ve lived in politics and I’m going to call it like it is. But what I find most interesting is not the sort of the gotcha coverage after the fact. It’s when you go to write something, you said you’re not a writer at the launch that I saw in Ottawa, but you obviously sat down and were trying to figure out what are the lessons learned. You’ve had successes, you’ve had failures, and you’re trying to impart these lessons learned. You mentioned you sort of were going down that road a little bit of what you wanted to impart to people, but you’ve had six years in politics at the upper echelon of decision-making on a really important file. I want to get to some of the failures because we’re living through some of them right now, I think. Not of your doing, of conservative doing, unfortunately. But what would you say are the lessons learned that you, you know, as you’re crystallizing the moments you’ve lived through, what are those lessons?

Catherine McKenna

05:19 - 07:12

It’s funny because the lessons I learned actually are from swimming in a way that actually you got to do the work. That, you know, you set a long-term goal and, you know, whatever that goal is, whatever you hope to make change on. And then you get up and you do the work. And then you get up the next morning and you do the work again. And sometimes things won’t go your way. But you still get up the next morning. And I think it’s important because, like, you know, look, I will talk, I’m sure, about carbon pricing. We lost the consumer carbon price. There’s a chapter. It’s called Hard Things Are Hard. I’m also, like, really into slogans. I used to be the captain of the U of T swim team. So I feel like my whole life is like a Nike ad or something. Hard things are hard. We can do it. But yeah, I mean, I think that the change is incremental. And sometimes in life, you’re going to have hard times. But the other thing I want people to take from it is that, you know, sometimes you can just go dancing with your friends, right? Or you can call up your book club. I would sometimes have hard days in politics. And I was like, oh, gosh, that was like, what? happened. So I’d send an email, it would say to my book club. So if you have book clubs, book clubs are a good thing. Even if you don’t always read the book, that would be me. But I would be SOS, come to my house. And I’d be like, all I have is like chips and wine, but I just need to hang out with regular people. And I think that’s also important. Like, you know, life is life. Like, you know, you got to do the work if you’re really trying to make change. But some days are going to be harder and sometimes you’re just trying to hang in there and I had you know I had I have three kids one of them they’re older now one of them is actually manning the the booth selling the books but you know when you’re a mom too like you know sometimes you’re going to focus on that so I don’t know I think my my lessons are I I’m too gen x to be like you’ve got to do this and I

Nate Erskine-Smith

07:12 - 07:16

learned this and I’m amazing no that’s not writing a graduation speech I’m not I’m not writing a

Catherine McKenna

07:16 - 08:43

graduation speech and I don’t know that you know the particular path I took is what anyone else is going to do I was going to I went to Indonesia to do a documentary about Komodo dragons because my roommate asked me to so that led me to go back to Indonesia which led me to work for UN peacekeeping and peacekeeping mission in East Timor but I think it’s also like take risks if you’re a young person Like, don’t, people will tell you all the time how you should do things. And I, you know, often, you know, doubted, should I do this, or I didn’t have enough confidence. And I think that’s often, women often feel like that, I’ll say. And, you know, at the end, sometimes you are right. And it’s okay if your parents don’t like exactly what you’re doing. Or, you know, people say you should stay in corporate law, which I hated. Or, you know, so I don’t know if there’s so many lessons as a bit as, you know, one, you got to do the work to, you know, listen to what you really want to do. That doesn’t mean every day you’re going to get to do what you want to do. But, you know, if you’re really passionate about working human rights, work on human rights, like figure out a way to do it and then also have some fun. Like life can feel really heavy. And I felt that during COVID. I think sometimes now after, you know, looking at, you know, social media and what Donald Trump has done or threatened to do, it can feel hard. So I think it’s also OK to to just check out and have fun.

Nate Erskine-Smith

08:44 - 08:46

I like it. Well, there aren’t lessons, but here are three important lessons.

Catherine McKenna

08:48 - 08:50

I am a politician. It’s good. Well, it’s OK.

Nate Erskine-Smith

08:50 - 09:57

You mentioned a few times really writing this book in a way to young people and specifically to young women to encourage them to to make a difference and to get involved. and yet politics, we were both drawn to politics, I think for similar reasons, and it is one of the most important ways to make a difference, and I wanna get to you. There are other ways to make a difference, of course, but there’s a bit of a tension, I think, in what you’re writing, because you’re writing this encouragement to make a difference, and politics is so important, and on the flip side, you document all sorts of different ways that politics has been truly awful, the absurdity of, I knew the ridiculous idiocy of Climate Barbie, but I didn’t actually appreciate that you had these bizarre men coming to your house to take selfies in front of your house. That’s just a next-level awfulness. And so how do you, when you’re talking to young people, to encourage them on the one hand, but also you don’t want to shield them from the awfulness, and we all want to make politics a more civil, better place, but these are problematic tensions.

Catherine McKenna

09:58 - 10:42

Yeah, I mean, look, I thought a lot about what I wanted to say about like the hate and abuse that I got, but also my staff got. I mean, they come to my office and start screaming. And of course, everything’s videotaped. So and, you know, there were incidents at my house. And so I first of all, I believe in being honest. Like, I just believe in it. I believe that people deserve the truth. But also in this case, I wasn’t looking for sympathy. I’m out of politics. I don’t need sympathy, but we need change. And so I think the only way, one of the only ways we get changed, and you know how hard it is to get policy, like online harm legislation. We still have not gotten online harm. In a way, it’s kind of unfathomable that we can’t just get it. Like, we know that online.

Nate Erskine-Smith

10:42 - 10:43

C5 happened real quick, though. Don’t worry.

Catherine McKenna

10:43 - 10:43

Okay.

Catherine McKenna

10:44 - 10:48

Well, luckily, I’m not in politics anymore. I’m not in politics anymore.

Catherine McKenna

10:48 - 11:48

I just do my thing. But I do think that by documenting this, I’m hoping that people will read it and say, well, wait a minute, that’s not OK, because that’s how we will get the support to get legislation to make sure that we hold social media platforms accountable. that’s the way that we will be able to get people to say to politicians, you cannot go and do personal attacks and then go spread them online to get to get clicks. And that we can get proper protection for politicians, which I don’t love, but actually we need that sometimes. So I think that it is important to say that I don’t want people to feel down because I have multiple purposes in the book. Like people are talking about this. And I’ve had a number of my female politician friends saying thank you for stepping up because now people are taking it more seriously because they’re like wow that was bad like climate barbie sounds kind of quaint now but climate barbie led to a whole bunch of things that led to a bunch of things that led to rcmp finally being outside my house which

Nate Erskine-Smith

11:49 - 12:05

wasn’t amazing but at least i felt safe but it’s one thing to say quaint but it normalizes a misogyny that is that is awful right yeah so it’s and it might it might not be a direct threat it might not be taking a selfie outside of your home which is an implicit threat but it is it’s normalizing an awfulness in our politics.

Catherine McKenna

12:06 - 12:10

Yeah, I mean, it is. From other politicians. It was a former minister in Harper’s Cabinet

Nate Erskine-Smith

12:10 - 12:11

who started it, right?

Catherine McKenna

12:11 - 12:21

It was, or at least amplified it. We’ll go there, like the climate Barbie. Okay, so climate Barbie is, it’s quite weird because now my kids are like, well, Barbie went to the moon.

Catherine McKenna

12:21 - 12:22

Barbie was an asteroid.

Catherine McKenna

12:23 - 14:57

Quinn is here, like, you know, Barbies are, like, you know, not that big a deal. The thing is, if you are my age, if anyone here is 50 or over, I think you’re pretty clear when someone who’s 50 or over calls you climate barbie there’s a lot going on in that and i said nothing like i was actually baptized climate barbie very early on um by a rage farming alt-right outlet they are not media and that’s what they do this is their game they go after progressives to make money actually um for clickbait but i didn’t do anything for so long um and i guess my team was lovely and i had a lot of really awesome women and they’re like just don’t do it because you’ll they’ll know that you know they can go after you um and so i’m at the un actually it’s like seven years ago i was just at the un last week yes i heard donald trump but i was there to work on climate but it was the same thing it was the end of a really long day i was going back to the hotel i was actually in the hotel lobby some crabby hotel with my team and i look at my phone i was like why is my twitter exploded what has happened and then i see the climate barbie tweet and i said to my team. I said, okay, I’m sorry. I’m just going to have to deal with this situation. And they knew, like, I’m, when I say I’m dealing with it, I’m going to deal with it. And so I, I, you know, I’m a lawyer by training. So I, you know, try, I am Irish. I’ve got the hot headed side and then I’ve got the lawyer rational side. So I was like, okay, what am I going to say? There’s going to call it out, but in a way that isn’t falling into the trap of just calling names. So I said, it’s in this book. I’m not going to get exactly right, but it was something like, would you use that kind of language with your girlfriend, wife, mother? You’re not chasing women out of politics. Your sexism is going to chase women, whatever it was. And what was so interesting about this, and this is why in this book, I do the same thing, is that it went viral. And I wasn’t trying to do this. I was trying to shame him so he would stop. And people like would stop me in the streets. And it would be, you know, conservative men, they’d be like, I’m a conservative, I’m ashamed. This is not acceptable. And I really appreciate this. This is how you stand up to bullies. And I thought, oh, this is important that we do this every once in a while, because often as a woman, you’re kind of supposed to take it because otherwise you look a bit weak. And I realized actually the power is other people saying that this is not okay. So I actually appreciate that you call it out. You will see in my book. I will just let me see if I can find it. I also, like, kind of bizarrely, a bunch of, like, men would send me Barbies with really mean notes.

Catherine McKenna

14:57 - 15:04

So they’d go to a store, buy a Barbie, then go and find the address of my constituency office or my ministerial office,

Catherine McKenna

15:05 - 15:32

and then send it with a note that they personally addressed. Like, that’s kind of weird. So anyway, the funny thing is, I guess, is it funny? I don’t know. It’s just it. There’s a Barbie. This is actually a picture of one of the Barbies that was sent. We would normally put our Barbies in the Christmas toy drive. I guess we figured might as well give it to, you know, kids that would like the Barbie. But I found one when I was cleaning up my office. And I was like, oh, I’m going to just keep that. I’m going to like, you know, just keep that. So you can...

Nate Erskine-Smith

15:32 - 15:33

No one’s sending you Barbies.

Catherine McKenna

15:33 - 15:38

I have a book of just... No one’s sending you Barbies. Glorious things that people have sent, like written notes that people have sent over the years

Nate Erskine-Smith

15:38 - 16:33

where you’re just like, this is the most bizarre thing to have received. And, you know, in 10 years in politics, the scrapbook grows. So speaking of, you mentioned Harper being an inspiration of sorts. You also have said, I’m just a regular person who wanted to make a change. And politics, you also said, I didn’t want to be a politician. I want to be an Olympian. But you also document Sheila Copps as someone you looked up to. You mentioned your dad being very political. And Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the person in politics who was a bit of an inspiration for your dad and family. And so Harper, obviously, a motivating force for me as well in the lead up to 2015. I think there’s a whole class of us in the lead up to 2015 that wanted a different kind of politics. How did you get on the ballot, though? It was you were a lawyer and you thought, no, this is this particular moment. Were people tapping on the shoulder and saying, come on, Catherine, now’s the time?

Catherine McKenna

16:37 - 18:52

Yeah, I mean, it’s kind of a funny story because women often have to be asked multiple times. The thing is, I’d already been asked before 2015. And it’s kind of funny because I saw my friend last night who’s part of the story. So when Stéphane Dion was running, I went back to Hamilton. So that’s where my parents, my dad passed away. But that’s where my parents lived. And I was walking up my street. And the head of the riding association was like, would you like to run? So the election, I think, was already called. I’m pregnant. I live in Ottawa. And so I was like, oh, maybe I should think about that. So I asked my friend. He’s like, well, I guess you won’t have to knock on doors. So that was my first time getting asked. I did not run then. But I ran a charity that did human rights, rule of law, and good governance. I’d started this charity after having lived abroad with a friend. And, I mean, it was like banging your head on a wall in the pre-Harper times. We were trying to support human rights. We were working with indigenous youth in Canada focused on reconciliation. I cared about climate change. I was like, all of these things I’m trying to do outside of the system are a complete and utter waste of time. So I thought, OK, we’ve got to get rid of the government. So that’s my theory of change now. My theory of change was create this charitable organization, and it’s just not getting the impact. So I decided I was going to run, but I was in Ottawa Centre. So I don’t know if many of you know Ottawa Centre. It’s actually where Parliament’s located, so it’s great. It’s a bike ride to work. But it was Paul Dewar, who was a really beloved NDP member of parliament. His mother had been mayor. And I really like Paul, too. But the reality is you’ve got to win, right? So you’ve got to win enough seats so you can form government. So I ran for two years. And it’s interesting because I just decided to run. I canvassed, and so maybe the woman, this will maybe resonate a little bit. So I was like, okay, I really want to run, but I kind of need permission. I don’t know why I thought I needed permission, but I did. So I went the rounds. And I like the Liberal Party, but it can be like an inside club. And I wasn’t from Ottawa Centre. And so I think people were like a bit perplexed. They’re like, we’re kind of keeping this riding for a star candidate. And I was like, okay, what the heck? Who’s a star?

Catherine McKenna

18:52 - 18:53

Like, what’s a star candidate?

Catherine McKenna

18:53 - 19:07

Is that like a male lawyer who gives a lot of money to the Liberal Party? Like, I was like, seriously, what is a star candidate? Yeah, that’s what it is. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. I don’t know. You are a male. I ran when I was 29 and had no money.

Nate Erskine-Smith

19:07 - 19:09

That was a setup. That was a setup.

Catherine McKenna

19:09 - 20:15

No, it wasn’t. Okay. Anyway, we’ll just blow by that one. You’re a little bit unusual. Okay. So we’ll take you out of that. But anyway, it’s quite funny because then I was like, and then people were like, actually, you should just get the party to go get you another riding that’s winnable. So I was like, okay, on the one hand, you need a star candidate here for this great riding that, but on the flip side, no one can win. So I was like, okay, I don’t really know. So I looked at, like, you know, I’m not a fool. I was a competitive swimmer. I want to win. So I looked at the numbers, and I realized, like, you know, if Justin Trudeau was then leader, if we did super well, we were in third place, and it was two years out. But if I worked really hard and we did super well, there was a shot at winning. So I just decided I’m going to run. And I got the chapters called The New Girls Club. And then I had men supporting me. It was fine. But I literally had a lot of women who were just like, I don’t know if you can win. This is kind of bonkers. You’re doing it. But I’m going to step up and give you some money. I’m going to go help sell nominations. And at that point, you had to sell them. And no one wanted to buy a nomination.

Catherine McKenna

20:15 - 20:20

People are like, I don’t want to be a party. I want to join a party, especially a liberal party.

Catherine McKenna

20:22 - 21:04

And so those of you who are thinking about politics, how do you win a nomination? I was trying to sell memberships and people weren’t buying them. I was like, oh gosh, every night I’m going out, I’ve got these kids and I’m going out and talking to people. And I’m spending two hours and getting one or two nominations, people signing up. So I actually realized it was my kids’ friends’ mothers whose names I didn’t know. I just knew their kids. And I think they were like, wow, we don’t really know anyone that would go into politics. But we actually think you’d be pretty good. And your kids would kind of nice. And I don’t know. I’ll just sign up. I don’t care.

Catherine McKenna

21:04 - 21:06

And so it was actually really heartening.

Catherine McKenna

21:07 - 23:15

And I will say, like, for all the bad of politics, and there is some bad for sure. And you will read about it in my book. That campaign for two years, like, we knocked on more than 100,000 doors. We had the highest voter turnout in the country. We had, I had my own rules. Like, I was like, we’re going to do this in the way that I believe in. and you know some like some of it was following the bomb a snowflake model like you know we wanted to run hard but we also engaged kids and it wasn’t like we had just like a kid area we would have kid canvases and I just felt important to me and we went to low income parts of the riding where some people said they’re not going to vote or we went to university we went to university residents they’re like they’re not going to vote actually they turned out in strong numbers and I got a ton of volunteers who, and people that knew my name, because like someone who knows someone who knows someone. So it was great. But I will say like, that’s the one thing about getting involved in politics. You may be here. I met a couple of you who said younger people who said you’d like to run. You can do it. You don’t need permission. You’re gonna have to hustle. You’re gonna have to build your team. But this isn’t an in club. And I do sometimes worry that politics feels like an in club and it shouldn’t be that like we need everyone who wants to step up and get involved in however they want to get involved to be able to do that and so that’s my lesson read that chapter hopefully you feel quite inspired and when I knocked on the last door I didn’t know if I would win or not but I knew we’d left it all on the ice and I felt great like I was like we also have another woman who has run here it’s Kelly is it Kelly who’s run a couple times you know what it’s like like you build a team. Now you were in a super hard riding. I do hope you run again. But it, it’s just this feeling of doing something that matters and bringing people together in a common cause that is bigger than yourself. And it’s about believing you can improve lives and you can tackle climate change. So that was a great I hope you read it and feel like you can do it too, if you want to run because you can, I will say you got to work hard. That is one of the most important thing doors got

Nate Erskine-Smith

23:15 - 23:36

got a knock on doors well so i want to get back to though you were emphasizing one this idea of an insider culture but at the same time the need to have a really local presence and it was people who who were on the ground in the community who who ultimately helped get you over the finish line the nomination i mean here you know sandy’s working the bar i went to high school with his kids and

Catherine McKenna

23:36 - 23:41

he signed up in the nomination you got sandy and he got us a beer and and you got claire and fred

Nate Erskine-Smith

23:41 - 24:44

here who again i went i went to high school with their kids and they signed up in the nomination probably for joining the Liberal Party for the first time. And you go down the list, and there are people who are behind you locally. And in part, I think when you get started, now you go, okay, well, I know this person in the party, I know that person in the party, I’ve lived in the party for 12, 13 years. But I was 29 when I was starting to run the nomination. No one was tapping me on the shoulder and going, like, you’re a star candidate, whatever that means, as you say. And so it does require that desire to say, no one has to ask me. I’m going to go do it and I’m going to build my own local team. But it also gets, I think, at another tension of who is your team? Because you say at one point, sometimes you need to be on the outside so you can push the inside to do more. And so you’re on the outside now and you can be probably more honest in your assessment of things and more critical. I have tried, though, at times over the 10 years to play that same role in caucus.

Catherine McKenna

24:46 - 24:49

What? Nate? I thought you were always all in on everything. Yeah, all in on everything.

Nate Erskine-Smith

24:50 - 25:32

But it does get to this idea of team. It’s like, be a team player, be a team player, be a team player. And the answer back is, well, who’s your team? And yeah, sure, of course the team is the Liberal caucus, but the team is also people in Beaches of East York, the people who are knocking doors with the nomination, people who are knocking doors in the election. And they also want accountability. They also want the party and the government to be the best version of itself. And so do you find you were when you think back at the six years that you were in. I mean, cabinet’s a different level of solidarity, obviously. But do you think it’s possible to navigate that, you know, critical accountability role inside the tent? Or do you think it’s essential as you are now to be outside to play that, you know, that that truth function?

Catherine McKenna

25:34 - 25:46

I mean, that’s a that’s a really hard question because I mean, I’m a team person. I just sound like I was captain of a swim team. But that doesn’t team. So it’s different. Like, I’ll just have to distinguish like being in cabinet.

Catherine McKenna

25:47 - 25:52

Like you do have cabinet solidarity. But in cabinet, let me tell you, like I spoke up.

Catherine McKenna

25:52 - 26:50

I like everyone didn’t didn’t always like it, but I felt like I had an obligation to just say things. And that was as much to myself as it was to anyone else. But then once you do that, you know, there is this view that then you stand with the team or else you leave cabinet. That is hard. That is hard. But it’s probably less hard than being in caucus where you feel like you might have less influence on the issues. The one time I felt this was actually when I was out, but it was hard to do. And this is when I spoke up and I said I felt it was time for Justin Trudeau to step down, like to like have a leadership race to allow someone new to come in. And it was funny because I got like all these texts like and I was out. Right. So you think not such a big deal. But I got texts from people and like saying, who do you think you are? Like, you know, we’re a liberal team. And I was like, OK, this is weird because I get team, but team doesn’t equal cult.

Nate Erskine-Smith

26:52 - 26:52

Welcome to my world.

Catherine McKenna

26:56 - 28:06

Nate and me, are we exactly the same? Probably not exactly the same, but no, no. but I think it’s true because I was like, well, wait a minute. We also owe it to, in that case, it was also like, we got to win. Are we going to just go? Is this the way it’s going? We’re just going to allow us to go down even though it’s clear that the wheels have come off the cart. And that was hard. But I thought about it, and I was just so worried about the other option. Like Pierre Paulyab, that was too much. And I was like, okay, if I can make a bit of a difference, I will take a hit. It’s fine. But I like, look, there is it is really hard to navigate that. And I mean, obviously, if it’s super chaotic and no one’s supporting things, I mean, the government will fall and you can’t get agendas through. There does have to be some leeway to say things like that is important. It’s that line and the tension. And I know you’ve you’ve felt it. And, you know, we haven’t always been on the same side of those things, probably. But that is hard. That is hard. And I don’t know that there’s any easy answer to that because you can’t always be in opposition because you can’t govern.

Catherine McKenna

28:07 - 28:09

So I would actually put that to you, Nate.

Catherine McKenna

28:10 - 28:38

No, but I think it’s an interesting question for you because, as I said, I was in cabinet, so it was a little bit easier. I mean, you literally have to vote with the government. But for you, there were times that you decided to, you know, be your own voice and not necessarily, well, not when I say not necessarily, not support, you know, the government’s position. like how did you make decisions on that like how do you decide this is the moment i’m going to do that sometimes i care but i don’t care as much or maybe i’ve done it you know a few times and i

Nate Erskine-Smith

28:38 - 31:51

should stay together like how did you how do you make that choice so i i think that uh trudeau and running for his leadership one thing that drew me to him actually he was calling for generational renewal at the time which which appealed to me but he was also talking about doing politics differently and whether that promise was entirely realized or not you know you lived around the cabinet table you you know more than me in some ways but I would say the promise of freer votes was incredibly appealing to me as the kind of politics that I that I want to see because I do think you you want that grassroots politics you want people to be it sounds trite now but that idea of being voices for the community in Ottawa not the other way around but there is a there’s a truth to that. And so how do you get there and also maintain unity? And I think they navigated that quite well when in the leadership and then it became part of our platform in 2015, he articulated this idea of, well, we’re going to have whipped votes on platform promises. Do I agree with everything in the platform? No, but I’ll bite my tongue where I disagree and I’ll certainly vote with the government. Two, on charter rights and human rights issues. And then three, and this is more fraught but on confidence matters more fraught i say because there were moments where they made certain things confidence matters that i didn’t think they should have but you know that was that was the deal and that was the deal that you know you make with constituents it’s the deal that you make with with members of the liberal party beyond that i think it’s more about how you go about disagreeing and then it’s making sure that you’ve given notice making sure that you’ve explained your reasons i i’ve i’ve uh i’ve joked i’ve been on many different whips couches but uh andy leslie i thought was the best whip in part because he would say why are you doing this and you’d run through the reasons he goes well have you have you engaged with them like do they know yeah well have they tried to convince you otherwise yeah and but here are the reasons okay well sounds like you thought about it kid get in my office and it was a there was a you could tell why he was an effective general because he he built respect as between you uh whereas you know the other approach is you have to vote with us. But that’s not the deal, and here’s why. And it’s a less effective approach from a whip. But I would say how you, you know, I’ve used the example of electoral reform. I wasn’t going and doing media saying Justin Trudeau is an awful person for breaking this promise, and, you know, he’s, this is the most cynical thing he could have possibly have done, and what a bait and switch. I wasn’t burning bridges and making this personal. I was saying, you know, he doesn’t think a referendum is a good idea. Here’s why I think there’s a better forward and here’s why I think we here’s a way of us maintaining that promise and here’s why I don’t think we should have broken the promise and you know different people in the liberal party of different views I think the way we go about disagreeing and creating space for reasonable disagreement within the party outside the party but especially within the party really matters and then sometimes you just have to say there’s an old Kurt Vonnegut line it’s we are who we pretend to be so be careful who you pretend to be and I think it’s double each room politics and so you know you want to wake up after politics and think I did the thing I was supposed to do when I was there. And sometimes that means being a good team player, and other times it means standing up and saying what you think. Okay, but back to questions for you.

Catherine McKenna

31:52 - 31:57

Do you like that one? That was pretty good. Just put Nate on the hot speed for a little bit.

Nate Erskine-Smith

31:59 - 33:01

You can ask me questions, too. Okay, so I was going to ask you why not politics, but you’ve sort of said, I’ve heard you say you felt that you were done, and you did what you came to do. But I want to push back on that a little bit, because you did a lot of things, especially around climate. First climate plan, you put carbon pricing in place, a number of measures. I mean, that gets all the attention, and we can talk about the walk back on it. But there’s stringent methane rules, there were major investments in public transit, there’s clean electricity. You run down the list of different things that we’ve worked towards in advance. And then we talk about consumer carbon pricing, but the industrial carbon piece is huge. Having said that, do you worry you left at a time when the politics were toxic, but not as toxic as they are today around climate and certainly around carbon pricing? And do you feel like you left before you had made sure the gains were going to be protected?

Catherine McKenna

33:02 - 33:11

I think the lesson I learned, you can never protect gains, right? Like, you’re just going to always have to fight. And, like, I can’t, like, when am I going to be in politics? So I’m, like, 120?

Catherine McKenna

33:12 - 33:12

Like, sorry.

Catherine McKenna

33:14 - 34:43

And it is really true. Like, when I, the weird thing, when, so I’d been through COVID. I had three teenagers, one who, as I mentioned, is here. And I really thought hard. Like, I turned 50. And, like, I’m not someone who’s, like, big birthdays. It’s, like, this existential thing. I wasn’t sad. It was, like, whatever. But I was, like, okay, I’m 50 now. Like, you know, there’s what do I want to do at 50? I really forced myself to do it. And I really felt like, remember, I got into politics to make change. So I just thought, what is the best way to make change? And I really felt it wasn’t, I felt personally for myself at this point, it wasn’t through politics. I really wanted to work globally on climate because I really felt we’d done a lot. And I did think we kind of landed a carbon price. and we’d gone through two elections and one at the Supreme Court. So I felt like, okay, people will keep it. We will be able to keep it. So I just felt that there were other things I wanted to do, and I’d really come when I – you know, I said I would leave when I had done what I’d come to do, and that was a really important promise to myself. And I really want to spend time with my kids. Like, you give up a lot in politics, and my kids were going off to university, and I’d been through COVID, and if any parents – anyone been through COVID, But if you’re a parent of teenage kids, that was a pretty bleak time. I’d be like, do you guys want to play another game? And they’re like, oh my God.

Audience Q

34:43 - 34:44

As if, and then they go to their bed.

Catherine McKenna

34:44 - 35:15

They’d be like, I’m doing school. And I’d be like, as if you’re doing school, you’re online. Probably playing video game. But what am I going to do, right? Let’s go for another walk. They’re like, okay, we’ll go for a walk if we can go get a slushie. And I was like, I’m going to rot their teeth. And my dad was a dentist. So I was like, this is bad. But this is like, we’re engaging for 20 minutes. Like it was really hard. And so I actually, when I made the decision, like, but the counter, the funny thing that is so hilarious now to me is I almost, I was like, I’m not going to leave because if I leave, those haters will think

Catherine McKenna

35:15 - 35:16

they drove me out.

Nate Erskine-Smith

35:16 - 35:18

So I was like, okay, I’m going to stay.

Catherine McKenna

35:18 - 35:20

And like, it was bizarre. I was like, okay.

Nate Erskine-Smith

35:20 - 35:21

I don’t want to stay when I’m staying. I don’t want to stay.

Catherine McKenna

35:21 - 35:46

I don’t think this is the most useful point of my, like, you know, part of what I, you know, this is this useful, but I’m going to stay because these random people that I don’t care about are actually going to say, ha ha, I chased her out. So then I was like, okay, well, let’s actually be rational here and, you know, an adult. So I made the decision. And I actually felt really zen. Like, it was quite weird after I did it, where it was actually politicians who would do it to me. They’d be like, are you okay?

Catherine McKenna

35:47 - 35:49

And I’d be like, I’m amazing.

Catherine McKenna

35:49 - 36:05

What are you talking about? And, like, you know, it was as if leaving politics, I would not be okay. And then people would say, like, is it hard not to have stuff? I was like, I’m actually free. I can do whatever I want. I can go to a microphone now and say whatever. Probably people will care a lot less. But I don’t.

Nate Erskine-Smith

36:05 - 36:07

You can do that in politics sometimes too.

Catherine McKenna

36:08 - 36:08

Yes, Nate.

Nate Erskine-Smith

36:09 - 36:09

Yes, Nate.

Catherine McKenna

36:09 - 39:32

We know about that. Yeah, it was just. So anyway, I left politics. I was not. I do think that what I always worried about more than actually the haters thinking they won. It was that women and women and girls would think I love politics because of all the hate. And once again, I’ll just repeat it because it’s very important to me. The reason I say the things that happened to me in the book is not because I need sympathy. I don’t. We do need change. And I felt when I left, I said I would support women and girls in politics. One of the ways I am doing it is making sure that it is a better place than what I had to put up with. Now, sadly, it’s not because it’s actually worse now. I hear from counselors. I hear from school board trustees. I hear from all sorts of women in politics, but also men, however you identify. Like, it’s bad out there. And it’s not just online. It is now offline. People think they can shout at you and scream at you and take a video of it, like put it in the dark web or wherever that goes. So, you know, that’s bad. But I feel like, you know, people are like, oh, we got to stop that. And that’s what’s important. There’s a nice letter here. So as I said, I have like random things in here. But there’s this lovely gentleman named Luigi. I haven’t talked about Luigi yet, have I? So I was at the airport and this gentleman came over to me. And I still get a little nervous when people, because I don’t know what people are going to do. Like I probably 99% of them are very nice, but it only takes one percent. So I always get like slightly nervous. And I don’t mean to be because I’m actually, as you can see, quite gregarious. I like talking to people, but never exactly sure. And he hands me a note and walks away. And I’m like, oh, God, is this like an exploding letter? Who knows? And I open it and it’s in the book. So I’ll read you his letter because it actually, I put it towards the end because I think it’s really important. because you can see I asked Luigi if I could put his note so his note is here so Ms. McKenna I did not want to disturb you as I thought so I thought I would write this note instead because I identify as a conservative in all likelihood we probably would disagree on many issues I find it quite disturbing the level of abuse that you and many other female politicians must endure. It is unfortunate and unacceptable, and I make a point of speaking out when I see it. I hope that you take consolation in the fact that you and others like you are making it easier for the next generation of women, including my three daughters, Luigi. And I was like, this is like the nicest note. And I think that’s also what I hope for my book like I hope people are like yeah we can be we can actually disagree but be normal and you know okay with each other and probably most people are um most people are like Luigi are probably not paying attention but there are people that aren’t doing that and I think they’re also fed sometimes by politicians themselves um who you know really ratchet things up and attack people personally and And so that’s a long answer to I can’t even remember the question. But I mean, I left politics and I was done. And that’s not related to Luigi, but Luigi is a nice guy.

Nate Erskine-Smith

39:34 - 41:21

It’s a I think I’ve got those are my questions around the book. But I do have a couple of questions on climate policy because you’re living and breathing that still. And although it’s interesting, you comment about politicians. I mean, there’s a deep inauthenticity sometimes where politicians treat it as a game. And there’s these attacks for clicks. Or in some cases, especially when the conservatives were riding high in the polls, people were tripping over themselves to try and prove to the center that they could be nasty to and that they could score points and all of that. And so they all want to make cabinet by ratcheting up a certain nastiness. But then cameras get turned off and they turn human beings again to a degree. And so that kind of inauthenticity, I think, sets a real nasty tone for others in politics more generally. But on climate policy, I was in Edmonton for our national caucus meeting. I think I texted you this, but I get scrummed by reporters and they’re asking me all climate questions. And I was like, oh, this is nice. I’m getting asked climate questions for a change. this is good. This is put climate back on the radar. And then a reporter says, well, are you concerned about the Carney government backtracking on climate commitments? And I said, well, backtracking on climate commitments. I mean, if you read the book Values, it’d be a very odd thing for us to do. Do you worry that we are backtracking? Do you worry that we’re not going to be ambitious enough? Or do you think we’re still, we haven’t yet seen the climate competitiveness strategy? I mean, you know, here’s an opportunity to say we should do much more. I don’t know. But are you concerned, just given the dynamic in politics as they’re unfolding, that we are not going to get where we need to get?

Catherine McKenna

41:22 - 42:31

I mean, look, I’m like you. You know, first of all, I did get into politics. I wasn’t an expert on climate, but I cared about climate because I have kids. Like, we have this truck that’s coming for our kids, and I’m a mother, so I’m going to do everything I can. I was in a position that I learned a lot about climate policy, and climate policy is complicated, and you’ve got to get it right. But look, I mean, you know, Mark Carney knows as much about, you know, climate as an economic issue as anyone. And so, I mean, I’m certainly hopeful that you can take different approaches, but at the end of the day, your climate policy requires you to reduce emissions because climate change isn’t a political issue. Of course, it’s very political. I’m not going to understate it. I know that as much as anyone. But in the end, the science is the science. We’ve got to reduce our emissions. And you’ve probably all heard this rant of mine before, but I will bring up my rant again. I sometimes hear about a grand bargain with oil and gas companies. We did a grand bargain with oil and gas companies.

Catherine McKenna

42:31 - 42:31

How did that work out?

Catherine McKenna

42:31 - 42:32

Yeah.

Catherine McKenna

42:32 - 42:33

How did that work out? Tell us. How did that work out?

Catherine McKenna

42:33 - 47:27

Let me tell you how that worked out. So we were working really hard to get a national climate plan. And I saw it as an obligation of mine to work with provinces to build on the policies they had. The Alberta government had stood, so it was the government of Rachel Notley, but with Murray Edwards, who’s the head of one of the oil and gas companies, with environmentalists, with economists, with indigenous peoples, saying, okay, this is the climate plan Alberta’s going to do. A cap on emissions from oil and gas. a price on pollution, tough methane regs, and, you know, some other things. And so then we were pushed, and it was really hard. I was the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, where we had a climate emergency one day, and then we had a pipeline. The next, I talk about that. That was hard. But the reality is, we felt like that, you know, the Alberta government, we needed to support the NDP Alberta, you know, the NDP government at the time early on. And so then what did we get? Like, where are we right now? We basically, none of the, either those policies are gone or not effective. We got a pipeline at massive taxpayer costs. It’s like 500% over. We have oil and gas companies that made historic record profits, largely as a result of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. What did they do with those profits? They said that they were going to invest in climate solutions. They were going to reduce their emissions. They were all in. But instead, they give their CEOs massive, massive historic bonuses. I’m from Hamilton. That’s not a thing when you get these massive historic record bonuses. At the same time, they gave the money back to shareholders who were largely Americans. While they demanded more subsidies to clean up their own pollution, while we are in a climate crisis that is a fossil fuel climate crisis. I now feel taken for a fool because I believed that the oil and gas, like in particular, the oil sands would live up to their end of the bargain. You will see in the book also, I don’t know, I probably can’t find the page fast enough. I did pinky promises with kids because all these kids came up to me all the time and they said, like, I’m really working hard on climate change. You know, I’ve got a water bottle. I’m riding my bike. I’m doing like a used clothing drive, whatever it was. And I said, you know what? I’m doing my part, too. Let’s do a pinky promise like a pinky swear. And we will promise to continue doing our part. Well, we all did our part. By the way, basically everyone in all sectors have done their part except for oil and gas when they had massive historic record profits. And I wrote a report for the UN Secretary General on greenwashing. And they were exhibit A, exhibit A on what greenwashing looks like, like saying you’re doing things that you are not doing and while you’re lobbying to kill every policy. So I just hope that people aren’t taken for fools again. Like the grand bargain should be they should live up with their end of the bargain. Like that is what bargains are. You got to do what you say you were going to do. And they didn’t do it. And as a result, it’s extremely hard for Canada to meet our target because they are 30% and growing of our emissions. So I also think like, why are we paying? Why would taxpayers pay? So, look, I don’t know. Hard things are hard, as my mug says that I was given by my team because I said it every single day, about 12 times a day. You have to make very tough decisions in government. And we’re in a trade war. And also defending our we have to absolutely stand up and defend our sovereignty against the Trump regime, which is very dangerous and very destabilizing. but at the same time we can’t not act on climate climate is a here and now problem it’s not this fire problem like all these people were evacuated from communities the cost of climate change is massive people are not going to be able to be insured that’s already happening and so i just think you gotta walk and chew gum you gotta like figure out how to you know build and grow the economy but you also need to figure out how to tackle climate change and reduce your emissions and to be honest, hold the sector that is most responsible for climate change accountable for their actions and also for their words because they said they were going to act on climate and they supported these policies and they are now still fighting to kill all these policies. You almost can’t make it up. And I just don’t think Canadians should be taken for fools and I think you’ve got to make a lot of choices with tax dollars. But I’m not in government And I think, you know, we have, you know, Mark Carney, he’s very smart. He’s doing a great job of defending Canada. You know, I think like everyone, I’m waiting to see what the climate plan is because it’s extremely important. And the climate plan is an economic plan as much as anything else.

Nate Erskine-Smith

47:28 - 48:23

And on that, I would say not just an economic plan, but when you talk about national resiliency, there’s a promise in our platform to become a clean energy superpower. There’s a promise in our platform to create an east-west transmission grid. And just in Ontario, when you look at the fact that not only are they doubling down on natural gas, but they’re also importing natural gas from the United States. When solar, wind, storage is actually more cost effective, investments in east-west transmission grid and in clean energy would make a lot more sense, not only for the climate, not only for the economy, but also as a matter of resiliency and energy independence as well. Okay, those are my questions. So thank you for... Give a round of applause for Calvin. Thank you for joining. With the time that we’ve got left, Christian, we’ve got, what, 10, 15 minutes? What time is it? Okay, great. Okay, so does anyone have questions for Ms. McKenna?

Audience Q

48:25 - 49:09

It’s a question for both of you, actually. You guys have both been trailblazers in your own right, I think, inside and inside of politics. And you talk a lot about building your community and building your team, whether it’s swimming or local politics, and also demanding space in those places to be competitive, all the way up from your local team up to the prime minister. But I’m curious on the other side of that, what does it look like to be a good teammate inside and inside of politics, and how do we support more people, for those of us that might not be running, but trying to get more people like you? Or maybe as an example, somebody that supported you in your run?

Catherine McKenna

49:11 - 49:56

well i mean look i’m trying to do my part and so what i did and it’s like what most of you did you go support people that you think are good that are running so i in the last election i went and i supported people that i thought were serious about climate including in ridings that we had never won before um and i also well probably especially those writings um and i also supported women candidates that was just a choice I mean but I think everyone getting involved in politics is a great way to do it but also you know when you think there’s someone good that might be good to run you know you know talk to them about it and as I said for women they need to be asked often seven times I think is it so like for women maybe just start asking and if we get to the seventh time maybe

Nate Erskine-Smith

49:56 - 51:38

really good women will run and I would add I suppose just on locally I have found one, going into schools and talking politics and encouraging people to think about politics as an opportunity has translated into our youth council. It’s then translated into our young liberals internship over the summer where we make sure people are able to be paid to knock on doors and just maintain involvement. And then a number of those people come through either our office and then they’re working in politics in the minister’s office or in the prime minister’s office or they’re going to law school or they’re adjacent to politics and helping other people and just encouraging people to at least be close to politics so that they see politics as a way to make a difference, there will then be people that will want to run from that or help encourage other people to run. The second thing, and I’ll use Mark Holland as an example, when I was running the nomination and I didn’t have contacts in the party, but I had someone who knew Mark Holland and he gave me advice to think about it like concentric circles when you’re running a nomination where you have people who are close to you and then the people who are close to you will have 10 people that are close to them that maybe they can sign them up for you or maybe they just are they open the door and I you know if so if someone opens the door to a conversation with me I feel pretty confident that I can close the sale but if the door is closed in my face I’m not gonna I’m not gonna even have an opportunity to and so just that idea of building out you start with your your home base and you build out from there build out from there so I just think I have in the last week had conversations with two people who want to run for office at some point, they’re both under the age of 30, and I’ve given that same kind of advice of, here’s what worked for me. It may work for you, it may not, it depends, but find where your home base is, and then just grow from there. And so I think just spending time, like

Audience Q

51:39 - 52:30

giving one’s time to give advice like that is really important. Yeah. Building on that, that’s, I wanted to, because I think that does nicely into what you said earlier, Catherine, about and really encouraging young women in particular to get into politics. But it’s not just, it’s all the peripheral people, people that are peripheral to politics, your concentric circles, so that you don’t necessarily have to run for an office. And I appreciate what you’ve done for girls. But I also want you to know that, I mean, I’m older than you, and still you are a role model to me. Not only that, though, I have sons in their mid to late 20s. and I’ve made sure you’re a role model and women like you are a role model to them because I think that’s how change begins.

Nate Erskine-Smith

52:32 - 52:34

This was entirely planted just for you, by the way.

Catherine McKenna

52:35 - 52:37

No, but I think that’s...

Nate Erskine-Smith

52:37 - 52:40

So I do think that’s important, right?

Catherine McKenna

52:40 - 53:26

My book is not... Run Like a Girl, I’m a woman, I identify as a woman and there’s a story about how I was told I ran like a girl and so it really bugged me. So it’s kind of a particular thing. But I think that is important. Like, you know, this isn’t exclusive. Although, you know, there are, you know, certain different barriers, at least that I’m aware of, you know, that if you’re a woman, if you’re LGBTQ2+, if you’re racialized or indigenous, there could be different barriers. But I hear you. And I think, you know, we do have to inspire each other in a whole range of ways. So that is very nice. I hope that, I mean, I’m not, you know, looking to, you know, you know, for kudos. I really, but it is nice to hear that you can inspire people in a whole different way, you know, range of ways.

Audience Q

53:26 - 53:47

It’s really, yeah, it’s really not about kudos. It’s about, you know, it’s not that my intent is not just to applaud you. It’s just, it’s to, it’s to recognize you. And that’s different, like being seen, holding place, holding space for people to be involved. And so I do have one actual question of this.

Catherine McKenna

53:48 - 53:50

You can ask a question after that.

Audience Q

53:51 - 53:57

Regarding pricing, carbon pricing, how would you communicate the rollout differently?

Catherine McKenna

53:58 - 54:43

Well, I would actually fund it. So hard things at heart, I’m like, okay, well, first of all, we know the Conservatives were terrible. They lied about it. They misled. They didn’t talk about the money going back. The problem is, like, we hampered ourselves too. And it was really quite weird because I was like, okay, well, we need an advertising budget because clearly this is a bit of a complicated policy. But the most important thing I need people to know is that we’re tackling climate change and we’re doing it in a way that we’re going to leave low income and middle income people better off. You’re going to get more money back. That’s very, very important. The second part of the message is as important because I knew the conservatives were going to be like, you’re just increasing the price of everything. But we were told we couldn’t advertise. And I was like, why? And they said, well, because we’re not like conservatives because they had done the, what was the plan?

Nate Erskine-Smith

54:43 - 54:51

The economic action plan. The signs everywhere. They basically, what Ford does now, they were doing it.

Catherine McKenna

54:51 - 57:40

So that sounds really good, except if you’re me. Because I was like, well, no one really knows about it. So I’m like one person. And we got some caucus members, not all of them. But Nate will go out and talk about it. Some people will talk about it. But I said, people are entitled to know what government policy is, especially in this particular case, where you’ve literally got to file your taxes to get the rebate. Because that was the second mistake we made. I was told that we couldn’t just do quarterly checks, which would be much more obvious to people, even if it was automatically deposited, you actually named it properly, which was another problem. But, you know, all of these things that are just normal things. And instead, we were told, I was told by the folks in the Canada Revenue Agency, there’s no way we could possibly do quarterly checks. after COVID, when we did everything, we blew everything up, then they were like, oh, actually, and this was after me, but they were like, we can do quarterly chaps. I was like, well, that’s really helpful. Like, that would have been nice, like a little bit longer, you know, like the beginning of this. And so I think like, we do need to be sometimes very tough, like, don’t do things that sound great and are not, are really hampering your ability to actually deliver a policy in a way that people understand. So like, it’s just a hard policy. Like, you know, people say, would you have done, what would you have done differently? Yes, I would have communicated it differently. I tried. Like, I was out there. I went to H&R Block because I saw a sign, and they were like, climate action incentive. Oh, by the way, we couldn’t call it a rebate because the lawyers told us injustice. We couldn’t do that, and I’m a lawyer. I was like, what? And so I should have fought that one harder too, right? Like, I mean, there’s so many fights you can have internally as well, but, you know, there I am. I was like, oh, H&R Block, they’re doing free advertising for us because they wanted people to file their taxes, so then I would make, I said to all caucus members, you need to go to your HR block and get a family. I don’t even want to see you necessarily. I want a family to be sitting down being told they’re getting money back. And, and so like, look, I think it’s just a hard policy. And, and what happened though, I mean, read hard things are hard, but the chapter, but it’s, um, and people will be like, I’m definitely not reading that chapter. You can skip chapters. This book is like, go back and forth, rip things out. I don’t, you don’t have to read it in chronological order or read particular chapters. But was if the price is going to go up every year, every year you better be ready to fight for it because every year you’re literally creating this conflict point where conservatives are like, they’re on it. They’re like spending so much tax dollars to mislead people. Remember the stickers on the pump that fell off? That was quite funny. They actually fell off. But you’re going to have to fight for it. And so we just, it’s a hard, it’s a very hard policy. I did everything I could. And I don’t live with life with regrets. I think it was really important. And by the way, it’s a case study outside of Canada.

Catherine McKenna

57:41 - 57:42

Everyone’s like, Canada.

Catherine McKenna

57:42 - 57:52

I was like, oh, yeah, there is like a little different ending than you might want to know about what happened. But they’re like, yes, this is, of course, how we should do it. Should be a price on pollution. Give the money back.

Nate Erskine-Smith

57:52 - 58:38

I went to a movie at the Beach Cinema with my kids. And there was an ad. This is years ago. But there was an ad. So we were advertising. But it was advertising about the environment climate plan. and it was like people in canoes. And I was like, what is this trying to, like we’re spending how much money on this to tell me what exactly? And I went to, Stephen was the minister, and I went, Stephen, can we please advertise Carbon Pricing Works, it’s 10 plus percent of our overall plan, and 80% of people get more money back or break even. Just tell people those three things, I don’t need the canoe. and then he was like oh we can’t we we they tell it they tell us we can’t do it no no and that’s

Catherine McKenna

58:38 - 58:55

what you’re often told like it is kind of weird internally the amount of times you’re told no like on advertising it is a particular thing because like and so then you’re like having a fight about comms i was like oh my gosh can we don’t think the canoe is going to win this carbon and it didn’t turns out i love canoeing by the way so maybe it would have convinced me if i was

Nate Erskine-Smith

58:55 - 59:01

i think last question we’ll finish with that with maryland hi i’m maryland and i also happen to be

Audience Q

59:01 - 01:00:18

president of the Ontario Women’s Liberal Commission and of course our young women and she’s a former candidate in 2022 it was a hard race it was a hard time for all of us two things I know obviously running with Trudeau and being in his cabinet there was a large over emphasis on the gender balance cabinet and you know it’s a feminist cabinet and he’s a feminist prime minister and that’s great you know we get a lot for us to recognize the importance of having women at the table but then of course it kind of feels like a little tokenistic and maybe you’re there because you’re a woman and it kind of undermines your competencies and your capabilities and and so i i i wonder if you can kind of reflect back also just mindful like your title was like run like a girl or mindful of like we want you to um run because you can and not because you’re a girl because you’re competent and capable but but just the tension that people might feel like we’re running or getting opportunities just because did everyone hear that okay so i mean it’s just

Catherine McKenna

01:00:19 - 01:03:42

impossible being a woman right like that’s like what you said you’re like oh my but that’s how i felt right like on the one hand so first of all let me be very clear that when Justin Trudeau said this is 20 like it’s going to be a gender balance cabin because it’s 2015 I was like amazing great we’re half the population it’s 2015 I kind of thought that that was the point the problem is then it was constantly it was constantly repeated and I don’t want to diminish it like I am a feminist but I don’t wake up every day and saying I’m a feminist and now I was like I’m gonna waking up every day and I’m like I gotta do this hard job I’m gonna go do it and and I also like the whole gender thing was so weird because on the flip side then I’m climbing Barbie so I’m like holy how do we like just I just want to be someone doing something in politics however we do need to break barriers so having 50% women I heard it when I was in Japan this one woman in cabinet one woman she’s like I cannot believe how important it was to see when you guys made that announcement so we can’t diminish it. You know, the challenge though is when you repeat something so much, like it’s got to be about outcomes. And like, I’ll give one example. Maybe it’s not a fair example, but we said we’ve got a feminist foreign policy. And I was like, okay, what does that mean? And we were going to have all these women peacekeepers. We never increased women peacekeepers at all. So we actually decreased our peacekeepers overall. So it was kind of weird because then people are kind of calling you out. And then, of course, the flip side, and we saw this, was that when the Prime Minister had conflicts with women, it was put into a frame of, well, he’s not a feminist, even if the conflicts had nothing to do with the fact that they were women. So it is extremely fraught. And I don’t have any easy solutions. I think that what is really important is outcomes. So child care is really important, that we did child care, that that is a very important thing that we did, that we raised hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. That is a real thing. So also, it is about what you deliver on in the real world. We also did, I was going to say super nerdy, but I’m like a policy nerd. We did a gender-based analysis policy. That actually, we don’t have to put that in the window, but when you actually think, how would policy affect people differently? That’s actually a really good way of understanding when you, is this a good policy? Is this going to get the outcome? So, I mean, I think we did things. It is hard. And then people pick on my, you know, my book. They’re like, see, you know, you call him out and he’s not really a feminist. I was like, oh my gosh, are we really getting into this whole thing? Although I did make the point that it did feel kind of heavy sometimes where I was like, you know, maybe I just got into cabinet because like, you know, you know, I was actually pretty competent, right? Like, and by the way, cabinet is a bunch of people. They’ve got to find diversity of, you know, regions. They got a whole bunch of things. And sometimes actually there are men that aren’t that competent against cabinet. Cabinet is just a thing. And so, yeah, I mean, it’s hard. It is hard. And, you know, it is a fraught space for sure. But I think, look, at the end of the day, you should be judged on outcomes. And I think we did a lot of good. We could have done more. But I think we did a lot of good on the gender front. It’s just you don’t always have to be like out there calling everything feminist. Because when my book club was like, they’re like, we’re all feminists. Like they were like, but just free advice. could you just stop using feminist in everything you do? And I was like, I get it. I get it.

Nate Erskine-Smith

01:03:43 - 01:04:40

Well, I think just on that, I think you’re right to emphasize the different diversities across something like a cabinet selection. I mean, we don’t make a big deal in this country about the fact that you have regional diversity. It’s just an established, accepted fact. Of course we’re going to have regional diversity in cabinet selections. Of course you’re going to look for gender equality in your cabinet because welcome to the population. I mean, my law school class, this is many years ago, was like 52% women. Just on the basic matter of competence, there’s going to be lots of competent people to choose from. And that’s just, I think your point is, you don’t have to parade it around. Just do the damn thing, because that’s the thing we do. We don’t parade around the fact we do geographic diversity. It’s just that’s the thing that’s accepted that we do. Of course we do it. Of course you do gender equality. Of course you do. And then you focus on the fact that people in cabinet are competent and go do the damn job. And if you can’t do the job, then we find someone else to do the job. Yeah.

Catherine McKenna

01:04:41 - 01:05:54

And I also just want to point out that, and I talk about this in the book, like we actually had broader diversity than just gender and regional diversity. Like we had people who were, you know, had disabilities. We had people that were different religious groups. We had a refugee. Like I’m not going to go on and on, but I mean, we got to represent the population. And that’s why, in fact, you know, I was proud to be standing with the Liberal Party. We, you know, we, you know, there are more things we could do on the diversity front, but we actually attracted a lot of candidates that are a variety of different backgrounds. And that is how you do a better job of making decisions. And now I have to defend this now, not not here, these folks, but people are like, well, I don’t know, women on boards are like, I was like, okay, it’s not a woke issue. Like, I’ve got McKinsey reports, I’m going to give you 100 McKinsey reports, because I’m literally not going to debate it. It just says that diversity leads to better decisions. That’s just a thing. And we don’t have to go back in time. This isn’t a woke thing. This is just getting better outcomes. So I think it is important. But it is a complicated thing. And you don’t overplay your hands on things. And then, unfortunately, when something happens, then suddenly you’re like, well, you’re not a feminist. I don’t think that would have been said about others. It’s just it had been such a big deal. And so...

Nate Erskine-Smith

01:05:55 - 01:06:39

Yeah, but you’re... And also, I think we just got to emphasize is there are different kinds of representation. So there’s descriptive representation. You want people in politics to look like the population, for sure, but you also want this idea of add women change politics, sure, unless they’re Margaret Thatcher. It depends who’s there to stand up for equality. You want 100% feminists, and you want them to be descriptively representative of the population, but also them all to believe in the things that matter when it comes to substantive representation of equality. So I think we sometimes over-index on description instead of substantive representation of the views and values we want to see around equality at the same time. That’s a whole other podcast.

Catherine McKenna

01:06:40 - 01:06:41

100%.

Nate Erskine-Smith

01:06:41 - 01:06:47

Well, okay, so thank you very much. Catherine’s going to hang around, and I think her daughter is selling books still. Is that right? Maybe.

Catherine McKenna

01:06:47 - 01:06:52

I hope so. Maybe. I hope so. And I’ll hang around, too. You’ve got to get your children in another game.

Nate Erskine-Smith

01:06:52 - 01:07:14

Thank you, everyone, for coming. Thank you, Catherine, for spending the time. and we will try to do more so i i we do this podcast and uh as i say like most of it the focus is online and the focus is you know get it up on youtube and get it up on spotify but uh but it’s nice to have an audience and so we are going to try to do more of these in-person recordings

Catherine McKenna

01:07:15 - 01:07:24

at the same time so uh keep a lookout for emails of what’s to come and if you have suggestions for guests or ideas, let me know. And thanks very much. Appreciate it. Thank you, Nate.

On this two-part episode of Uncommons, Nate digs into Bill C-2 and potential impacts on privacy, data surveillance and sharing with US authorities, and asylum claims and refugee protections.

In the first half, Nate is joined by Kate Robertson, senior researcher at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab. Kate’s career has spanned criminal prosecutions, regulatory investigations, and international human rights work with the United Nations in Cambodia. She has advocated at every level of court in Canada, clerked at the Supreme Court, and has provided pro bono services through organizations like Human Rights Watch Canada. Her current research at Citizen Lab examines the intersection of technology, privacy, and the law.

In part two, Nate is joined by Adam Sadinsky, a Toronto-based immigration and refugee lawyer and co-chair of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers’ Advocacy Committee. Adam has represented clients at every level of court in Canada, including the Supreme Court, and was co-counsel in M.A.A. v. D.E.M.E. (2020 ONCA 486) and Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (2023 SCC 17).

Further Reading:

Unspoken Implications A Preliminary Analysis of Bill C-2 and Canada’s Potential Data-Sharing Obligations Towards the United States and Other Countries - Kate Robertson, Citizen Lab

Kate Robertson Chapters:

00:00 Introduction & Citizen Lab

03:00 Bill C-2 and the Strong Borders Act

08:00 Data Sharing and Human Rights Concerns

15:00 The Cloud Act & International Agreements

22:00 Real-World Examples & Privacy Risks

28:00 Parliamentary Process & Fixing the Bill

Adam Sadinsky Chapters:

33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada

36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants

39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks

41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions

44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System

47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways

50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government

52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing Reflections

Part 1: Kate Robertson

Nate Erskine-Smith

00:00-00:01

Kate, thanks for joining me.

Kate Robertson

00:01-00:01

Thanks for having me.

Nate Erskine-Smith

00:02-00:15

So I have had Ron Debert on the podcast before. So for people who really want to go back into the archive, they can learn a little bit about what the Citizen Lab is. But for those who are not that interested, you’re a senior researcher there. What is the Citizen Lab?

Kate Robertson

00:16-01:00

Well, it’s an interdisciplinary research lab based at University of Toronto. It brings together researchers from a technology standpoint, political science, lawyers like myself and other disciplines to examine the intersection between information and communication technologies, law, human rights, and global security. And over time, it’s published human rights reports about some of the controversial and emerging surveillance technologies of our time, including spyware or AI-driven technologies. And it’s also really attempted to produce a thoughtful research that helps policymakers navigate some of these challenges and threats.

Nate Erskine-Smith

01:01-02:50

That’s a very good lead into this conversation because here we have Bill C-2 coming before Parliament for debate this fall, introduced in June, at the beginning of June. And it’s called the Strong Borders Act in short, but it touches, I started counting, it’s 15 different acts that are touched by this omnibus legislation. The government has laid out a rationale around strengthening our borders, keeping our borders secure, combating transnational organized crime, stopping the flow of illegal fentanyl, cracking down on money laundering, a litany of things that I think most people would look at and say broadly supportive of stopping these things from happening and making sure we’re enhancing our security and the integrity of our immigration system and on. You, though, have provided some pretty thoughtful and detailed rational legal advice around some of the challenges you see in the bill. You’re not the only one. There are other challenges on the asylum changes we’re making. There are other challenges on lawful access and privacy. You’ve, though, highlighted, in keeping with the work of the Citizen Lab, the cross-border data sharing, the challenges with those data sharing provisions in the bill. It is a bit of a deep dive and a little wonky, but you’ve written a preliminary analysis of C2 and Canada’s potential data sharing obligations towards the U.S. and other countries, unspoken implications, and you published it mid-June. It is incredibly relevant given the conversation we’re having this fall. So if you were to at a high level, and we’ll go ahead and some of the weeds, but at a high level articulate the main challenges you see in the legislation from the standpoint that you wrote in unspoken implications. Walk us through them.

Kate Robertson

02:51-06:15

Well, before C2 was tabled for a number of years now, myself and other colleagues at the lab have been studying new and evolving ways that we’re seeing law enforcement data sharing and cross-border cooperation mechanisms being put to use in new ways. We have seen within this realm some controversial data sharing frameworks under treaty protocols or bilateral agreement mechanisms with the United States and others, which reshape how information is shared with law enforcement in foreign jurisdictions and what kinds of safeguards and mechanisms are applied to that framework to protect human rights. And I think as a really broad trend, what is probably most, the simplest way to put it is that what we’re really seeing is a growing number of ways that borders are actually being exploited to the detriment of human rights standards. Rights are essentially falling through the cracks. This can happen either through cross-border joint investigations between agencies in multiple states in ways that essentially go forum shopping for the laws and the most locks, that’s right. You can also see foreign states that seek to leverage cooperation tools in democratic states in order to track, surveil, or potentially even extradite human rights activists and dissidents, journalists that are living in exile outside their borders. And what this has really come out of is a discussion point that has been made really around the world that if crime is going to become more transient across borders, that law enforcement also needs to have a greater freedom to move more seamlessly across borders. But what often is left out of that framing is that human rights standards that are really deeply entrenched in our domestic law systems, they would also need to be concurrently meaningful across borders. And unfortunately, that’s not what we’re seeing. Canada is going to be facing decisions around this, both within the context of C2 and around it in the coming months and beyond, as we know that it has been considering and in negotiation around a couple of very controversial agreements. One of those, the sort of elephant in the room, so to speak, is that the legislation has been tabled at a time where we know that Canada and the United States have been in negotiations for actually a couple of years around a potential agreement called the CLOUD Act, which would quite literally cede Canada’s sovereignty to the United States and law enforcement authorities and give them really a blanket opportunity to directly apply surveillance orders onto entities, both public and private in Canada?

Nate Erskine-Smith

06:16-07:46

Well, so years in the making negotiations, but we are in a very different world with the United States today than we were two years ago. And I was just in, I was in Mexico City for a conference with parliamentarians across the Americas, and there were six Democratic congressmen and women there. One, Chuy Garcia represents Chicago district. He was telling me that he went up to ICE officials and they’re masked and he is saying, identify yourself. And he’s a congressman. He’s saying, identify yourself. What’s your ID? What’s your badge number? They’re hiding their ID and maintaining masks and they’re refusing to identify who they are as law enforcement officials, ostensibly refusing to identify who they are to an American congressman. And if they’re willing to refuse to identify themselves in that manner to a congressman. I can only imagine what is happening to people who don’t have that kind of authority and standing in American life. And that’s the context that I see this in now. I would have probably still been troubled to a degree with open data sharing and laxer standards on the human rights side, but all the more troubling, you talk about less democratic jurisdictions and authoritarian regimes. Well, isn’t the U.S. itself a challenge today more than ever has been? And then shouldn’t we maybe slam the pause button on negotiations like this? Well, you raise a number of really important points. And I think that

Kate Robertson

07:47-09:54

there have been warning signs and worse that have long preceded the current administration and the backsliding that you’re commenting upon since the beginning of 2025. Certainly, I spoke about the increasing trend of the exploitation of borders. I mean, I think we’re seeing signs that really borders are actually, in essence, being used as a form of punishment, even in some respects, which I would say it is when you say to someone who would potentially exercise due process rights against deportation and say if you exercise those rights, you’ll be deported to a different continent from your home country where your rights are perhaps less. And that’s something that UN human rights authorities have been raising alarm bells about around the deportation of persons to third countries, potentially where they’ll face risks of torture even. But these patterns are all too reminiscent of what we saw in the wake of 9-11 and the creation of black sites where individuals, including Canadian persons, were detained or even tortured. And really, this stems from a number of issues. But what we have identified in analyzing potential cloud agreement is really just the momentous decision that the Canadian government would have to make to concede sovereignty to a country which is in many ways a pariah for refusing to acknowledge extraterritorial international human rights obligations to persons outside of its borders. And so to invite that type of direct surveillance and exercise of authority within Canada’s borders was a country who has refused for a very long time, unlike Canada and many other countries around the world, has refused to recognize through its courts and through its government any obligation to protect the international human rights of people in Canada.

Nate Erskine-Smith

09:56-10:21

And yet, you wrote, some of the data and surveillance powers in Bill C-2 read like they could have been drafted by U.S. officials. So you take the frame that you’re just articulating around with what the U.S. worldview is on this and has been and exacerbated by obviously the current administration. But I don’t love the sound of it reading like it was drafted by American

Kate Robertson

10:22-12:43

officials. Well, you know, it’s always struck me as a really remarkable story, to be frank. You know, to borrow Dickens’ tale of two countries, which is that since the 1990s, Canada’s Supreme Court has been charting a fundamentally different course from the constitutional approach that’s taken the United States around privacy and surveillance. And it really started with persons looking at what’s happening and the way that technology evolves and how much insecurity people feel when they believe that surveillance is happening without any judicial oversight. And looking ahead and saying, you know what, if we take this approach, it’s not going to go anywhere good. And that’s a really remarkable decision that was made and has continued to be made by the court time and time again, even as recently as last year, the court has said we take a distinct approach from the United States. And it had a lot of foresight given, you know, in the 1990s, technology is nowhere near what it is today. Of course. And yet in the text of C2, we see provisions that, you know, I struggle when I hear proponents of the legislation describe it as balanced and in keeping with the Charter, when actually they’re proposing to essentially flip the table on principles that have been enshrined for decades to protect Canadians, including, for example, the notion that third parties like private companies have the authority to voluntarily share our own. information with the police without any warrant. And that’s actually the crux of what has become a fundamentally different approach that I think has really led Canada to be a more resilient country when it comes to technological change. And I sometimes describe us as a country that is showing the world that, you know, it’s possible to do both. You can judicially supervise investigations that are effective and protect the public. And the sky does not fall if you do so. And right now we’re literally seeing and see to something that I think is really unique and important made in Canada approach being potentially put on the chopping block.

Nate Erskine-Smith

12:44-13:29

And for those listening who might think, okay, well, at a high level, I don’t love expansive data sharing and reduced human rights protections, but practically, are there examples? And you pointed to in your writing right from the hop, the Arar case, and you mentioned the Supreme Court, but they, you know, they noted that it’s a chilling example of the dangers of unconditional information sharing. And the commission noted to the potentially risky exercise of open ended, unconditional data sharing as well. But that’s a real life example, a real life Canadian example of what can go wrong in a really horrible, tragic way when you don’t have guardrails that focus and protect human rights.

Kate Robertson

13:31-14:56

You’re right to raise that example. I raise it. It’s a really important one. It’s one that is, I think, part of, you know, Canada has many commendable and important features to its framework, but it’s not a perfect country by any means. That was an example of just information sharing with the United States itself that led to a Canadian citizen being rendered and tortured in a foreign country. Even a more recent example, we are not the only country that’s received requests for cooperation from a foreign state in circumstances where a person’s life is quite literally in jeopardy. We have known from public reporting that in the case of Hardeep Najjar, before he was ultimately assassinated on Canadian soil, an Interpol Red Notice had been issued about him at the request of the government of India. And the government had also requested his extradition. And we know that there’s a number of important circumstances that have been commented upon by the federal government in the wake of those revelations. And it’s provoked a really important discussion around the risks of foreign interference. But it is certainly an example where we know that cooperation requests have been made in respect of someone who’s quite literally and tragically at risk of loss of life.

Nate Erskine-Smith

14:57-16:07

And when it comes to the, what we’re really talking about is, you mentioned the Cloud Act. There’s also, I got to go to the notes because it’s so arcane, but the second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention. These are, in that case, it’s a treaty that Canada would ratify. And then this piece of legislation would in some way create implementing authorities for. I didn’t fully appreciate this until going through that. And I’d be interested in your thoughts just in terms of the details of these. And we can make it as wonky as you like in terms of the challenges that these treaties offer. I think you’ve already articulated the watering down of traditional human rights protections and privacy protections we would understand in Canadian law. But the transparency piece, I didn’t fully appreciate either. And as a parliamentarian, I probably should have because there’s... Until reading your paper, I didn’t know that there was a policy on tabling of treaties That really directs a process for introducing treaty implementing legislation. And this process also gets that entirely backwards.

Kate Robertson

16:09-17:01

That’s right. And, you know, in researching and studying what to do with, you know, what I foresee is potentially quite a mess if we were to enter into a treaty that binds us to standards that are unconstitutional. You know, that is a diplomatic nightmare of sorts, but it’s also one that would create, you know, a constitutional entanglement of that’s really, I think, unprecedented in Canada. But nevertheless, that problem is foreseen if one or both of these were to go ahead. And I refer to that in the cloud agreement or the 2AP. But this policy, as I understand it, I believe it was tabled by then Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, as he was at the time, by Prime Minister Harper’s government.

Nate Erskine-Smith

17:02-17:04

He’s come a long way.

Kate Robertson

17:07-18:12

I believe that the rationale for the policy was quite self-evident at the time. I mean, if you think about the discussions that are happening right now, for example, in Quebec around digital sovereignty and the types of entanglements that U.S. legal process might impact around Quebec privacy legislation. Other issues around the AI space in Ontario or our health sector in terms of technology companies in Ontario. These treaties really have profound implications at a much broader scale than the federal government and law enforcement. And that’s not even getting to Indigenous sovereignty issues. And so the policy is really trying to give a greater voice to the range of perspectives that a federal government would consider before binding Canada internationally on behalf of all of these layers of decision making without perhaps even consulting with Parliament First.

Nate Erskine-Smith

18:12-19:15

So this is, I guess, one struggle. There’s the specific concerns around watering down protections, but just on process. This just bothered me in particular because we’re going to undergo this process in the fall. And so I printed out the Strong Borders Act, Government of Canada Strengthens Border Security and the backgrounder to the law. And going through it, it’s six pages when I print it out. And it doesn’t make mention of the Budapest Convention. It doesn’t make mention of the Cloud Act. It doesn’t make mention of any number of rationales for this legislation. But it doesn’t make mention that this is in part, at least, to help implement treaties that are under active negotiation. not only gets backwards the policy, but one would have thought, especially I took from your paper, that the Department has subsequently, the Justice Department has subsequently acknowledged that this would in fact help the government implement these treaties. So surely it should

Kate Robertson

19:15-19:57

be in the background. I would have thought so. As someone that has been studying these treaty frameworks very carefully, it was immediately apparent to me that they’re at least relevant. It was put in the briefing as a question as to whether or not the actual intent of some of these new proposed powers is to put Canada in a position to ratify this treaty. And the answer at that time was yes, that that is the intent of them. And it was also stated that other cooperation frameworks were foreseeable.

Nate Erskine-Smith

19:59-20:57

What next? So here I am, one member of parliament, and oftentimes through these processes, we’re going to, there’s the objective of the bill, and then there’s the details of the bill, and we’re going to get this bill to a committee process. I understand the intention is for it to be a pretty fulsome committee hearing, and it’s an omnibus bill. So what should happen is the asylum components should get kicked to the immigration committee. The pieces around national security should obviously get kicked to public safety committee, and there should be different committees that deal with their different constituent elements that are relevant to those committees. I don’t know if it will work that way, but that would be a more rational way of engaging with a really broad ranging bill. Is there a fix for this though? So are there amendments that could cure it or is it foundationally a problem that is incurable?

Kate Robertson

20:58-21:59

Well, I mean, I think that for myself as someone studying this area, it’s obvious to me that what agreements may be struck would profoundly alter the implications of pretty much every aspect of this legislation. And that stems in part from just how fundamental it would be if Canada were to cede its sovereignty to US law enforcement agencies and potentially even national security agencies as well. But obviously, the provisions themselves are quite relevant to these frameworks. And so it’s clear that Parliament needs to have the opportunity to study how these provisions would actually be used. And I am still left on knowing how that would be possible without transparency

Nate Erskine-Smith

22:00-22:05

about what is at stake in terms of potential agreements. Right. What have we agreed to? If this

Kate Robertson

22:05-24:57

is implementing legislation what are we implementing certainly it’s a significantly different proposition now even parking the international data sharing context the constitutional issues that are raised in the parts of the bill that i’m able to study within my realm of expertise which is in the context of omnibus legislation not the entire bill of course yeah um but it’s hard to even know where to begin um the the the powers that are being put forward you know i kind of have to set the table a bit to understand to explain why the table is being flipped yeah yeah we’re at a time where um you know a number of years ago i published about the growing use of algorithms and AI and surveillance systems in Canada and gaps in the law and the need to bring Canada’s oversight into the 21st century. Those gaps now, even five years later, are growing into chasms. And we’ve also had multiple investigative reports by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada being sent to Parliament about difficulties it’s had reviewing the activities of law enforcement agencies, difficulties it’s had with private sector companies who’ve been non-compliant with privacy legislation, and cooperating at all with the regulator. And we now have powers being put forward that would essentially say, for greater certainty, it’s finders keepers rules. Anything in the public domain can be obtained and used by police without warrant. And while this has been put forward as a balancing of constitutional norms, the Supreme Court has said the opposite. It’s not an all or nothing field. And in the context of commercial data brokers that are harvesting and selling our data, including mental health care that we might seek online, AI-fueled surveillance tools that are otherwise unchecked in the Canadian domain. I think this is a frankly stunning response to the context of the threats that we face. And I really think it sends and creates really problematic questions around what law enforcement and other government agencies are expected to do in the context of future privacy reviews when essentially everything that’s been happening is supposedly being green lit with this new completely un-nuanced power. I should note you are certainly not alone in these

Nate Erskine-Smith

24:57-27:07

concerns. I mean, in addition to the paper that I was talking about at the outset that you’ve written as an analyst that alongside Ron Deaver in the Citizen Lab. But there’s another open letter you’ve signed that’s called for the withdrawal of C2, but it’s led by open media. I mean, BCCLA, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, QP, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Penn Canada, the Center for Free Expression, privacy experts like Colin Bennett, who I used be on the Privacy Committee and that were pretty regular witnesses. You mentioned the Privacy Commissioner has not signed the open letter, but the Privacy Commissioner of both Canada and the Information Commissioner of Ontario, who’s also responsible for privacy. In the context of the treaties that you were mentioning, the Budapest Convention in particular, they had highlighted concerns absent updated, modernized legislation. And at the federal level, we have had in fits and starts attempts to modernize our private sector privacy legislation. But apart from a consultation paper at one point around the Privacy Act, which would apply to public sector organizations, there’s really been no serious effort to table legislation or otherwise modernize that. So am I right to say, you know, we are creating a myriad number of problems with respect to watering down privacy and human rights protections domestically and especially in relation to foreign governments with relation to data of our citizens here. And we could potentially cure those problems, at least in part, if we modernize our privacy legislation and our privacy protections and human rights protections here at home. But we are, as you say, a gap to chasm. We are so woefully behind in that conversation. It’s a bit of an odd thing to pass the open-ended data sharing and surveillance piece before you even have a conversation around updating your privacy protections.

Kate Robertson

27:07-28:13

Yeah, I mean, frankly, odd, I would use the word irresponsible. We know that these tools, it’s becoming increasingly well documented how impactful they are for communities and individuals, whether it’s wrongful arrests, whether it’s discriminatory algorithms. really fraught tools to say the least. And it’s not as if Parliament does not have a critical role here. You know, in decades past, to use the example of surveillance within Quebec, which was ultimately found to have involved, you know, years of illegal activity and surveillance activities focused on political organizing in Quebec. And that led to Parliament striking an inquiry and ultimately overhauling the mandate of the RCMP. There were recommendations made that the RCMP needs to follow the law. That was an actual recommendation.

Nate Erskine-Smith

28:14-28:16

I’m sorry that it needs to be said, but yeah.

Kate Robertson

28:16-29:05

The safeguards around surveillance are about ensuring that when we use these powers, they’re being used appropriately. And, you know, there isn’t even, frankly, a guarantee that judicial oversight will enable this to happen. And it certainly provides comfort to many Canadians. But we know, for example, that there were phones being watched of journalists in Montreal with, unfortunately, judicial oversight not even that many years ago. So this is something that certainly is capable of leading to more abuses in Canada around political speech and online activity. And it’s something that we need to be protective against and forward thinking about.

Nate Erskine-Smith

29:05-29:58

Yeah, and the conversation has to hold at the same time considerations of public safety, of course, but also considerations for due process and privacy and human rights protections. These things, we have to do both. If we don’t do both, then we’re not the democratic society we hold ourselves out as. I said odd, you said irresponsible. You were forceful in your commentary, but the open letter that had a number of civil society organizations, I mentioned a few, was pretty clear to say the proposed legislation reflects little more than shameful appeasement of the dangerous rhetoric and false claims about our country emanating from the United States. It’s a multi-pronged assault on the basic human rights and freedoms Canada holds dear. Got anything else to add?

Kate Robertson

30:00-30:56

I mean, the elephant in the room is the context in which the legislation has been tabled within. And I do think that we’re at a time where we are seeing democratic backsliding around the world, of course, and rising digital authoritarianism. And these standards really don’t come out of the air. They’re ones that need to be protected. And I do find myself, when I look at some of the really un-nuanced powers that are being put forward, I do find myself asking whether or not those risks are really front and center when we’re proposing to move forward in this way. And I can only defer to experts from, as you said, hundreds of organizations that have called attention towards pretty much every aspect of this legislation.

Nate Erskine-Smith

30:57-31:44

And I will have the benefit of engaging folks on the privacy side around lawful access and around concerns around changes to the asylum claim and due process from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. But as we do see this move its way through Parliament, if we see it move its way through Parliament in the fall, if they’re recognizing that the call was for withdrawal, but also recognizing a political reality where if it is to pass, we want to make sure we are improving it as much as possible. If there are amendments along the way, if there are other people you think that I should engage with, please do let me know because this is before us. It’s an important piece of legislation. And if it’s not to be withdrawn, we better improve it as much as possible.

Kate Robertson

31:46-32:02

I appreciate that offer and really commend you for covering the issue carefully. And I really look forward to more engagement from yourself and other colleagues in parliament as legislation is considered further. I expect you will be a witness at committee,

Nate Erskine-Smith

32:02-32:06

but thanks very much for the time. I really appreciate it. Thanks for having me.

Part 2: Adam Sadinsky

Chapters:

33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada

36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants

39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks

41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions

44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System

47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways

50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government

52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing Reflections

Nate Erskine-Smith

33:33-33:35

Adam, thanks for joining me.

Adam Sadinsky

33:35-33:36

Thanks for having me, Nate.

Nate Erskine-Smith

33:36-33:57

We’ve had a brief discussion about this, by way of my role as an MP, but, for those who are listening in, they’ll have just heard a rundown of all the concerns that the Citizen Lab has with data surveillance and data sharing with law enforcement around the world. You’ve got different concerns about C2 and you represent the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. What are your concerns here?

Adam Sadinsky

33:57-35:31

I mean, our biggest concern with this bill is new provisions that create additional categories of folks ineligible to claim asylum in Canada. And specifically to have their hearings heard at the Immigration and Refugee Board. The biggest one of those categories is definitely, a bar on individuals making refugee claims in Canada one year after they have arrived in Canada, and that’s one year, whether they have been in Canada for that whole year or they left at some point and came back. Those folks who have been here, who came more than a year ago, if they now fear persecution and want to make a claim for refugee protection, this bill would shunt them into an inferior system where rather than having a full hearing in their day in court.

Their application will be decided by an officer of immigration, alone, sitting in the cubicle, probably, with some papers in front of them. That person is going to make an enormous decision about whether to send that person back home where they feared persecution, torture, death. Our position is that this new form of ineligibility. Is unfair. it doesn’t meet the government’s goals, as we understand them, and we share, we share the views of organizations like, Citizen Lab, that the bill should be withdrawn. There are other ways to do this, but this bill is fundamentally flawed.

Nate Erskine-Smith

35:31-35:57

Let’s talk about government goals. Those looking at the influx of temporary residents in Canada specifically, and I don’t, and I don’t wanna pick on international students, but we’ve seen a huge influx of international students just as one category example. And they’ve said, well, if someone’s been here for a year and they didn’t claim right away, they didn’t come here to claim asylum. Because they would’ve claimed within that first year, presumably, you know, what’s the problem with, uh, with a rule that is really trying to tackle this problem.

Adam Sadinsky

35:57-38:33

The issue is, I mean, Nate, you had mentioned, you know, people who had come to Canada, they didn’t initially claim and it didn’t initially claim asylum, temporary residents. What do we do about it? I wanna give a couple of examples of people who would be caught by this provision, who fall into that category. But there’s legitimate reasons why they might claim more than a year after arriving in Canada. The first is someone who came to Canada, student worker, whatever. At the time they came to Canada, they would’ve been safe going back home they didn’t have a fear of returning back home. But country conditions change and they can change quickly. The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, was a stark example there may have been people who came to Canada as students planning to go back to Afghanistan and rebuild their country. As the bill is currently written. If there were to be a situation like that, and there will be some other Afghanistan, there will be some other situation down the line. Those people who weren’t afraid when they originally came to Canada and now have a legitimate claim, will have an inferior, process that they go through, one that is riddled with issues, examples of unfairness compared to the refugee, the regular refugee system, and a lack of protection from deportation, pending any appeal.

So that’s one category. A second category is people who were afraid of going back home when they came to Canada but didn’t need to claim asylum because they had another avenue to remain in Canada. So the government advertised, Minister Frazier was saying this often come to Canada, come as a student and there’s a well-established pathway. You’ll have a study permit, you’ll get a post-graduation work permit. This is what the government wanted. The rug has been pulled out from under many of those people. Towards the end of last year when Canada said, okay, it’s enough, too many temporary residents. But what about the temporary residents who had a fear of returning home when they came? They went through the system the “right way,” quote unquote. They didn’t go to the asylum system. they went through another path. And now they’re looking at it. They say, well, you know, I came to Canada to study, but also I’m gay and I’m from a country where, if people know about that, you know, I’ll be tortured. Maybe since they’ve been in Canada, that person in that example, they’ve been in a relationship, they’ve been posting on social media with their partner. It is very dangerous so why, why shouldn’t that person claim refugee protection through regular means?

Nate Erskine-Smith

38:33-39:06

Is this right on your read of the law as it is written right now, if someone were to come with their family when they’re a kid and they were to be in Canada for over a year and then their family were to move back to either the home country or to a different country, and, they wake up as a teenager many years later, they wake up as an adult many years later and their country’s falling apart, and they were to flee and come to Canada. By virtue of the fact they’ve been here for a year as a kid, would that preclude them from making a claim?

Adam Sadinsky

39:06-39:10

It’s even worse than that, Nate.

Nate Erskine-Smith

39:09-39:10

Oh, great.

Adam Sadinsky

39:10-39:47

In your example, the family stayed in Canada for more than a year. Yes, absolutely. That person is caught by this provision. But here’s who else would be someone comes when they’re five years old with their family, on a trip to the United States. during that trip, they decide we want to see the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. They either have a visa or get whatever visa they need, or don’t need one. They visit the falls, and at that point that they enter Canada, a clock starts ticking. That never stops ticking. So maybe they came to Canada for two hours.

Nate Erskine-Smith

39:44-39:45

Two hours and you’re outta luck.

Adam Sadinsky

39:45-39:47

They go back to the US

Nate Erskine-Smith

39:47-39:47

Oh man.

Adam Sadinsky

39:47-40:09

They never come back to Canada again. The way that the bill is written, that clock never stops ticking, right? Their country falls apart. They come back 15 years later. That person is going to have a very different kind of process that they go through, to get protection in Canada, than someone who wouldn’t be caught by this bill.

Nate Erskine-Smith

40:09-40:34

Say those are the facts as they are, that’s one category. There’s another category where I’ve come as a student, I thought there would be a pathway. I don’t really fear persecution in my home country, but I want to stay in Canada we see in this constituency office, as other constituency offices do people come with immigration help or they’ve got legitimate claims. We see some people come with help with illegitimate claims

Adam Sadinsky

40:34-42:46

We have to be very careful when we talk about categorizing claims as frivolous. There is no question people make refugee claims in Canada that have no merit. You’ll not hear from me, you’ll not hear from our organization saying that every 100% of refugee claims made in Canada, are with merit. The issue is how we determine. At that initial stage that you’re saying, oh, let’s, let’s deal quickly with frivolous claims. How do you determine if a claim is frivolous? What if someone, you know, I do a lot of appeal work, we get appeals of claims prepared by immigration consultants, or not even immigration consultants. And, you know, there’s a core of a very strong refugee claim there that wasn’t prepared properly.

Nate Erskine-Smith

42:46-42:46

Yeah, we see it too. That’s a good point

.

Adam Sadinsky

42:46-42:46

How that claim was prepared has nothing to do with what the person actually faces back home. We have to be very careful in terms of, quick negative claims, and clearing the decks of what some might think are frivolous claims. But there may be some legitimate and very strong core there. What could be done, and you alluded to this, is there are significant claims in the refugee board’s backlog that are very, very strong just based on the countries they come from or the profiles of the individuals who have made those claims, where there are countries that have 99% success rate. And that’s not because the board is super generous. It’s because the conditions in those countries are very, very bad. And so the government could implement policies and this would be done without legislation to grant pathways for folks from, for example, Eritrea 99ish percent success rate. However, the government wants to deal with that in terms of numbers, but there’s no need for the board to spend time determining whether this claim is in the 1%, that doesn’t deserve to be accepted. Our view is that 1% being accepted is, a trade off for, a more efficient system.

Nate Erskine-Smith

42:46-43:30

Similarly though, individuals who come into my office and they’ve been here for more than five years. They have been strong contributors to the community. They have jobs. They’re oftentimes connected to a faith organization. They’re certainly connected to a community based organization that is going to bat for them. There’s, you know, obviously no criminal record in many cases they have other family here. And they’ve gone through so many appeals at different times. I look at that and I go, throughout Canadian history, there have been different regularization programs. Couldn’t you kick a ton of people not a country specific basis, but a category specific basis of over five years, economic contributions, community contributions, no criminal record, you’re approved.

Adam Sadinsky

43:30-44:20

Yeah, I’d add to your list of categories, folks who are working in, professions, that Canada needs workers in. give the example of construction. We are facing a housing crisis. So many construction workers are not Canadian. Many of my clients who are refugee claimants waiting for their hearings are working in the construction industry. And the government did that, back in the COVID pandemic, creating what was, what became known as the Guardian Angels Program, where folks who were working in the healthcare sector, on the front lines, combating the pandemic, supporting, folks who needed it, that they were allowed to be taken again out of the refugee queue with a designated, pathway to permanent residents on the basis of the work and the contribution they were doing. All of these could be done.

Adam Sadinsky

44:20-45:05

The refugee system is built on Canada’s international obligations under the refugee convention, to claim refugee protection, to claim asylum is a human right. Every person in the world has the right to claim asylum. Individuals who are claiming asylum in Canada are exercising that right. Each individual has their own claim, and that’s the real value that the refugee board brings to bear and why Canada has had a gold standard. The refugee system, replicated, around the world, every individual has their day in court, to explain to an expert tribunal why they face persecution. This bill would take that away.

Nate Erskine-Smith

45:05-46:18

Yeah, I can’t put my finger on what the other rationale would be though, because why the, why this change now? Well, we have right now, a huge number over a million people who are going to eventually be without status because they’re not gonna have a pathway that was originally, that they originally thought would be there. The one frustration I have sometimes in the system is there are people who have come into my office with, the original claim, being unfounded. But then I look at it, and they’ve been here partly because the process took so long, they’ve been here for over five years. If you’ve been here for over five years and you’re contributing and you’re a member of the community, and now we’re gonna kick you out. Like your original claim might have been unfounded, but this is insane. Now you’re contributing to this country, and what a broken system. So I guess I’m sympathetic to the need for speed at the front end to ensure that unfounded claims are deemed unfounded and people are deported and legitimate claims are deemed founded, and they can be welcomed. So cases don’t continue to come into my office that are over five or over six years long where I go, I don’t even care if it was originally unfounded or not. Welcome to Canada. You’ve been contributing here for six years anyway.

Adam Sadinsky

46:18-46:33

But if I can interject? Even if the bill passes as written, each of these individuals is still going to have what’s called a pre-removal risk assessment.

Nate Erskine-Smith

46:31-46:33

They’re still gonna have a process. Yeah, exactly.

Adam Sadinsky

46:33-46:55

They’re still gonna have a process, and they’re still going to wait time. All these people are still in the system. The bill is a bit of a shell game where folks are being just transferred from one process to another and say, oh, wow. Great. Look, we’ve reduced the backlog at the IRB by however many thousand claims,

Nate Erskine-Smith

46:53-46:55

And we’ve increased the backlog in the process.

Adam Sadinsky

46:55-48:25

Oh, look at the wait time at IRCC, and I’m sure you have constituents who come into your office and say, I filed a spousal sponsorship application two and a half years ago. I’m waiting for my spouse to come and it’s taking so long. IRCC is not immune from processing delays. There doesn’t seem to be, along with this bill, a corresponding hiring of hundreds and hundreds more pro officers. So, this backlog and this number of claims is shifting from one place to another. And another point I mentioned earlier within the refugee system within the board, when a person appeals a negative decision, right? Because, humans make decisions and humans make mistakes. And that’s why we have legislative appeal processes in the system to allow for mistakes to be corrected. That appeal process happens within the board, and a person is protected from deportation while they’re appealing with a pro. With this other system, it’s different. The moment that an officer makes a negative decision on a pro that person is now eligible to be deported. CBSA can ask them to show up the next day and get on a plane and go home. Yes, a person can apply for judicial review in the federal court that does not stop their deportation. If they can bring a motion to the court for a stay of removal.

Nate Erskine-Smith

48:19-48:25

You’re gonna see a ton of new work for the federal court. You are gonna see double the work for the federal court

Adam Sadinsky

48:25-48:39

Which is already overburdened. So unless the government is also appointing many, many new judges, and probably hiring more Council Department of Justice, this backlog is going to move from one place to another.

Nate Erskine-Smith

48:39-48:41

It’s just gonna be industry whack-a-mole with the backlog.

Adam Sadinsky

48:41-48:52

The only way to clear the backlog is to clear people out of it. There’s no fair way to clear folks out of it in a negative way. So the only way to do that is positively.

Nate Erskine-Smith

48:52-49:37

In the limited time we got left, the bill also empowers the governor and council of the cabinet to cancel documents, to suspend documents. And just so I’ve got this clearer in my mind, so if, for example: say one is a say, one is a student on campus, or say one is on a, on a work permit and one is involved in a protest, and that protest the government deems to be something they don’t like. The government could cancel the student’s permit on the basis that they were involved in the protest. Is that right? The law? Not to say that this government would do that. But this would allow the government to legally do just that. Am I reading it wrong?

Adam Sadinsky

49:37-50:46

The bill gives broad powers to the government to cancel documents. I think you’re reading it correctly. To me, when I read the bill, I don’t particularly understand exactly what is envisioned. Where it would, where the government would do this, why a government would want to put this in. But you are right. I would hope this government would not do that, but this government is not going to be in power forever. When you put laws on the books, they can be used by whomever for whatever reason they can they want, that’s within how that law is drafted. You know, we saw down south, you know, the secretary of State a few months ago said, okay, we’re gonna cancel the permits of everyone from South Sudan, in the US because they’re not taking back people being deported. It’s hugely problematic. It’s a complete overreach. It seems like there could be regulations that are brought in. But the power is so broad as written in this law, that it could definitely be used, for purposes most Canadians would not support.

Nate Erskine-Smith

50:46-51:07

And, obviously that’s a worst case scenario when we think about the United States in today’s political climate. But, it’s not clear to your point what the powers are necessary for. If we are to provide additional powers, we should only provide power as much as necessary and proportionate to the goal we want to achieve. Is there anything else you want to add?

Adam Sadinsky

51:07-51:43

I just wanna touch, and I’m sure you got into a lot of these issues, on the privacy side but. The privacy issues in this bill bleed over into the refugee system with broad search powers, um, particularly requiring service providers to provide information, we are concerned these powers could be used by CBSA, for example, to ask a women’s shelter, to hand over information about a woman claiming refugee protection or who’s undocumented, living in a shelter, we have huge concerns that, you know, these powers will not just be used by police, but also by Canada Border Services and immigration enforcement. I’m not the expert on privacy issues, but we see it we see the specter of those issues as well.

Nate Erskine-Smith

51:43-52:22

That’s all the time we got, but in terms of what would help me to inform my own advocacy going forward is, this bill is gonna get to committee. I’m gonna support the bill in committee and see if we can amend it. I know, the position of CARL is withdraw. The position of a number of civil society organizations is to withdraw it. I think it’s constructive to have your voice and others at committee, and to make the same arguments you made today with me. Where you have. I know your argument’s gonna be withdrawn, you’ll say then in the alternative, here are changes that should be made. When you’ve got a list of those changes in detailed, legislative amendment form, flip them to me and I’ll share the ideas around the ministry and around with colleagues, and I appreciate the time. Appreciate the advocacy.

Adam Sadinsky

52:22-52:24

Absolutely. Thank you.

Taylor Owen’s work focuses on the intersection of media, technology and public policy and can be found at taylorowen.com. He is the Beaverbrook Chair in Media, Ethics and Communications and the founding Director of The Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy at McGill University where he is also an Associate Professor. He is the host of the Globe and Mail’s Machines Like Us podcast and author of several books.

Taylor also joined me for this discussion more than 5 years ago now. And a lot has happened in that time.

Upcoming episodes will include guests Tanya Talaga and an episode focused on the border bill C-2, with experts from The Citizen Lab and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.

We’ll also be hosting a live event at the Naval Club of Toronto with Catherine McKenna, who will be launching her new book Run Like a Girl. Register for free through Eventbrite.

As always, if you have ideas for future guests or topics, email us at info@beynate.ca

Chapters:

0:29 Setting the Stage

1:44 Core Problems & Challenges

4:31 Information Ecosystem Crisis

10:19 Signals of Reliability & Policy Challenges

14:33 Legislative Efforts

18:29 Online Harms Act Deep Dive

25:31 AI Fraud

29:38 Platform Responsibility

32:55 Future Policy Direction

Further Reading and Listening:

Public rules for big tech platforms with Taylor Owen — Uncommons Podcast

“How the Next Government can Protect Canada’s Information Ecosystem.” Taylor Owen with Helen Hayes, The Globe and Mail, April 7, 2025.

Machines Like Us Podcast

Bill C-63

Transcript:

Nate Erskine-Smith

00:00-00:43

Welcome to Uncommons, I’m Nate Erskine-Smith. This is our first episode back after a bit of a hiatus, and we are back with a conversation focused on AI safety, digital governance, and all of the challenges with regulating the internet. I’m joined by Professor Taylor Owen. He’s an expert in these issues. He’s been writing about these issues for many years. I actually had him on this podcast more than five years ago, and he’s been a huge part of getting us in Canada to where we are today. And it’s up to this government to get us across the finish line, and that’s what we talk about. Taylor, thanks for joining me. Thanks for having me. So this feels like deja vu all over again, because I was going back before you arrived this morning and you joined this podcast in April of 2020 to talk about platform governance.

Taylor Owen

00:43-00:44

It’s a different world.

Taylor

00:45-00:45

In some ways.

Nate Erskine-Smith

00:45-01:14

Yeah. Well, yeah, a different world for sure in many ways, but also the same challenges in some ways too. Additional challenges, of course. But I feel like in some ways we’ve come a long way because there’s been lots of consultation. There have been some legislative attempts at least, but also we haven’t really accomplished the thing. So let’s talk about set the stage. Some of the same challenges from five years ago, but some new challenges. What are the challenges? What are the problems we’re trying to solve? Yeah, I mean, many of them are the same, right?

Taylor Owen

01:14-03:06

I mean, this is part of the technology moves fast. But when you look at the range of things citizens are concerned about when they and their children and their friends and their families use these sets of digital technologies that shape so much of our lives, many things are the same. So they’re worried about safety. They’re worried about algorithmic content and how that’s feeding into what they believe and what they think. They’re worried about polarization. We’re worried about the integrity of our democracy and our elections. We’re worried about sort of some of the more acute harms of like real risks to safety, right? Like children taking their own lives and violence erupting, political violence emerging. Like these things have always been present as a part of our digital lives. And that’s what we were concerned about five years ago, right? When we talked about those harms, that was roughly the list. Now, the technologies we were talking about at the time were largely social media platforms, right? So that was the main way five years ago that we shared, consumed information in our digital politics and our digital public lives. And that is what’s changing slightly. Now, those are still prominent, right? We’re still on TikTok and Instagram and Facebook to a certain degree. But we do now have a new layer of AI and particularly chatbots. And I think a big question we face in this conversation in this, like, how do we develop policies that maximize the benefits of digital technologies and minimize the harms, which is all this is trying to do. Do we need new tools for AI or some of the things we worked on for so many years to get right, the still the right tools for this new set of technologies with chatbots and various consumer facing AI interfaces?

Nate Erskine-Smith

03:07-03:55

My line in politics has always been, especially around privacy protections, that we are increasingly living our lives online. And especially, you know, my kids are growing up online and our laws need to reflect that reality. All of the challenges you’ve articulated to varying degrees exist in offline spaces, but can be incredibly hard. The rules we have can be incredibly hard to enforce at a minimum in the online space. And then some rules are not entirely fit for purpose and they need to be updated in the online space. It’s interesting. I was reading a recent op-ed of yours, but also some of the research you’ve done. This really stood out. So you’ve got the Hogue Commission that says disinformation is the single biggest threat to our democracy. That’s worth pausing on.

Taylor Owen

03:55-04:31

Yeah, exactly. Like the commission that spent a year at the request of all political parties in parliament, at the urging of the opposition party, so it spent a year looking at a wide range of threats to our democratic systems that everybody was concerned about originating in foreign countries. And the conclusion of that was that the single biggest threat to our democracy is the way information flows through our society and how we’re not governing it. Like that is a remarkable statement and it kind of came and went. And I don’t know why we moved off from that so fast.

Nate Erskine-Smith

04:31-05:17

Well, and there’s a lot to pull apart there because you’ve got purposeful, intentional, bad actors, foreign influence operations. But you also have a really core challenge of just the reliability and credibility of the information ecosystem. So you have Facebook, Instagram through Meta block news in Canada. And your research, this was the stat that stood out. Don’t want to put you in and say like, what do we do? Okay. So there’s, you say 11 million views of news have been lost as a consequence of that blocking. Okay. That’s one piece of information people should know. Yeah. But at the same time.

Taylor Owen

05:17-05:17

A day. Yeah.

Nate Erskine-Smith

05:18-05:18

So right.

Taylor Owen

05:18-05:27

11 million views a day. And we should sometimes we go through these things really fast. It’s huge. Again, Facebook decides to block news. 40 million people in Canada. Yeah.

Taylor

05:27-05:29

So 11 million times a Canadian.

Taylor Owen

05:29-05:45

And what that means is 11 million times a Canadian would open one of their news feeds and see Canadian journalism is taken out of the ecosystem. And it was replaced by something. People aren’t using these tools less. So that journalism was replaced by something else.

Taylor

05:45-05:45

Okay.

Taylor Owen

05:45-05:46

So that’s just it.

Nate Erskine-Smith

05:46-06:04

So on the one side, we’ve got 11 million views a day lost. Yeah. And on the other side, Canadians, the majority of Canadians get their news from social media. But when the Canadians who get their news from social media are asked where they get it from, they still say Instagram and Facebook. But there’s no news there. Right.

Taylor Owen

06:04-06:04

They say they get.

Nate Erskine-Smith

06:04-06:05

It doesn’t make any sense.

Taylor Owen

06:06-06:23

It doesn’t and it does. It’s terrible. They ask Canadians, like, where do you get people who use social media to get their news? Where do they get their news? and they still say social media, even though it’s not there. Journalism isn’t there. Journalism isn’t there. And I think one of the explanations— Traditional journalism. There is—

Taylor

06:23-06:23

There is—

Taylor Owen

06:23-06:47

Well, this is what I was going to get at, right? Like, there is—one, I think, conclusion is that people don’t equate journalism with news about the world. There’s not a one-to-one relationship there. Like, journalism is one provider of news, but so are influencers, so are podcasts, people listening to this. Like this would be labeled probably news in people’s.

Nate Erskine-Smith

06:47-06:48

Can’t trust the thing we say.

Taylor Owen

06:48-07:05

Right. And like, and neither of us are journalists, right? But we are providing information about the world. And if it shows up in people’s feeds, as I’m sure it will, like that probably gets labeled in people’s minds as news, right? As opposed to pure entertainment, as entertaining as you are.

Nate Erskine-Smith

07:05-07:06

It’s public affairs content.

Taylor Owen

07:06-07:39

Exactly. So that’s one thing that’s happening. The other is that there’s a generation of creators that are stepping into this ecosystem to both fill that void and that can use these tools much more effectively. So in the last election, we found that of all the information consumed about the election, 50% of it was created by creators. 50% of the engagement on the election was from creators. Guess what it was for journalists, for journalism? Like 5%. Well, you’re more pessimistic though. I shouldn’t have led with the question. 20%.

Taylor

07:39-07:39

Okay.

Taylor Owen

07:39-07:56

So all of journalism combined in the entire country, 20 percent of engagement, influencers, 50 percent in the last election. So like we’ve shifted, at least on social, the actors and people and institutions that are fostering our public.

Nate Erskine-Smith

07:56-08:09

Is there a middle ground here where you take some people that play an influencer type role but also would consider themselves citizen journalists in a way? How do you – It’s a super interesting question, right?

Taylor Owen

08:09-08:31

Like who – when are these people doing journalism? When are they doing acts of journalism? Like someone can be – do journalism and 90% of the time do something else, right? And then like maybe they reveal something or they tell an interesting story that resonates with people or they interview somebody and it’s revelatory and it’s a journalistic act, right?

Taylor

08:31-08:34

Like this is kind of a journalistic act we’re playing here.

Taylor Owen

08:35-08:49

So I don’t think – I think these lines are gray. but I mean there’s some other underlying things here which like it matters if I think if journalistic institutions go away entirely right like that’s probably not a good thing yeah I mean that’s why

Nate Erskine-Smith

08:49-09:30

I say it’s terrifying is there’s a there’s a lot of good in the in the digital space that is trying to be there’s creative destruction there’s a lot of work to provide people a direct sense of news that isn’t that filter that people may mistrust in traditional media. Having said that, so many resources and there’s so much history to these institutions and there’s a real ethics to journalism and journalists take their craft seriously in terms of the pursuit of truth. Absolutely. And losing that access, losing the accessibility to that is devastating for democracy. I think so.

Taylor Owen

09:30-09:49

And I think the bigger frame of that for me is a democracy needs signals of – we need – as citizens in a democracy, we need signals of reliability. Like we need to know broadly, and we’re not always going to agree on it, but like what kind of information we can trust and how we evaluate whether we trust it.

Nate Erskine-Smith

09:49-10:13

And that’s what – that is really going away. Pause for a sec. So you could imagine signals of reliability is a good phrase. what does it mean for a legislator when it comes to putting a rule in place? Because you could imagine, you could have a Blade Runner kind of rule that says you’ve got to distinguish between something that is human generated

Taylor

10:13-10:14

and something that is machine generated.

Nate Erskine-Smith

10:15-10:26

That seems straightforward enough. It’s a lot harder if you’re trying to distinguish between Taylor, what you’re saying is credible, and Nate, what you’re saying is not credible,

Taylor

10:27-10:27

which is probably true.

Nate Erskine-Smith

10:28-10:33

But how do you have a signal of reliability in a different kind of content?

Taylor Owen

10:34-13:12

I mean, we’re getting into like a journalistic journalism policy here to a certain degree, right? And it’s a wicked problem because the primary role of journalism is to hold you personally to account. And you setting rules for what they can and can’t do and how they can and can’t behave touches on some real like third rails here, right? It’s fraught. However, I don’t think it should ever be about policy determining what can and can’t be said or what is and isn’t journalism. The real problem is the distribution mechanism and the incentives within it. So a great example and a horrible example happened last week, right? So Charlie Kirk gets assassinated. I don’t know if you opened a feed in the few days after that, but it was a horrendous place, right? Social media was an awful, awful, awful place because what you saw in that feed was the clearest demonstration I’ve ever seen in a decade of looking at this of how those algorithmic feeds have become radicalized. Like all you saw on every platform was the worst possible representations of every view. Right. Right. It was truly shocking and horrendous. Like people defending the murder and people calling for the murder of leftists and like on both sides. Right. people blaming Israel, people, whatever. Right. And that isn’t a function of like- Aaron Charlie Kirk to Jesus. Sure. Like- It was bonkers all the way around. Totally bonkers, right? And that is a function of how those ecosystems are designed and the incentives within them. It’s not a function of like there was journalism being produced about that. Like New York Times, citizens were doing good content about what was happening. It was like a moment of uncertainty and journalism was doing or playing a role, but it wasn’t And so I think with all of these questions, including the online harms ones, and I think how we step into an AI governance conversation, the focus always has to be on those systems. I’m like, what is who and what and what are the incentives and the technical decisions being made that determine what we experience when we open these products? These are commercial products that we’re choosing to consume. And when we open them, a whole host of business and design and technical decisions and human decisions shape the effect it has on us as people, the effect it has on our democracy, the vulnerabilities that exist in our democracy, the way foreign actors or hostile actors can take advantage of them, right? Like all of that stuff we’ve been talking about, the role reliability of information plays, like these algorithms could be tweaked for reliable versus unreliable content, right? Over time.

Taylor

13:12-13:15

That’s not a – instead of reactionary –

Taylor Owen

13:15-13:42

Or like what’s most – it gets most engagement or what makes you feel the most angry, which is largely what’s driving X, for example, right now, right? You can torque all those things. Now, I don’t think we want government telling companies how they have to torque it. But we can slightly tweak the incentives to get better content, more reliable content, less polarizing content, less hateful content, less harmful content, right? Those dials can be incentivized to be turned. And that’s where the policy space should play, I think.

Nate Erskine-Smith

13:43-14:12

And your focus on systems and assessing risks with systems. I think that’s the right place to play. I mean, we’ve seen legislative efforts. You’ve got the three pieces in Canada. You’ve got online harms. You’ve got the privacy and very kind of vague initial foray into AI regs, which we can get to. And then a cybersecurity piece. And all of those ultimately died on the order paper. Yeah. We also had the journalistic protection policies, right, that the previous government did.

Taylor Owen

14:12-14:23

I mean – Yeah, yeah, yeah. We can debate their merits. Yeah. But there was considerable effort put into backstopping the institutions of journalism by the – Well, they’re twofold, right?

Nate Erskine-Smith

14:23-14:33

There’s the tax credit piece, sort of financial support. And then there was the Online News Act. Right. Which was trying to pull some dollars out of the platforms to pay for the news as well. Exactly.

Taylor

14:33-14:35

So the sort of supply and demand side thing, right?

Nate Erskine-Smith

14:35-14:38

There’s the digital service tax, which is no longer a thing.

Taylor Owen

14:40-14:52

Although it still is a piece of past legislation. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It still is a thing. Yeah, yeah. Until you guys decide whether to negate the thing you did last year or not, right? Yeah.

Nate Erskine-Smith

14:52-14:55

I don’t take full responsibility for that one.

Taylor Owen

14:55-14:56

No, you shouldn’t.

Nate Erskine-Smith

14:58-16:03

But other countries have seen more success. Yeah. And so you’ve got in the UK, in Australia, the EU really has led the way. 2018, the EU passes GDPR, which is a privacy set of rules, which we are still behind seven years later. But you’ve got in 2022, 2023, you’ve got Digital Services Act that passes. You’ve got Digital Markets Act. And as I understand it, and we’ve had, you know, we’ve both been involved in international work on this. And we’ve heard from folks like Francis Hogan and others about the need for risk-based assessments. And you’re well down the rabbit hole on this. But isn’t it at a high level? You deploy a technology. You’ve got to identify material risks. You then have to take reasonable measures to mitigate those risks. That’s effectively the duty of care built in. And then ideally, you’ve got the ability for third parties, either civil society or some public office that has the ability to audit whether you have adequately identified and disclosed material risks and whether you have taken reasonable steps to mitigate.

Taylor Owen

16:04-16:05

That’s like how I have it in my head.

Nate Erskine-Smith

16:05-16:06

I mean, that’s it.

Taylor Owen

16:08-16:14

Write it down. Fill in the legislation. Well, I mean, that process happened. I know. That’s right. I know.

Nate Erskine-Smith

16:14-16:25

Exactly. Which people, I want to get to that because C63 gets us a large part of the way there. I think so. And yet has been sort of like cast aside.

Taylor Owen

16:25-17:39

Exactly. Let’s touch on that. But I do think what you described as the online harms piece of this governance agenda. When you look at what the EU has done, they have put in place the various building blocks for what a broad digital governance agenda might look like. Because the reality of this space, which we talked about last time, and it’s the thing that’s infuriating about digital policy, is that you can’t do one thing. There’s no – digital economy and our digital lives are so vast and the incentives and the effect they have on society is so broad that there’s no one solution. So anyone who tells you fix privacy policy and you’ll fix all the digital problems we just talked about are full of it. Anyone who says competition policy, like break up the companies, will solve all of these problems. is wrong, right? Anyone who says online harms policy, which we’ll talk about, fixes everything is wrong. You have to do all of them. And Europe has, right? They updated their privacy policy. They’ve been to build a big online harms agenda. They updated their competition regime. And they’re also doing some AI policy too, right? So like you need comprehensive approaches, which is not an easy thing to do, right? It means doing three big things all over.

Nate Erskine-Smith

17:39-17:41

Especially minority parlance, short periods of time, legislatively.

Taylor Owen

17:41-18:20

Different countries have taken different pieces of it. Now, on the online harms piece, which is what the previous government took really seriously, and I think it’s worth putting a point on that, right, that when we talked last was the beginning of this process. After we spoke, there was a national expert panel. There were 20 consultations. There were four citizens’ assemblies. There was a national commission, right? Like a lot of work went into looking at what every other country had done because this is a really wicked, difficult problem and trying to learn from what Europe, Australia and the UK had all done. And we kind of taking the benefit of being late, right? So they were all ahead of us.

Taylor

18:21-18:25

People you work with on that grant committee. We’re all quick and do our own consultations.

Taylor Owen

18:26-19:40

Exactly. And like the model that was developed out of that, I think, was the best model of any of those countries. And it’s now seen as internationally, interestingly, as the new sort of milestone that everybody else is building on, right? And what it does is it says if you’re going to launch a digital product, right, like a consumer-facing product in Canada, you need to assess risk. And you need to assess risk on these broad categories of harms that we have decided as legislators we care about or you’ve decided as legislators you cared about, right? Child safety, child sexual abuse material, fomenting violence and extremist content, right? Like things that are like broad categories that we’ve said are we think are harmful to our democracy. All you have to do as a company is a broad assessment of what could go wrong with your product. If you find something could go wrong, so let’s say, for example, let’s use a tangible example. Let’s say you are a social media platform and you are launching a product that’s going to be used by kids and it allows adults to contact kids without parental consent or without kids opting into being a friend. What could go wrong with that?

Nate Erskine-Smith

19:40-19:40

Yeah.

Taylor

19:40-19:43

Like what could go wrong? Yeah, a lot could go wrong.

Taylor Owen

19:43-20:27

And maybe strange men will approach teenage girls. Maybe, right? Like if you do a risk assessment, that is something you might find. You would then be obligated to mitigate that risk and show how you’ve mitigated it, right? Like you put in a policy in place to show how you’re mitigating it. And then you have to share data about how these tools are used so that we can monitor, publics and researchers can monitor whether that mitigation strategy worked. That’s it. In that case, that feature was launched by Instagram in Canada without any risk assessment, without any safety evaluation. And we know there was like a widespread problem of teenage girls being harassed by strange older men.

Taylor

20:28-20:29

Incredibly creepy.

Taylor Owen

20:29-20:37

A very easy, but not like a super illegal thing, not something that would be caught by the criminal code, but a harm we can all admit is a problem.

Taylor

20:37-20:41

And this kind of mechanism would have just filtered out.

Taylor Owen

20:41-20:51

Default settings, right? And doing thinking a bit before you launch a product in a country about what kind of broad risks might emerge when it’s launched and being held accountable to do it for doing that.

Nate Erskine-Smith

20:52-21:05

Yeah, I quite like the we I mean, maybe you’ve got a better read of this, but in the UK, California has pursued this. I was looking at recently, Elizabeth Denham is now the Jersey Information Commissioner or something like that.

Taylor Owen

21:05-21:06

I know it’s just yeah.

Nate Erskine-Smith

21:07-21:57

I don’t random. I don’t know. But she is a Canadian, for those who don’t know Elizabeth Denham. And she was the information commissioner in the UK. And she oversaw the implementation of the first age-appropriate design code. That always struck me as an incredibly useful approach. In that even outside of social media platforms, even outside of AI, take a product like Roblox, where tons of kids use it. And just forcing companies to ensure that the default settings are prioritizing child safety so that you don’t put the onus on parents and kids to figure out each of these different games and platforms. In a previous world of consumer protection, offline, it would have been de facto. Of course we’ve prioritized consumer safety first and foremost. But in the online world, it’s like an afterthought.

Taylor Owen

21:58-24:25

Well, when you say consumer safety, it’s worth like referring back to what we mean. Like a duty of care can seem like an obscure concept. But your lawyer is a real thing, right? Like you walk into a store. I walk into your office. I have an expectation that the bookshelves aren’t going to fall off the wall and kill me, right? And you have to bolt them into the wall because of that, right? Like that is a duty of care that you have for me when I walk into your public space or private space. Like that’s all we’re talking about here. And the age-appropriate design code, yes, like sort of developed, implemented by a Canadian in the UK. And what it says, it also was embedded in the Online Harms Act, right? If we’d passed that last year, we would be implementing an age-appropriate design code as we speak, right? What that would say is any product that is likely to be used by a kid needs to do a set of additional things, not just these risk assessments, right? But we think like kids don’t have the same rights as adults. We have different duties to protect kids as adults, right? So maybe they should do an extra set of things for their digital products. And it includes things like no behavioral targeting, no advertising, no data collection, no sexual adult content, right? Like kind of things that like – Seem obvious. And if you’re now a child in the UK and you open – you go on a digital product, you are safer because you have an age-appropriate design code governing your experience online. Canadian kids don’t have that because that bill didn’t pass, right? So like there’s consequences to this stuff. and I get really frustrated now when I see the conversation sort of pivoting to AI for example right like all we’re supposed to care about is AI adoption and all the amazing things AI is going to do to transform our world which are probably real right like not discounting its power and just move on from all of these both problems and solutions that have been developed to a set of challenges that both still exist on social platforms like they haven’t gone away people are still using these tools and the harms still exist and probably are applicable to this next set of technologies as well. So this moving on from what we’ve learned and the work that’s been done is just to the people working in this space and like the wide stakeholders in this country who care about this stuff and working on it. It just, it feels like you say deja vu at the beginning and it is deja vu, but it’s kind of worse, right? Cause it’s like deja vu and then ignoring the

Taylor

24:25-24:29

five years of work. Yeah, deja vu if we were doing it again. Right. We’re not even, we’re not even

Taylor Owen

24:29-24:41

Well, yeah. I mean, hopefully I actually am not, I’m actually optimistic, I would say that we will, because I actually think of if for a few reasons, like one, citizens want it, right? Like.

Nate Erskine-Smith

24:41-24:57

Yeah, I was surprised on the, so you mentioned there that the rules that we design, the risk assessment framework really applied to social media could equally be applied to deliver AI safety and it could be applied to new technology in a useful way.

Taylor Owen

24:58-24:58

Some elements of it. Exactly.

Nate Erskine-Smith

24:58-25:25

I think AI safety is a broad bucket of things. So let’s get to that a little bit because I want to pull the pieces together. So I had a constituent come in the office and he is really like super mad. He’s super mad. Why is he mad? Does that happen very often? Do people be mad when they walk into this office? Not as often as you think, to be honest. Not as often as you think. And he’s mad because he believes Mark Carney ripped him off.

Taylor Owen

25:25-25:25

Okay.

Nate Erskine-Smith

25:25-26:36

Okay. Yep. He believes Mark Carney ripped him off, not with broken promise in politics, not because he said one thing and is delivering something else, nothing to do with politics. He saw a video online, Mark Carney told him to invest money. He invested money and he’s out the 200 bucks or whatever it was. And I was like, how could you possibly have lost money in this way? This is like, this was obviously a scam. Like what, how could you have been deceived? But then I go and I watched the video And it is, okay, I’m not gonna send the 200 bucks and I’ve grown up with the internet, but I can see how- Absolutely. In the same way, phone scams and Nigerian princes and all of that have their own success rate. I mean, this was a very believable video that was obviously AI generated. So we are going to see rampant fraud. If we aren’t already, we are going to see many challenges with respect to AI safety. What over and above the risk assessment piece, what do we do to address these challenges?

Taylor Owen

26:37-27:04

So that is a huge problem, right? Like the AI fraud, AI video fraud is a huge challenge. In the election, when we were monitoring the last election, by far the biggest problem or vulnerability of the election was a AI generated video campaign. that every day would take videos of Polyevs and Carney’s speeches from the day before and generate, like morph them into conversations about investment strategies.

Taylor

27:05-27:07

And it was driving people to a crypto scam.

Taylor Owen

27:08-27:11

But it was torquing the political discourse.

Taylor

27:11-27:11

That’s what it must have been.

Taylor Owen

27:12-27:33

I mean, there’s other cases of this, but that’s probably, and it was running rampant on particularly meta platforms. They were flagged. They did nothing about it. There were thousands of these videos circulating throughout the entire election, right? And it’s not like the end of the world, right? Like nobody – but it torqued our political debate. It ripped off some people. And these kinds of scams are –

Taylor

27:33-27:38

It’s clearly illegal. It’s clearly illegal. It probably breaks his election law too, misrepresenting a political figure, right?

Taylor Owen

27:38-27:54

So I think there’s probably an Elections Canada response to this that’s needed. And it’s fraud. And it’s fraud, absolutely. So what do you do about that, right? And the head of the Canadian Banking Association said there’s like billions of dollars in AI-based fraud in the Canadian economy right now. Right? So it’s a big problem.

Taylor

27:54-27:55

Yeah.

Taylor Owen

27:55-28:46

I actually think there’s like a very tangible policy solution. You put these consumer-facing AI products into the Online Harms Act framework, right? And then you add fraud and AI scams as a category of harm. And all of a sudden, if you’re meta and you are operating in Canada during an election, you’d have to do a risk assessment on like AI fraud potential of your product. Responsibility for your platform. And then it starts to circulate. We would see it. They’d be called out on it. They’d have to take it down. And like that’s that, right? Like so that we have mechanisms for dealing with this. But it does mean evolving what we worked on over the past five years, these like only harms risk assessment models and bringing in some of the consumer facing AI, both products and related harms into the framework.

Nate Erskine-Smith

28:47-30:18

To put it a different way, I mean, so this is years ago now that we had this, you know, grand committee in the UK holding Facebook and others accountable. This really was creating the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. And the platforms at the time were really holding firm to this idea of Section 230 and avoiding host liability and saying, oh, we couldn’t possibly be responsible for everything on our platform. And there was one problem with that argument, which is they completely acknowledged the need for them to take action when it came to child pornography. And so they said, yeah, well, you know, no liability for us. But of course, there can be liability on this one specific piece of content and we’ll take action on this one specific piece of content. And it always struck me from there on out. I mean, there’s no real intellectual consistency here. It’s more just what should be in that category of things that they should take responsibility for. And obviously harmful content like that should be – that’s an obvious first step but obvious for everyone. But there are other categories. Fraud is another one. When they’re making so much money, when they are investing so much money in AI, when they’re ignoring privacy protections and everything else throughout the years, I mean, we can’t leave it up to them. And setting a clear set of rules to say this is what you’re responsible for and expanding that responsibility seems to make a good amount of sense.

Taylor Owen

30:18-30:28

It does, although I think those responsibilities need to be different for different kinds of harms. Because there are different speech implications and apocratic implications of sort of absolute solutions to different kinds of content.

Taylor

30:28-30:30

So like child pornography is a great example.

Taylor Owen

30:30-31:44

In the Online Harms Bill Act, for almost every type of content, it was that risk assessment model. But there was a carve out for child sexual abuse material. So including child pornography. And for intimate images and videos shared without consent. It said the platforms actually have a different obligation, and that’s to take it down within 24 hours. And the reason you can do it with those two kinds of content is because if we, one, the AI is actually pretty good at spotting it. It might surprise you, but there’s a lot of naked images on the internet that we can train AI with. So we’re actually pretty good at using AI to pull this stuff down. But the bigger one is that we are, I think, as a society, it’s okay to be wrong in the gray area of that speech, right? Like if something is like debatable, whether it’s child pornography, I’m actually okay with us suppressing the speech of the person who sits in that gray area. Whereas for something like hate speech, it’s a really different story, right? Like we do not want to suppress and over index for that gray area on hate speech because that’s going to capture a lot of reasonable debate that we probably want.

Nate Erskine-Smith

31:44-31:55

Yeah, I think soliciting investment via fraud probably falls more in line with the child pornography category where it’s, you know, very obviously illegal.

Taylor Owen

31:55-32:02

And that mechanism is like a takedown mechanism, right? Like if we see fraud, if we know it’s fraud, then you take it down, right? Some of these other things we have to go with.

Nate Erskine-Smith

32:02-32:24

I mean, my last question really is you pull the threads together. You’ve got these different pieces that were introduced in the past. And you’ve got a government that lots of similar folks around the table, but a new government and a new prime minister certainly with a vision for getting the most out of AI when it comes to our economy.

Taylor

32:24-32:25

Absolutely.

Nate Erskine-Smith

32:25-33:04

You have, for the first time in this country, an AI minister, a junior minister to industry, but still a specific title portfolio and with his own deputy minister and really wants to be seized with this. And in a way, I think that from every conversation I’ve had with him that wants to maximize productivity in this country using AI, but is also cognizant of the risks and wants to address AI safety. So where from here? You know, you’ve talked in the past about sort of a grander sort of tech accountability and sovereignty act. Do we do piecemeal, you know, a privacy bill here and an AI safety bill and an online harms bill and we have disparate pieces? What’s the answer here?

Taylor Owen

33:05-34:14

I mean, I don’t have the exact answer. But I think there’s some like, there’s some lessons from the past that we can, this government could take. And one is piecemeal bills that aren’t centrally coordinated or have no sort of connectivity between them end up with piecemeal solutions that are imperfect and like would benefit from some cohesiveness between them, right? So when the previous government released ADA, the AI Act, it was like really intention in some real ways with the online harms approach. So two different departments issuing two similar bills on two separate technologies, not really talking to each other as far as I can tell from the outside, right? So like we need a coordinating, coordinated, comprehensive effort to digital governance. Like that’s point one and we’ve never had it in this country. And when I saw the announcement of an AI minister, my mind went first to that he or that office could be that role. Like you could – because AI is – it’s cross-cutting, right? Like every department in our federal government touches AI in one way or another. And the governance of AI and the adoption on the other side of AI by society is going to affect every department and every bill we need.

Nate Erskine-Smith

34:14-34:35

So if Evan pulled in the privacy pieces that would help us catch up to GDPR. Which it sounds like they will, right? Some version of C27 will probably come back. If he pulls in the online harms pieces that aren’t related to the criminal code and drops those provisions, says, you know, Sean Frazier, you can deal with this if you like. But these are the pieces I’m holding on to.

Taylor Owen

34:35-34:37

With a frame of consumer safety, right?

Nate Erskine-Smith

34:37-34:37

Exactly.

Taylor Owen

34:38-34:39

If he wants...

Nate Erskine-Smith

34:39-34:54

Which is connected to privacy as well, right? Like these are all... So then you have thematically a bill that makes sense. And then you can pull in as well the AI safety piece. And then it becomes a consumer protection bill when it comes to living our lives online. Yeah.

Taylor Owen

34:54-36:06

And I think there’s an argument whether that should be one bill or whether it’s multiple ones. I actually don’t think it... I think there’s cases for both, right? There’s concern about big omnibus bills that do too many things and too many committees reviewing them and whatever. that’s sort of a machinery of government question right but but the principle that these should be tied together in a narrative that the government is explicit about making and communicating to publics right that if if you we know that 85 percent of canadians want ai to be regulated what do they mean what they mean is at the same time as they’re being told by our government by companies that they should be using and embracing this powerful technology in their lives they’re also seeing some risks. They’re seeing risks to their kids. They’re being told their jobs might disappear and might take their... Why should I use this thing? When I’m seeing some harms, I don’t see you guys doing anything about these harms. And I’m seeing some potential real downside for me personally and my family. So even in the adoption frame, I think thinking about data privacy, safety, consumer safety, I think to me, that’s the real frame here. It’s like citizen safety, consumer safety using these products. Yeah, politically, I just, I mean, that is what it is. It makes sense to me.

Nate Erskine-Smith

36:06-36:25

Right, I agree. And really lean into child safety at the same time. Because like I’ve got a nine-year-old and a five-year-old. They are growing up with the internet. And I do not want to have to police every single platform that they use. I do not want to have to log in and go, these are the default settings on the parental controls.

Taylor

36:25-36:28

I want to turn to government and go, do your damn job.

Taylor Owen

36:28-36:48

Or just like make them slightly safer. I know these are going to be imperfect. I have a 12-year-old. He spends a lot of time on YouTube. I know that’s going to always be a place with sort of content that I would prefer he doesn’t see. But I would just like some basic safety standards on that thing. So he’s not seeing the worst of the worst.

Nate Erskine-Smith

36:48-36:58

And we should expect that. Certainly at YouTube with its promotion engine, the recommendation function is not actively promoting terrible content to your 12 year old.

Taylor Owen

36:59-37:31

Yeah. That’s like de minimis. Can we just torque this a little bit, right? So like maybe he’s not seeing content about horrible content about Charlie Kirk when he’s a 12 year old on YouTube, right? Like, can we just do something? And I think that’s a reasonable expectation as a citizen. But it requires governance. That will not – and that’s – it’s worth putting a real emphasis on that is one thing we’ve learned in this moment of repeated deja vus going back 20 years really since our experience with social media for sure through to now is that these companies don’t self-govern.

Taylor

37:31-37:31

Right.

Taylor Owen

37:32-37:39

Like we just – we know that indisputably. So to think that AI is going to be different is delusional. No, it’ll be pseudo-profit, not the public interest.

Taylor

37:39-37:44

Of course. Because that’s what we are. These are the largest companies in the world. Yeah, exactly. And AI companies are even bigger than the last generation, right?

Taylor Owen

37:44-38:00

We’re creating something new with the scale of these companies. And to think that their commercial incentives and their broader long-term goals of around AI are not going to override these safety concerns is just naive in the nth degree.

Nate Erskine-Smith

38:00-38:38

But I think you make the right point, and it’s useful to close on this, that these goals of realizing the productivity possibilities and potentials of AI alongside AI safety, these are not mutually exclusive or oppositional goals. that it’s you create a sandbox to play in and companies will be more successful. And if you have certainty in regulations, companies will be more successful. And if people feel safe using these tools and having certainly, you know, if I feel safe with my kids learning these tools growing up in their classrooms and everything else, you’re going to adoption rates will soar. Absolutely. And then we’ll benefit.

Taylor Owen

38:38-38:43

They work in tandem, right? And I think you can’t have one without the other fundamentally.

Nate Erskine-Smith

38:45-38:49

Well, I hope I don’t invite you back five years from now when we have the same conversation.

Taylor Owen

38:49-38:58

Well, I hope you invite me back in five years, but I hope it’s like thinking back on all the legislative successes of the previous five years. I mean, that’ll be the moment.

Taylor

38:58-38:59

Sounds good. Thanks, David. Thanks.

How many homes do we need to build? How should we go about building them? And who should we be serving?

Chapters:

00:00 Introduction to Housing Crisis in Canada
01:52 Understanding Housing Needs Assessments
05:14 Historical Context of Housing in Canada
09:09 Long-Term Solutions for Housing
16:10 Market vs. Non-Market Housing
22:24 Addressing NIMBYism and Zoning Reform
27:39 International Examples of Non-Market Housing
34:53 Financing Non-Market Housing
39:56 Protecting Renters and Tenant Rights
41:21 Addressing Homelessness with Compassion
46:39 Conclusion and Future Directions

Transcript:

Nate:
Welcome to Uncommons. I'm Nate Erskine-Smith. For those of you who are tuning in more recently, I'm the Member of Parliament for Beaches-East York. And this Uncommons podcast is a series of interviews with experts in their respective fields with colleagues of mine in parliament really focused on Canadian politics and policy in relation to that politics.

And today I'm joined by Carolyn Whitzman. She is an expert in housing policy, one of the most important issues at all levels of government that need to be addressed in a comprehensive, serious way. You'll hear all politicians sort of trip over themselves with different housing plans.

And the question for Carolyn is, how many homes do we need to build? How should we go about building them? And who should we be serving? And how are we going to get out of this housing crisis that this country faces and that all regions face in their own respective ways?

Now, Carolyn is a housing and social policy researcher. She's an expert advisor to UBC's housing assessment resource tools. She's a senior housing researcher at U of T's School of Cities. And most importantly, having just read her book, she is the author of Home Truths, Fixing Canada's Housing Crisis.

Nate:
Carolyn, thanks for joining me.

Caroyln:
Great to join you, Nate.

Nate:
So you came highly recommended to me by virtue of Mark Richardson, who's a constituent and an advocate on housing and someone I, you know, anything he says on housing is to be believed.

And he's, you know, he highly recommended your book, Home Truths, but he also suggested you as a podcast guest. So I really, really appreciate the time. And much of your work, you know, your main work, other than being an expert in all things housing, but a core expertise that you have is really on the needs assessment in terms of what the housing market in Canada needs in particular in different regions. And there are different needs.

There are market needs, there are non-market needs, there's deeply affordable needs for people who are experiencing homelessness.

And so how would you break down, you know, if you've got Sean Fraser coming to you and saying, what are the needs assessments? How would you break down the needs assessments on housing in this country?

Caroyln:
Well, funny you should say that because Sean's office and housing and infrastructure has come to me. So I did some work with a project called the Housing Assessment Resource Tools Project based at UBC that was funded by the CMHC that did what the CMHC used to do and unfortunately no longer does, which is look at housing need by income categories.

Canada has been doing that since 1944 during World War II when a report by a relatively conservative economist named Curtis said that for low-income people, probably some form of public housing was going to be necessary to meet their needs.

For middle-income people, there needed to be a lot more purpose-built rental housing, he said that in 1944. And he also said in 1944 that there needed to be some way to control rent increases and he suggested cooperative housing. And then for higher-income people, definitely scale up while located home ownership.

To some extent the Canadian government listened. Between 1944 and 1960, there were about a million homes enabled through government land financing design replication that were for moderate-income starter households.

In those days it was mostly one-earner households, like a man at home and a woman, sorry, a woman at home and a man at work. And the homes were two to three bedrooms between $7,000 and $8,000. So pretty remarkably that's like $80,000 to $90,000 in today's terms.

Nate:
That would be nice.

Carolyn:
Yeah, wouldn't it be nice? Once they were sold, they lost our affordability.

So since then, and certainly in the 1970s and 1980s when the federal government was building, well again enabling, about one in five homes to be built by public housing, cooperative housing, other non-profit housing, that housing was affordable to what they called low- and moderate-income households, so the lowest two quintiles of household income. Home ownership was easily affordable to moderate in most places and middle-income households.

So there's always been some housing needs, but there wasn't widespread homelessness. There wasn't the kinds of craziness that you see today where new rental housing isn't affordable to middle-income earners, where new homeowners are limited to the highest quintile, like the highest 20% of population.

So we simply use the same kinds of categories, also the kinds of categories that are used in the U.S. and other countries. Low income, moderate income, median income, and then higher income.

Unfortunately with provincial social assistance rates being what they are, we have to add a very low income, which is like 20% of median income, and really isn't enough to afford a room let alone an apartment. But yeah, that's the way we look at housing need.

Nate:
But then, so let's be maybe, that's at a high level for how we look, how we analyze it,

and then when we look at the Canadian context today, so you talk about the Curtis Report

post-war and on my reading of, I found your historical examples very interesting, international

examples interesting too, which we'll get to, but this was one of the most interesting

ones because here you have the Curtis Report proposing annual targets that you say is effectively the equivalent of 4 million homes over 10 years. But then they break this down into a particular categories.

Then you've got, you know, two years ago, two and a bit of years ago, you had CMHC issued a report to say we effectively need 5.8 million homes by 2030. So 2.3 million in business as usual. And then you've got this 3.5 million additional homes required. And that's impossible for us to achieve based upon the current trajectory at all levels of government, frankly, but especially at the provincial level.

And so when you look at the needs assessment today, so Curtis Report has 4 million over

10 years, what do we need today? Is CMHC right?

It's 5.8 million, although they don't break it down into these different categories, or should we be more specific to say, as you do, it's 200,000 new or renovated deeply affordable supportive homes over 10 years, and then you've got different categories for market and non-market.

Carolyn:
Well, I think it's important to prioritize people whose lives are literally being shortened because of lack of housing. So I think that ending homelessness should be a priority. And there's no doubt that we can't end homelessness without a new generation of low-cost housing.

So I wouldn't disagree that we need 6,000 new homes. I did a report last year for the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate that argued that we need 3 million new and acquired homes for low-income people alone at rents of about $1,000 a month or less, certainly less if you're on social assistance.

So the deed is pretty large. We have to recognize the fact that it's taken 30 to 50 years of inaction, particularly federal inaction, but also the Fed's downloaded to provinces, and as you say, provinces have done an extremely poor job to get there.

And I think that what we see from countries that work, like France and Finland, Austria, is that they think in terms of like 30-year infrastructure categories, just like any other infrastructure. If we were to have a really viable public transit system, we'd need to start thinking in terms of what are we going to do over the next 30 years.

Similarly, I think we need to look at a kind of 30-year time span when it comes to housing, and I think we need to look once again at that rule of thirds, which is a rule that's used in a lot of, in Germany and again in France and Finland, Denmark, about a third of it needs to be pretty deeply affordable low-income housing, about a third of it needs to be moderate-income rental, but with renter rights to ensure that the rents don't go up precipitously, and about a third of it needs to be for home ownership.

Nate:
You mentioned a 30-year window a few times there, and it strikes me that we need more honesty in our politics in that there's no quick solution to most of these challenges. That it's, you know, in your telling of the story, which I think is exactly right, this is decades in the making, and it will be decades in undoing this challenge and in addressing this as fulsome as we should.

Now, that's not to say, you're right, we should prioritize people whose lives are being shortened by a lack of housing. There's some things we can do immediately to get more rapid housing built and really drive at that in a shorter window of time.

But when you look at non-market housing, when you look at the market housing we need to build, no politician should stand at the microphone and say, we're going to build the homes we need without really overhauling how we do things and understanding that these homes are not going to get built tomorrow, that this is putting down track, policy track, to make sure homes get built in the next five years, in the next 10 years and beyond.

Carolyn:
Absolutely. And I think it's really important to start off with some aspirational goals. Like, for

instance, it was 1987 when Finland said, we're going to end homelessness, and this is how we're going to do it. France in 2000 said 20% of all housing should be non-market, in other words, public cooperative, non-profit.

And in both Finland and France, there's been federal government changes as well as changes at the municipal level, etc. And those goals have remained the same through right wing and left wing governments.

It does worry me, Nate, when politicians, I won't name any names, use sort of three word slogans, and that's going to somehow change things in the term of the government.

Nate:
I will will homes into existence by rhyming.

Carolyn:
So, you know, it takes building up systems, including good information systems to monitor and track how well we're doing and course correct. And that's something kind of basic that's been missing from federal policy as well.

There's one report that says there's 655,000 non-market homes. Another report two years later says that there's 980,000 non-market homes and those weren't built in two years. So, you know, what is our current housing stock? How are our policies working to create certain kinds of housing, housing for people with disabilities or housing for seniors?

Student housing need wasn't even included in the last few censuses. So, we don't really know how many students need housing at what cost and where. These are all examples of things that would be in a real national housing strategy.

Nate:
That seems to me like the basics, right? Like you measure why I want to start the

conversation with a needs assessment, because if you don't start with that, then you're not working in a serious direction to any end goal.

But I was also struck by your book just and you mentioned a couple of international examples and I'll say again, I want to get there, but I want to start the historical examples because part of us we live in this Overton window and we've had the federal government, not this federal government, but previous federal governments walk away from their responsibilities on housing.

As you say, the story is a story of downloading responsibilities. There's been some uploading of responsibilities back through the last two national housing strategies as far as it goes, but we could talk about whether there ought to be more of that even and I think there probably should be more fiscal firepower when I look at the international examples and what's spent in France and Germany and other countries.

But I was also struck by the historical ability to build in this country. And this is one thing that jumped out, but I'd also be curious what when you were writing this book, like what really jumped out is you as, so we're building fewer homes now than we were in the mid 1970s when the population was half what it is now. I found that absolutely shocking.

I also found it shocking if new home construction had stayed at 1970s levels, we'd have an additional 6 to 7 million homes, meaning we'd be where we should be.

Carolyn:
Yeah, yeah. So what happened? And I think a couple of things happened. One is, and this happened in a couple of countries. It happened in Sweden too.

Sweden said, we'll build a million homes in a country of 8 million, which is pretty impressive. And they did. And then they had a slight surplus of homes. They had some vacancies.

And instead of going, yay, vacancies, tenants have a choice. They went, oh my God, vacancies,

what are we doing? There was also a change of government, of course. So they course corrected.

Part of it is that a good housing system includes about 4 to 8% vacancies, just because people move,there's vacancies in between people moving. You want people to have a choice. We know that vacancies help bring rents down in sort of...

Nate:
And standards up, right?

Carolyn:
And standards up using classic supply and demand. So we want to see some vacancies. We don't want to have a zero vacancy system. That's number one.

Number two is just this increasing belief in the late 1970s and early 1980s. And it came from both the right and the left to distrust government.

I think Robert Moses, the chief planner of New York City for decades has a lot to answer for because people started looking at this big, heavy-handed planning and said, we don't want anything of it.

And so activists in central cities said, we don't want our heritage knocked down, which I completely understand, but then created such restrictive zoning that only very rich households can live in the majority of well-located neighborhoods in Toronto, for instance.

But from the right as well, there was this belief that the market can solve all problems, including the problem of housing for low-income people. And there's never been any proof that that particular contention is true. Whereas there's plenty of evidence that the needs of low-cost, low-income people can only be met through a kind of social perspective.

Just like if you said, hey, you have to pay the real costs of healthcare. Well, 20% of you won't be able to, and that's too bad for you. Or everyone needs to pay the real cost of primary education. Well, sorry, many of you will have to remain illiterate.

So housing is a basic need, a basic social determinant of health, just as education and healthcare is. And although housing is unlike healthcare and education in that the majority of it is provided by the private sector, just like food, there does need to be some consideration for the fact that everybody needs housing, just like they need healthcare and education and food.

Nate:
There's a lot there. And really, I think I was on the road a lot last year for an ultimately unsuccessful bid on the provincial leadership side. But I talked about housing a lot because it was, I think it's got to be the overriding focus for all levels of government, but especially provincial governments as it relates to zoning reform.

And the line I would use, and I believe in this, I think this is how to articulate it at a high level that governments need to get out of the way on the market side so homes can be built and governments have to get back in the game in a serious way on getting social housing built and public housing built. And at a high level, those are the two objectives.

Now, let's start with, there's a lot in what you said on both fronts, but let's start with market housing.

You've got a tragic situation where you've got a doubling of home prices, but wages have only increased by 7% over the last five, six years. You've set out a target on this front in your own analysis to say we need 2 million homes with affordable monthly rents.

So that's our goal. And to get there, part of this is ending exclusionary zoning. And then every level of government has role to play.

The federal government has the Housing Accelerator Fund, which is one of the programs I quite like, although I know it's subject to maybe getting cut under the next government.

Carolyn:
I do too. I just wish that there was the same kind of conditional funding with provinces. I mean, it seems like the federal government has gone, yeah, let's bully some municipalities and I have no problem with that, or let's provide targets to municipalities.

Nate:
I'm okay with the firm sort of like carrots and sticks. And in this case, yeah, it's a combination of the two.

Carolyn:
It is.

Nate:
And we should be firm with municipalities that don't do their jobs on any restrictive zoning. But when a province can end it with the stroke of a pen across the board, surely we should be even more forceful with provincial governments.

Carolyn:
Well, let me give the example of supportive housing. So the federal government announced

the Rapid Housing Initiative, which in many ways has been the most successful national housing strategy program, although it came along as a COVID era additional.

Nate:
It's the only program I really like talking about, other than the half, the Housing Accelerator Fund, because I can see real results. I can see Toronto, for example, working to change their zoning rules and other municipalities across the province and country, frankly.

The Rapid Housing is the only other piece. And there was a housing accelerator or a housing innovation fund, affordable housing innovation fund that was sort of a precursor to it. That's the only program I really point to to show like that's results oriented. There are real outcomes I can point to of homes that have been built where there are people that have moved out of the shelter system that are living in these homes. And, you know, people can debate it, but I see it as a broad success.

Carolyn:
I'm in furious agreement. It met and exceeded targets. The only problem was that in many cases it was supportive housing or housing with supports. And those supports can't be provided by the federal government.

Nate:
I know.

Carolyn:
It's worth of the provincial responsibility. And I think there was a little bit of wishful thinking that the provinces would come along, but in many cases, and Ontario is one of them, they just didn't come along.

So what would it be like if the federal government said, okay, as part of our health transfer dollars, we're going to transfer money directly into the health and social support services that we know are necessary in order to keep people with mental and physical health needs housed and we'll just claw it out of the health transfer payment.

I think that would be fair. It's still going to the people who need it the most through municipalities, but it would have the impact of showing that these targets are serious and also hopefully pointing provinces towards genuine plans to end homelessness. And the province has so many levers that could help prevent and end homelessness.

It has landlord-tenant relations and eviction protection. It has health and social services, which are an essential part of housing for people with disabilities, older people, et cetera. So the province can't wash its hands of the kind of housing policy that the federal government and municipalities are talking about.

They are the laggard in terms of the three levels of government, as far as I'm concerned.

Nate:
Do you think, so I have an example locally of 60 units built modular housing. It was through the Affordable Housing Innovation Fund, that's how I even know it exists, but the precursor to sort of rapid housing.

And I think of it as a success. It was some local opposition. It was challenging to get through some of those conversations. There's probably a bit more legwork that could have been done to make sure that it's all single units and it could have been probably, there are demographics to serve that drive this and I do understand that, but I do think in some of these cases, some of the literature I've read suggests that having some mix of single and family units can be helpful in the longer term.

I've read some stuff from John Sewell and others. So I don't know, maybe some of that could have been part of the mix in a way to respond to local concerns, but overall it's been a success.

And yet the city puts up the parking lot, the feds bring in the capital dollars, it gets built and the missing partner of the table on the wraparound ongoing supports is the province of Ontario.

So we fill this locally with a particular project, but it happens everywhere. And you're right. I do think we need to be more forceful on the provincial side. So then what does that look to you?

You did in your book suggest a couple of different things. You have a different idea that you propose there, but one piece is around requiring infrastructure dollars. So you have more, you're pushing provinces to add more density in transit oriented areas and you tie federal infrastructure dollars.

The half is obviously an example of using some federal dollars to try and change dynamics. We've got now a version of this where there's billions of dollars in loans available to provinces that opt into sort of the BC model, BC bills and doing things in a better way.

If you're advising the housing minister on this front, how much more forceful can we be at the federal level around addressing NIMBYism, do you think?

Caroyln:
Well, I think the big cure to NIMBYism is a lot more front-end work when it comes to community planning.

There's some really good work that's been done by a group called Renovate the Public Hearing, NBC. It's a black-clad group out of Simon Fraser and they use citizen juries, for instance, which are randomly chosen individuals in a community. Actually, Mark was part of one many years ago in Toronto out by Jennifer Keesmaat and they make kind of high-level decisions around planning.

Usually people, just everyday people off the street, given all the facts and all the evidence, will make pretty good decisions. But I don't think that residents should be asked to make decisions about every single development. I think there needs to be a lot more enabling environment quite radically, I suppose.

I think that four stories as of right with unlimited units would allow a whole new generation of small apartment buildings.

Nate:
That seems the minimum, by the way, so this is something that, you know, the half pushes and other changes have been proposed by other municipal leaders are on four stories as of right. Sorry, four units.

Carolyn:
It's not four units, it's four stories.

Nate:
Okay, so four stories would be more radical, but it's certainly less radical though than, the example I love from your book was Japan, which has incredibly permissive zoning rules that is rightly focused their zoning permissions on nuisances and real nuisances that affect quality of life, and not just they keep certain people out of this community and keep my property values up.

Carolyn:
And that's about mix as well. That's about having small grocery stores next to homes, next to trial care centers, next to high schools or whatever.

So I think a lot of the land use zoning is infamously two-dimensional. Like it says, this is what the land use will bein this particular area. And that's really problematic in terms of the kind of walkable communities that many of us are talking about as well as transit-oriented communities.

Of course,the minimum heights would need to be greater near transit stations and even bus stops, I'd argue, but certainly that sort of baseline that would allow, they'd allow multiplexes, they'd allow people to build granny flats and give the main house to one of their kids or two of their kids if the kids subdivided or whatever.

I think that that's sort of the retail change that needs to happen. There's sort of the wholesale change, which are big new developments on government land or near transit stations, et cetera.

But the sort of retail change is really important. A lot of neighborhoods in Toronto, and I know you live in Toronto, have lower densities than they did 30 years ago. They have smaller households, more single-person households, et cetera. So the built form needs to, you know, we need to have a lot more flexible housing to make a long story short.

And even if in the best case scenario, non-market housing was 20% of all housing, 80% would still be provided by the private sector. It's really hard for homeowners to say, hey, I'm going to subdivide into three units.

The municipal government makes it difficult through approvals and development taxes. Finance providers say, what's your experience as a developer? You know, so I think we need a far more enabling environment to make the kind of changes we need.

Nate:
Well, my last comment I would say on the market side is, and density, and in general, and encouraging density. It does strike me, one other tool that the feds could potentially use is when we, one thing is, you know, okay, tying infrastructure dollars to density around transit. That seems like no brainer stuff.

But there's also when the mayor of Norfolk County comes to me and says, we need real investments in wastewater. Well, great. Federal investments on the infrastructure side tied to some action on density. And I think different municipalities will have different needs.

And similarly, some municipalities may balk to go, well, if we add so much density, well, how do we manage the healthcare capacity in these areas, the school capacity in these areas, the childcare capacity in these areas.

And so there are infrastructure related needs to adding density and the feds and the province are in a much better position to write those large checks to make that happen.

Anyway, so I think there's, you know, maybe housing accelerator fund, but just pushed to, you know, the next level even. So it's not just dollars related housing, but it's dollars related infrastructure more broadly.

Okay, but on the, you mentioned non-market and I do want to spend a good amount of time on that, because I actually think that is the missing piece. We can talk about market housing forever, but you rightly know in your book that, you know, market housing is not going to get us out of the crisis that we're in, especially for so many people who can never imagine owning a home right now, given where home prices are at and how much they've run away from wages.

And I want you to talk a little bit about, for those who maybe don't get through, who don't get to your book, the examples, you mentioned France, you mentioned, there's a range of different examples in your book though, focus on non-market housing. We used to do this in Canada in a more serious way.

What are some of the things we should be doing that other countries do in this space? What would be your top three, four or five hit lists of, you know, France does this and Denmark does this, and if Canada really wanted to re-energize, writing big checks is one of it, but if Canada really wanted to re-energize the space, what's your hit list?

Carolyn:

Well, one of them is something I'm working on today, actually, in response to a request from the federal government, which is, what's the capacity of developers across Canada to create large-scale developments on government land? So, there are some really exciting large-scale developments.

In Vancouver alone, there's SINOC, which is a Squamish-led development that's going to produce 6,000 apartments, very well located next to Burrard Bridge, as well as Jericho Lands, which again is Canada Lands Company plus three First Nations. Those are the kinds of large-scale development that can really show a way forward.

And if you look at St. Lawrence neighborhood, people used to come from all over the world to look at St. Lawrence neighborhood. What an amazing development that was, 50 years old now, and 4,000 homes, a third each, public housing, cooperative housing, condos, again the rule of thirds.

It was considered such a radical idea to have schools at the bottom and grocery stores at the bottom and a church and a pub and a restaurant and everything at the bottom, but it really works knit along that linear park. It's still a really lovely neighborhood, and it was a game-changer.

At that time, talking about families living in eight-story buildings was considered, you know, crazy radical stuff, but it worked. So, we need about 100 more St. Lawrence neighborhoods, and then we need a lot of small-scale enablers such as, as I say, four-story buildings that I was recently on the housing industry task force, and there's so many innovative prefabricated housing producers, and they said all we need is a certain level of guaranteed demand.

We'll build the factories, we'll hire the people, and of course you get a much more diverse labor force working for factories than you might in construction industries.

The construction industry right now is an aging population with a high level of retirements expected, so we need prefab housing.

Prefab housing can be awesome. What would it be like if the federal government did a guaranteed order of, I don't know, 200,000 homes a year, most ambitiously. Okay, let's call it 50,000, be a little bit less ambitious.

We know already that modular student housing works in Quebec. UTILE builds affordable student homes really cheaply using modular. We know that the Rapid Housing Initiative was on the back of a kind of four-story special with the ground floor being community services and the social workers, and three stories of housing above it.

So, we have those kinds of models that will work nationally, and if you did that sort of a pre-order, you could really build up Canada's prefab industry in a really exciting way. It's really important for the north where construction seasons are slow.

You know, it ticks so many boxes.

Nate:
Yeah, it really does. I like that idea a lot.

Well, and one thing that struck me, I mentioned Denmark. One thing that struck me was, but before we get to Denmark, actually the stat from France struck me, and people should know, so France produces 110,000 non-market homes a year, more in one year than the total number of non-market homes created in Canada over the last 24 years.

Like, that blew my brain. Like, I just like, what are we even doing here? If France is doing that and we're doing this, like, whoa, what are we even doing here?

Carolyn:
It's really important to emphasize how beautiful many of those homes are. I mean, I don't know whether you've been to Paris recently, but I was in Paris.

Nate:
Not recently, no. Paris. I got kids. It's hard to travel these days.

Carolyn:
Oh, but you know, you can just offer them a chocolate croissant.

Anyhow, so Cazane de Relay, which is on a former military barracks, and it is, it's got student housing, it's got family housing, but it's knitted around in the former, like, Chondemar, the former military parade ground, this beautiful park that has cafes in it.

And it's in a very ritzy part of Paris near a subway line, and people love it, because it's an adaptive reuse of space with a beautiful park in the middle of it. Again, you can make beautiful, socially inclined, environmentally sound architecture, and it's nothing to be ashamed of.

Nate:
Yeah, of course, yeah.

Carolyn:
For a long time, I mean, people think of the original version of Regent Park, and they think about these very dire projects.

But, you know, think about St. Lawrence neighborhood. Think about in Ottawa, Beaver Barracks, which again, has this beautiful set of community gardens in the middle of it, and district heating, and all kinds of cool stuff. We can make beautiful things.

Nate:
I mentioned France just because it's such a frustrating comparison that they are building so much more. But Denmark, I found an interesting example because it's a practical sort of solution-oriented example.

It's not just, this, France is doing way more than Canada, sorry, Canada. But Denmark's National Building Fund provides 45-year mortgages, 30 years to pay off the building costs, and then 15 years to fund the next new project.

Other countries have just, if you compare CMHC financing for non-market versus what these other countries are doing, I mean, other countries are just way lower cost and longer-term financing. And that seems like, I don't know, it seems like low-hanging fruit to me. I don't know how much pushback there is from CMHC, but if we can't do that, then we're not going to solve this problem at all.

Carolyn:
Well, that's the secret sauce. That was the secret sauce in the 1970s and 1980s when up to 20% of new homes were non-market. It was 40-year mortgages at 2% at the time, when crime was 6%.

So it is a challenge, or let's put it this way, it's not CMHC as much as it is the finance ministers who tend not to love that.

But you can get to the point, it's not just Denmark, it's Austria and France as well, where you have a revolving loan fund and it refreshes itself.

And that goes back to our earlier conversation of the need for thinking long-term. Infrastructure financing is always long-term and the payback from infrastructure financing is always long-term.

Nate:
I want to get to a conversation, sort of conclude with addressing homelessness, but before we get there, just on the protecting renters. We've promised a bill of rights for tenants and that's obviously in some ways tough because the federal jurisdiction is going to require, again, sort of a carrot-stick approach, although interesting again to note the historical example of national rent control, I think it was in the 1940s, but regardless.

Carolyn:
1940s and 1941 and 1975.

Okay, so even more recent than that. You know Pierre, said in 1975, thou shalt have rent control and all the provinces said, okay.

Nate:
Interesting. And even where we have some rent control, obviously Ontario is a classic example where you've got rent control while the unit is lived in and then there's such a massive disincentive to keep the unit up or to respond to tenant concerns because, oh, if the tenant leaves, shrug my shoulders, I actually make more money because I can now, the rent control disappears.

Carolyn:
It's a huge incentive for evictions and it was brought in, that exemption vacancy control was brought in by conservative government.

Nate:
Does not surprise me on that front. So on the protecting renters front, there's a window here at least with the tenants bill of rights, although maybe a short life left in this parliament, but there is a window there.

I think there's probably a window to collaborate with the NDP on something like that or the Bloc on something like that to really get something done. So there's at least some space to maybe fulfill on the implementation side.

Beyond that space or maybe even in that space, what would you want to see in Canada on renter protections?

Carolyn:
I'm doing some work right now with an investor group called SHARE, S-H-A-R-E, that is on ESG guidelines for investors in housing. And I think it's really important, we now have environmental guidelines for investment in housing, but we don't yet have social guidelines on investment.

And I sometimes think that soft-suasion is as important as we've been talking about the bully function of federal government. I think it is really that I've seen ESG guidelines have a huge impact on investors.

I think that unions, to give one specific example, are uncomfortable with the fact that several of their pension funds invest in and actually have entirely owned REITs who evict current and former union members. I think that's an uncomfortable place to be.

So I think that investor guidelines are really important and they would be a world first if they were developed in Canada. So that's kind of exciting.

What else is needed in terms of tenant rights? Look, countries in Europe, including countries that are majority renter and richer than Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, they tend to have longer leases and tend to have far harder roads towards eviction.

So it's partly, absolutely rent, some level of rent negotiation. What Denmark does, one of the things I love about Denmark, is it has, it funds tenant unions and the tenant unions negotiate sort of the landlord.

Nate:
Better bargaining power.

Carolyn:
It's a bargaining situation and there is an emphasis on fair cost-based rent increases each year, which seems like a fair and transparent process, but also longer leases is part of the trick. I think that you want to create a situation where you can live for a long time as a renter, invest in other forms of requirement savings other than homes.

But right now, definitely being a renter is a second class situation and that leads a lot of people to get into really, really scary debt in order to become homeowners. And that's not necessarily a good situation as well, or living very far away from your work or having to move away from where your family is.

Nate:
Well, it speaks to, and maybe we should have started here instead of finishing here, but it speaks to what are the twin goals in some ways, like what is a home and to deliver for someone that sense of home and shelter and safety.

You have a rundown of different things that have to be considered here. But I think what I would want from a policy lens is at a minimum, you want sure there's some semblance of affordability, and you want to make sure that there's security of tenure, that you want to make sure that people, whether they're a tenant, tenants shouldn't be at such a disadvantage here that they don't have security of tenure, that there isn't that stability in their lives and they can't invest in their property in the same way.

They can't know that they're going to be near this school and near this workplace, as you say. That is such an essential part of a home that goes, I think, under discussed in our politics in a really big way.

I also, just to finish with on a rent supplement side, you don't have to comment on it because I don't want to get to homelessness in the sort of three minutes you got left, but this stuck out to me too.

So France, Germany, and Denmark all spend 0.7% of their GDP on just rent supplements. Canada spends less on all housing related expenditures combined. Anyway, your book broke my brain in a number of different ways.

Okay, so to finish with homelessness and addressing homelessness, because you've talked about rapid housing, you've talked about industrial, if the government of Canada committed to 50,000 modular units a year or something like that, we know where we could direct them at a minimum, which is to replace encampments with homes.

And we now have Premier in Ontario, at least, who's talking about, he hasn't done it yet, but talking about, you know, send me a letter of mayors calling for the use of the notwithstanding clause as if you should replace encampments using the notwithstanding clause instead of just building homes.

It's like in support of housing. And so on the homelessness front, this is a problem that needs to be resolved in a compassionate, evidence-based way. And that is the hope. And I hope it doesn't get, it's being weaponized in our politics in a big way. And I hope we can push back against that.

And so to do that, but to do that successfully, are we looking at just a broad expansion of the rapid housing program, committing to that industrial building, the modular units, and then hopefully really aggressively pushing the provinces, as you say, on the supportive housing front, knowing that, you know, a housing first approach is the answer?

Carolyn:
That would help a lot. I mean, Canada, under the Harper government, funded the largest international experiment in housing first, which is simply providing homeless people with a permanent home with the supports that they need. And it worked.

You know, it was 3000 people. The rates of people losing their homes was very low. The rates of people staying home and having better health and economic outcomes was huge.

But you can't have housing first without having the housing comma first. That's what the films say. So that's what we need. We need a whole new generation of low-cost housing and many cases with supports that people need because such a high number of people who are homeless have various forms of disability.

And if they don't have severe physical and mental health issues before they become homeless, they sure get them very quickly once they become homeless. So what we need to do, it's so self-evident when it comes to housing, when it comes to homelessness.

And it doesn't just make moral sense. It makes economic sense.

Nate:
That's the part that bothers me, by the way. It's so frustrating in our politics.

I speak to people like the, you know, small business owners who go, this is affecting my ability to earn an income. People are not coming to downtown London in Ontario as much as they were before because we have a homelessness challenge.

You've got parks that parents go, that park is supposed to be so my kid can play in that green space, not for an encampment. And you kind of pull your hair out and go, why can't we just build supportive homes?

Carolyn:
Hospital emergency rooms aren't made to, you know, it's not of efficient use of hospital emergency rooms to get 200 visits a year.

Nate:
Exactly.

Carolyn:
You know, so it makes so much sense. I don't understand why at some basic level, why every province doesn't have a plan to end homelessness. It's a shame and it's also dumb.

I mean, it's dumb on so many levels. So yeah, I mean, you know, I agree with you. I was reading Jane Philpott’s book on Health For All, and I was going, yeah, the answers are pretty darn simple when it comes to health. Why don't we just do it?

You know, and to me, the answers are pretty simple when it comes to housing. Why don't we just do it? You know, so I guess this book's Home Truths is intended to say to people, I know it looks really complex and it is, but the answers aren't that hard to figure out. It's not rocket science.

Nate:
Yeah. My takeaway was very much that, and this is the last data point that I throw at listeners from your book, but this one really stuck out. You talk about housing first approach in Finland and how the Finnish consider it.

Over a period from 1985 to 2016, they went from over 2,100 shelter beds to 52. And then how do they do that?

Well, they're cutting emergency shelter beds.

How? Because they're increasing supportive housing from 127 to over 1,300. And they're replacing what is a reactive emergency response, which is a more expensive response, frankly.

They're replacing that with a long-term housing first approach through supportive housing and non-market housing. And again, it seems obvious.

The challenge, of course, is we should have started doing this a decade ago, two decades ago yesterday. And I'm not dismissive of the rapid housing program. I'm not dismissive of the housing accelerator fund. I'm not dismissive of the loans and the grants that are going towards and the new co-op fund. I don't want to be dismissive of all that. We're going in the right direction.

It does seem, though, that the scale of the direction we're heading in the right direction, the scale is just not where it needs to be to get us to where we need to get in 30 years.

Carolyn:
Yep. We've done some really good pilot programs, and now it's time to scale it up and have some real targets. And it's been a pleasure talking policy wonk stuff with you, Nate.

Nate:
Well, that's what this is for. And I do appreciate the book. I'm glad Mark suggested that you'd be a guest because it prompted me to read your book. And I'm a much better advocate on housing for having done so.

Carolyn:
Well, thank you, Mark.

Nate:
I say that regularly on the housing file. Anyway, thanks, Carolyn, for your time.

Carolyn:
Thank you, Nate. Take care. Bye-bye.

Nate:
Thanks for joining me on this episode of Uncommons. I hope you found, yes, it was a

deeper dive in policy, but I hope you found some of those stats interesting. They were eye-popping to me, frankly.

I do think we have a certain Overton window in our politics sometimes, including on housing, and understanding historical examples, understanding what happens in other countries can be incredibly informative in helping to shift that window and delivering greater ambition, especially on such an important file.

With that, if you have suggestions for guests or future topics, you can reach me at info at beynate.ca. You can reach me online, of course, on an increasingly variety of platforms. I'm on Bluesky now, but you can reach me at beynate on all those channels. And otherwise, otherwise, until next time.

Nate is joined by Erin O'Toole, the former leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Together in front of a live audience in Beaches-East York, they tackle Trump’s tariffs, foreign interference, and the impacts of polarization. They also chat about collaboration across party lines, their experiences running for leader of their party, and they evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Prime Minister Trudeau and Pierre Poilievre.

In part one, Nate’s joined by University of Waterloo labour economics professor Mikal Skuterud.

Professor Skuterud has written extensively on the economics of Canadian immigration, he’s been consulted by different Ministers, and he’s been a vocal critic of the government’s management of the immigration file, especially with respect to temporary foreign workers. 

In part two, Nate is joined by Lisa Lalande, the CEO of Century Initiative, a group that advocates for policies to strengthen Canada’s long-term economic prospects, including by growing our overall population to 100 million people by 2100. 

Ms. Lalande argues for strong but smartly managed immigration to ensure Canada’s economy remains competitive and resilient in the long-term, and she makes the case that Canada must build housing and improve healthcare to accommodate smart growth as well as our non-economic goals. 

In some ways, the guests are sharply at odds with one another. But in others, there is alignment: that Canada needed to tackle temporary immigration levels, but has caused further unnecessary challenges by reducing permanent immigration levels. 

Youtube:

In part one, Nate’s joined by University of Waterloo labour economics professor Mikal Skuterud.

Professor Skuterud has written extensively on the economics of Canadian immigration, he’s been consulted by different Ministers, and he’s been a vocal critic of the government’s management of the immigration file, especially with respect to temporary foreign workers. 

In part two, Nate is joined by Lisa Lalande, the CEO of Century Initiative, a group that advocates for policies to strengthen Canada’s long-term economic prospects, including by growing our overall population to 100 million people by 2100. 

Ms. Lalande argues for strong but smartly managed immigration to ensure Canada’s economy remains competitive and resilient in the long-term, and she makes the case that Canada must build housing and improve healthcare to accommodate smart growth as well as our non-economic goals. 

In some ways, the guests are sharply at odds with one another. But in others, there is alignment: that Canada needed to tackle temporary immigration levels, but has caused further unnecessary challenges by reducing permanent immigration levels.

Youtube:

On this episode, Mark Carney joins Nate on the podcast to discuss the current political landscape, sustainable finance and the economic opportunities of climate action, and his future in politics as now economic advisor to the Liberal Party and potential future candidate.

Mark has served as the Governor of the Bank of Canada and then the Governor of the Bank of England. He now serves as the UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, and as the Vice Chair of Brookfield Asset Management.

Transcript:

Introduction

Nate Erskine-Smith: Welcome to Uncommons. I’m Nate Erskine-Smith, and on this episode, I’m joined by Mark Carney. He is, of course, the former governor of the Bank of Canada, he’s the former governor of the Bank of England, and he is also much more political these days, including joining a podcast like this to talk about not only politics, but Liberal politics, because right now, he occupies the role of chair of an economic task force to the Liberal Party and Prime Minister, and he might well have a future in politics beyond that as well.

Sustainable Finance Within a Global Context

Nate Erskine-Smith: Mark, thanks for joining me. 

Mark Carney: Thanks for having me, Nate.

Nate Erskine-Smith: I was going to make a joke about how you are the first guest we've had since the Prime Minister and people can read into that as they like. But I actually want to start with why you're here in Toronto–sustainable finance. And before people's eyes glaze over, maybe you can help ensure their eyes don’t glaze over.

Mark Carney: We’ve lost the audience already.

Nate Erskine-Smith: But what do you hope to see achieved through sustainable finance in terms of actual serious climate action?

Mark Carney: Yeah, so first thing, thanks for having me and I'm here, I'm giving, a talk later on today at something called the PRI in person, which is 2000 people from around the world focused on more than just sustainable finance, but certainly sustainable finance, and I'm going to talk about that aspect of it and specifically what is the financial sector doing and not doing to get capital to solutions to address climate change.

In essence, that's what sustainable finance is. Success in sustainable finance will be when we can drop the adjective, when this just becomes mainstream. And all the work that I and others have been doing, particularly since three years ago, almost to the day, there was a COP, one of these big processes in Glasgow, where finance was at the heart of it. And we've been working to make sure that people have the information first and foremost. 

And when I say people, I mean people, you know, out here in The Beaches, people working in the center of Wall Street or around the world, investors, people managing people's pensions, that they have the information that's needed in order to judge who's part of the solution and who's still part of the problem, that we have the right market structure. We need some new markets in order to solve this and that we see action and we can judge that action accordingly. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: And before we get to the possible potential impact of that disclosure–the Canadian context. So you had said in 2019 I think you'd expressed some frustration in one of your speeches about, and this wasn't specific to Canada, but the global pace of progress towards sustainable finance was moving far too slow. We wake up and it’s five years later and in Canada, we still haven't seen these rules put in place. And so what do you hope to see hopefully sooner than later here in Canada?

Mark Carney: Yeah, well, let me give a global context first. It's a global event, global context, we operate in a global market, capital moves around the world. 

And if I look at the world, you have over 700 of the world's largest financial institutions controlling over 40% of the financial assets in the world. Huge numbers, $150 trillion, US dollars, for that matter that these institutions oversee, They're all committed to shift the management of those assets consistent with the transition towards net zero. In other words, to help companies and countries and municipalities get their emissions down. Okay. That's what they're committed to do. And by the way, that what comes with that is if somebody isn't trying to get their emissions down, then money is shifting from those companies. 

And in one example, to those who are doing something. So globally, you have a huge shift towards this first thing. Secondly, it starts with just reporting on where you stand today. What does your portfolio look like? Who are you investing in or lending to? The next step, of course, is to have a plan. You don't solve anything without a plan. You got to put the plan in action. And as we meet today, we're in a situation where 500 of those 700 institutions have full blown, what's called a transition plan, but a plan, to move the money, and they are moving the money, towards the solutions.

Sustainable Finance Within a Canadian Context

Fast forward to Canada, or shift to Canada. What we don't yet have is the disclosure regime fully operating so that Canadians can judge who's doing the right thing or not. A number of Canadian institutions are doing it voluntarily, but it's not required for everyone like it is in Europe, like it is in the UK, and elsewhere. And secondly, we don't have, sorry, a framework, an accepted way or consistent way of putting together those plans.

And look, I've been through a bunch of crises over my time as a central bank governor and policymaker. And the one thing I know is in a crisis, plan beats no plan. You cannot get your way out of a situation without a plan. It's a good motto for life, I guess, as well.

Nate Erskine-Smith: What do you make though? So we put the plans in place. We've got the disclosure regime, hopefully sooner than later, as they say. How do we move away from, take ESG. And there's promise to it, but there's also the bottom line, and a company will, as fast as anything, walk away from ESG if it no longer matters to their bottom line. And how does this differ from that? 

Mark Carney: Yeah, so I work in a subset of ESG, so ESG–environmental, social, and governance. I work on the environment bit of it, and I work in a subset of the environment, which is the transition towards a low carbon economy or net zero.

because obviously in environment there's nature and biodiversity and other aspects. I work in the bit where you can count very clearly what's happening and that's part of what so-called disclosure is doing. And therefore, people are able to judge, again, who's part of the solution, who's still part of the problem. Now in order to do that, in order for everyone to be able to make those judgments, they need access to that information in a way that they can,you know, access it readily. It should be free and it should be consistent. And one of the things that some of the voluntary work that I'm doing is to build out the net zero data public utility. First time that's been on the podcast, I'm sure. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: Yeah, I know eyes are now fully glazed.

Mark Carney: But what it means is that you can, you can judge which of our banks, as of, as of the middle of next year, which of our banks is doing well relative to the others and how are they doing relative to other international banks? What happens today is somebody will write a report and it'll become an argument about the quality of the data or the, you know, the completeness of the data. So first is to get, is to get that information.

The second, but the bigger point which I think you're driving at is okay, but why are companies going to do this? Companies and financial institutions are going to do this because Canadians and people around the world want them to do it. After all, they elected a government, your government, over the course, and a number of provincial governments, that have climate action at the core of their platforms. After all, it is the law of the land. It literally is the law of the land in Canada that we transition towards net zero. Now, how we do that requires certain policies from government, and a number of them are being put in place. More will be required without question.

But financial institutions and companies in Canada and elsewhere around the world react to those policies and they react to the values of people. A lot of the work that I've done in recent years has been around getting the market, shorthand, value, value in the market, what's priced, to be consistent with what people care about, what people value, the values, in this case, of Canadians around sustainability and the transition.

Capturing the Value of the Environment

Nate Erskine-Smith: Yeah, I mean, I remember reading your Reith lectures, which then were sort of the basis of the book. And, I know you've got another book we can talk about. But I mean, and the core of it is that idea that disconnect between value and values and, you know, the price of everything and the value of nothing, that old line. 

One of your examples, though, is, you know, we know how to, we know the value of Amazon, the company and we don't properly capture the value of Amazon, the rainforest. And despite the obvious value to the world, to the climate, to the environment, the world, disclosure gets us part of the way there. So how do you tackle, take that example, that simple example of Amazon and Amazon, what policies should we be looking at to solve that problem? 

Mark Carney: Yeah, absolutely. And so, and just to make the challenge greater, the price on the Amazon, the rainforest actually occurs when the trees are cut down and they start farming. So it's the exact opposite direction of what the planet needs and what future generations deserve. So how do we solve that? 

I mean, first and foremost, this is about the translation of what people care about, what people want through the political process, and setting in place objectives, clear objectives, policies today, and the prospect of more policies in the future, that are consistent with achieving those objectives. What the financial sector can do, what it does well, it does lots of things not well, just to be clear. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: You've lived it.

Mark Carney: I've lived it, and people have lived the consequences of it. Yeah, we've spent time clearing up those messes. But what it does do well is it pulls the future to the present. It sees where the world is going and then it will put money behind where the world's going. So if it becomes inevitable or at least highly likely that we're going to address this problem, then money starts to flow to those solutions. 

Okay. Now let's go to the specific major issue around nature and the Amazon specifically. So how do we get to a point where we ensure that there is, not just disincentives to burn the Amazon or cut down the Amazon, but also what's now needed is to reforest the Amazon. You know, let's put this in context for those who are still listening. So speaking to my immediate family now… The, you know, deforestation in the world last year was 10% of global emissions, just the mere act of cutting down trees.

We lose the size of the Netherlands in effectively tropical rainforests, not all deforestation. So not including the wildfires, horrible wildfires we had in Canada, but just actually the harvesting of the tropical rainforest. So it's absolutely enormous. And so we need to stop that and then reverse it. 

And so one of the things that we're working on is with the Brazilian government and other governments around the world, is how can we get payments for reforestation and the value to the planet of that reforestation? 

Political Challenges to Climate Action

Nate Erskine-Smith: Okay, positive, because payments for reforestation make a lot of sense. I can imagine, because of the profile of the Amazon, I can imagine knocking doors and saying, we're gonna deliver more dollars to international climate finance, and that's gonna help make sure that we protect the Amazon, and that's the work we need to do as Canadians, as leaders around the world.

I can also, though, imagine a world, because we've lived through it, where there's a Bolsonaro government in Brazil that doesn't care. I can imagine a world because if the election was tomorrow, it might well be a Poilievre government that is going to not only cancel the price on pollution and an effective and efficient way of reducing emissions, climate disclosure might be by the wayside. Who knows? Who knows what they have in store? Because climate is not part of their agenda. It's not a going concern.

And how do you maintain that sense of optimism when we live in the political world that we do, and the political reality is that progress doesn't always exist. That voter might care in my riding and in certain ridings across the country, but collectively with ‘First Past the Post’ especially, we're gonna wake up potentially to a majority government that doesn't have this on the agenda at all. 

Mark Carney: Well, okay, there's a lot in those questions slash statements.

Nate Erskine-Smith: We have a progressive government that doesn't even deliver the climate finance internationally at least that is required to do the work you're even talking about, and that's a progressive government. So, you know, the backsliding we're going to see is going to be incredible given we were starting at a place that isn't even sufficient. 

Mark Carney: Okay, so let me unpack a few, I'm to say a couple of rapid fire things and then you can pick up on any of them to drill down and, and full disclosure for those listening, there, there is, there's a lot beneath what I'm about to say.

The first is in terms of payments for, for example, reforestation in the Amazon, my judgment is that that is predominantly going to come from the private sector through something called the private voluntary credit market. 

And that is going to be a consequence of a number of major jurisdictions, hopefully Canada included, but certainly the European Union, the UK, most of Asia, depending on the US outcome in the election, the United States as well, requiring companies to be reducing their emissions, including what's called scope three. Okay. So I said a lot there, but it's a lot of it will come from that. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: And jurisdictions like the EU forcing it upon others through carbon border adjustments and everything else. 

Mark Carney: Okay. So that's the next point. So very important point. Sorry, I talked over you, but a carbon border adjustment mechanism, which Europe is putting in place, and I think underappreciated, the Biden administration has made pretty clear that they intend to put that in place. Obviously, it won't be the Biden administration, he's not running again. But if it were a Harris administration, I think it's reasonable to expect that. There's something called, this is in the public domain, the Climate and Trade Task Force. 

It's headed by John Podesta, who's one of the most able public servants in the US government. And it's looking at what's called, well, it's looking at a carbon border adjustment and specifically how much carbon is in a product delivered to the United States. They use the term “embodied carbon”. So the issue is if I'm exporting steel, how much carbon do I have in that steel that shows up in the United States? And if it's a lot higher than what's in the US, then they're not going to let it in. I mean, or they're going to have a very large tariff on it.

Because after all what they've been doing, and we've got to think about this for our industries, is huge efforts to get carbon down and it doesn't make sense to do that and then just import all the carbon from China or some other jurisdiction. I think actually the Americans are going to go further, and the Europeans are going to go further, in the following respect, which is not just to say how much carbon is in the steel that shows up here, but how much carbon is in all the steel you produce as that company, because we don't want you just dumping the green steel over here and then polluting over there.

And that's a fairer way of doing things for the US company, and let's keep it close to home, for the Canadian company. So we're going to quickly move, I think, over the course of the next 5, 10 years, certainly over the horizon when any business decision is being made to a global trading system or the core of the global trading system, Europe, the US, under certain political circumstances. But I would argue, if not the next administration, the administration after that will do this. 

We're going to move to a system where it matters how much carbon you have in your product when you export it there. Now, fast forward to the next Canadian government after the next election. So are they just gonna walk away from that reality? I mean, we're a trading nation, we're an exporting nation. This is our most important market. I mean, you can live in a fantasy land and say, this doesn't matter, and it's all about the other guys, but that is not the way the world works and is going to work.

And, you know, one of the things we've talked about this, and it's part of the reason I'm doing this growth task force, which we may come to, for the Prime Minister, is that the world's being reshaped. The trading system is being reshaped. That creates challenges, massive challenges if you ignore it, flip side, massive opportunities if you understand it, get in front of it and start to embrace it. And, you know, Canada's in a good position where, we can be in a great position to take advantage of this.

Personal Political Engagement

Nate Erskine-Smith: I mean, one might have, though, expressed a certain optimism around markets and the market that Ontario was in with Quebec and California, for example, then they walked away from it. So politics does matter. So I want to get to politics. And, one can be optimistic and market forces matter and the EU's actions matter and one can be optimistic for certain reasons. But there's a reason to get involved in politics to make sure you push back against the backsliding and to make sure you protect progress. 

You have gone from a role where you were political but divorced from partisan politics as the central bank governor, both in Canada and in England. You, in 2021, I think, spoke for the first time in a more partisan way at a Liberal convention. You're now, you're occupying a more partisan role, giving, you're the chair of an economic task force for the Party and the Prime Minister. But again, a partisan front, not the machinery of government.

Why you've got, you know, you're making money at Brookfield, you've got your UN envoy role. You don't need to throw yourself into the Pierre Polievre tax and the Michael Barrett saying conflict this and “Carbon Tax Carney”. And why, why insert yourself in this way now? 

Mark Carney: I could ask you the same question and all the people that work for you, which is, you know, I mean, there's, there's a couple levels of it. 

I mean, there's the personal level, which I, you know, this country has given me so much, virtually everything. I think when I think about it, you know, my education, my values, I've raised my family here. I owe it, I owe it a lot. I've been very fortunate. So, you know, and, and I can give back and there's, there's certain things I can do to give back. And I happen to know something about economic policy, I happen to have some experience, I've got some perspective. I can give it back. That's the, that's the first thing. 

And, know, I could stop there, but it goes back to what we were talking about earlier is this gap between value in the market and the values of Canadians, the values of society, what we're trying to achieve. There are certain technical things, and they're really important. 

They're super boring, which is why you rightly diverted off the PRI in person. They're super boring and they're plumbing, et cetera. And I know something about that and I work in it. it's, know, and it's value, I, just trust me, tt's, it's useful work. Okay. It's useful work. 

But at the heart is getting the, the heart is political in the end because it is translating, it's building coalitions. It's listening to people. It's developing the consensus. It's fighting it out in the, in the House of Commons, in committees, in order to get legislation through and move forward and you know, can be frustrating and it would be much easier for me to just sit back and criticize about this. But I've got some expertise, the Prime Minister has asked, we need to close this gap. I think it's the right thing to do for Canadians because it's living up to what Canadians want, say they want.

It's certainly the right thing to do for our kids and grandkids. But also, you know, as time goes on, it becomes more and more an economic imperative. It becomes more and more current, you know, an issue in terms of how fast is this economy going to grow? Are people's wages going to grow? Are we going to lose a lot of jobs that we shouldn't lose or not create new jobs that we could create because we think that this is an issue for other people? It's not an issue for other people, it's an issue for all of us. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: When it comes to politics, I am not running again, solely because I've got a young family. I still think elected office, for all of its faults, and there are many faults, there's a lot of nonsense to it if you watch the question period or the House of Commons. But it's still the most important way to make a difference, bar none. Having said that, everything you said there gets at that sort of the man in the arena sort of idea, and an opportunity to make a difference. I believe in all that.

There's a difference though between giving advice and being a decision maker, and, are you gonna put your name on a ballot at some point? 

Mark Carney: I'm taking steps to that, support that, support the party, because I believe in the party, I believe in the Liberal Party. I think it's got the right values, it has the right combination of a social conscience and social priorities at its core and that's, it’s demonstrated, it's not, these aren't words on a page, it's demonstrated through decades of delivery and the past years of delivery. So it has its core, but it also understands that we need a strong economy in order to ultimately deliver that. 

So I absolutely believe in that. And look, the opportunity may present itself. This is what I can do right now and I'm doing it to the best of my ability. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: And do you think, when you think of politics, mean, you have occupied positions of great power and really difficult crises. And there isn't that same grinding it out, knocking doors, engaging people who are, you know, the example I use is, you've got to be able to go downtown and have Bay Street with my friends from law school. You could do that in a heartbeat, but you also got to be able to go play cards and drink Rye and Cokes with my cousins from Sarnia. And are you, do you see yourself being able to do both? 

Mark Carney: Well, I used to drink Rye and 7UP. So am I allowed to have? 

Nate Erskine-Smith: Yeah, that's allowed. That's okay. I don't know if you smoke joints. You can do that too. 

Mark Carney: That's true. You can now. Thank you. There's progress. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: Yeah, I know. You're welcome. 

Mark Carney: Look, I mean, that's, I've been in and around it, I recognize that. I mean, you've got to be connected to the people you serve. And one of the issues, look, it's also an issue, it's not fully analogous, I'm not going to stretch it to that.

But even in a role like being a central bank governor, if you're just in the monetary temple, so to speak, and you're not out there talking to people up and down the country, which the Bank of Canada does, I did as governor, Governor Dodge did before me, and I know the current governor, my successors both have done it, I did in the UK, you've got to get out there and talk to people. And it's not just businesses, but, you know, social groups, other groups, to understand how the macro economy, the numbers way up there, are actually impacting people for accountability, but also for perspective and you know, there's something that was impressed on me decades ago, I guess was that you know, you see most clearly from the, from the periphery. 

So when you look at you know, the economy, how does the economy look if you're unemployed? You know, how does, you know, the, you know, the, the situations where you're under pressure and that provides a necessary, you know, grounding to everything you do. But yeah, you know, you've got to do that and you've got to build, you've got to build a consensus and you have to work. Look, let's, let's take another level of this, if I could, which is one of the issues. 

So, okay. We have a mini industry in Canada, which has grown up around that we don't have any productivity or we've, know, the productivity or the rate with which we're improving the way we work has slowed, it's basically been flatlined since before the pandemic. Ultimately, that is going to put pressure and it's starting to put pressure on governments, all levels of governments and the ability to, you know, continue to provide the social safety net, our social model, opportunities for children, our education system, all those things. So this is an issue we have to solve. We can certainly solve. And not that there's going to be some magical report at the end of my task force work. I mean, there will be a report. I'm not going to say it's magical.

Nate Erskine-Smith: We'll get to that. We'll get to that.

Mark Carney: But there will be elements of that in there. But one of the things I think is clear is that the nature of many of the solutions will require something that's fundamentally political, which is political in terms of working across different levels of government, different stakeholders to implement solutions. And we're going to have to do more of that or relearn that muscle, which is, in my experience, is kind of inherent to the Federation, maybe has weakened a bit. 

Challenges of Politicization

Nate Erskine-Smith: Well, I want to get to what you see as the objectives and what you see as the possible outcomes, what you hope to achieve through that task force and your involvement in all of that. But, I'm still interested in, you know, I like that you're interested in politics. I like that good people are interested in politics. I think it's necessary that serious people are still interested in doing this. And I worry that when you've got a certain crass attack before anything else approach to politics, you push good people out. Why are good people gonna wanna get off the sidelines and do this if you're gonna join committee in 2021, which you did at the industry committee that I was a part of, and I was at a front row seat to Pierre Poilievre before he was the leader, just spent, he was the only Conservative to speak for that two hours of time, and just try and run roughshod over you, knowing that you might be in politics one day. That's the approach. It's, you know, take no prisoners. So I'm glad you're interested. 

At the same time, you know, there are some challenges that will be thrown your way and I'm interested in how you navigate them. So you've got, on the one hand, a politicization of the Bank of Canada with Pierre Poilievre saying Tiff Macklem should be fired. You've got other folks though, like Stephen Gordon, who have said, well, you know, Mark Carney, he was the central bank governor. If he joins partisan politics, then that also puts some independence of that institution at risk. Do you take stock of that in any way? What's your answer to that? 

Mark Carney: Well, I think a couple of things. I think my track record at Bank Canada, others can judge it, I, know, inflation was at 2%. Our financial system was the strongest in the world. We had financial stability. We got through crises, got through a few crises.

I'd note that I was appointed by Stephen Harper as governor of the Bank Canada. Then I was appointed by a Conservative prime minister in the United Kingdom, David Cameron. And then I was asked to extend my term by a Conservative prime minister, Theresa May, and a Conservative prime minister, Boris Johnson. And in all of those cases, I discharged, did the best of my ability, I did my job. 

I ceased to be governor of the Bank of Canada in 2013. We are 11 years later. We've been through a few governors. The world has changed. Look I mean if we were, if we were in a situation where the stakes weren't so high, in part because of the start of your question in part because of the unseriousness of some of those in public life, I mean it's serious, but the facile… 

Nate Erskine-Smith: Yeah, serious what’s at stake but a childish approach to it.

Mark Carney: Facile is probably, is a euphemism. So I'll just leave it at that to describe the approach that's taken. It's not trying to find solutions, it's trying to destroy and cut down. And who knows what comes after that, it's not clear what comes after that. So the stakes are high, so that pulls me towards trying to be part of it, because this is our country, it's my country, and I care about it. And so wanting to be there.

I think the thing though that's in your question, as someone who's been through crises, who lived through Brexit and the intense, everything was politicized in Brexit in the UK. The King, the now King was politicized. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England was politicized. The governor of the Bank of England was politicized. In other words, we were all attacked in various ways by various, well, one faction, I guess, on the referendum.

And many, many others, everything basically. So I know what I'd be getting into. I know what I'm in. Look, I'm in it now in the following respect. As you said, in 2021, I'm a private citizen. I'm invited to a committee. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: Getting grilled for no reason.

Mark Carney: I don't mind being grilled, but just getting, you know, sort of insulted, ad hominem attacks, basically being insulted. And well, four other expert witnesses have to sit there mute.

And just watch it. And just watch it for two and a half hours. I mean, that's, you know, that's a waste of taxpayers' money. It's a waste of time. It's not advancing the cause. And so I know what's involved. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: So you're ready to put up with that absolute nonsense when it comes, like right now you're living through people attacking you to say, he's no. I mean, Andrew Scheer, I love that Andrew Scheer is the spokesperson they put up, as if anyone likes Andrew Scheer, but Andrew Scheer is saying, there's no difference between Trudeau and Carney, carbon tax Carney and like, you are the object of their attention as much as anyone, and probably because they're worried about you, but also there is, you are going to put up with an incredible amount of of hate and an incredible,you know, look what Trudeau's got to put up with. Fuck Trudeau flags, and his kids have to listen to fuck Trudeau chants at ultimate fight events. So you're ready for that?

Mark Carney: Look, yeah, yes, is the short answer. I think we're, you know, this is an overused phrase, we're better than that. Canada's better than that. We should be better than that. And, but you've got to stand up. I mean, if you think that, you think that, you act it, you stand up, you stood up for the Ontario leadership. I mean, it's, you know, these are difficult.

Nate Erskine-Smith: You'll come in with more name recognition than I did, I will say that. Are you also ready? So I think your name recognition will... 

Mark Carney: I’m really touched by your concern about my welfare. 

The Benefits of Lived Experience

Nate Erskine-Smith: It's not for the faint of heart, that's for sure, especially in a leadership role. And they'll come at you with everything as you've already seen, they're coming at you as a citizen. 

The other challenge you will have to navigate if you get there is every time your name comes up, like I'm here in The Beaches and people will come up and say, what about that Carney guy, is he gonna run? And so there's obviously an interest. At the same time, there will be another cohort, often people in the Liberal Party who have lived the wars who will say, yeah, but what about Michael Ignatieff? And the comparison comes up all the time. Why? Because intellectual, someone who has not lived through partisan politics throughout a career, and is coming to it as an intellectual who's earned a reputation as an intellectual. And do you see that comparison? Are you concerned with that comparison? And how do you answer that comparison? 

Mark Carney: Well, think there's a couple of things. One is we don't want to restrict politics only to lifelong politicians. I hope not. I mean, that's first and foremost. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: Having done it for 10 years, I was also saying I hope we don't limit it to that. 

Mark Carney: You understand, you're going to go off and do something else for a while. Hopefully you'll come back into political life. Maybe you won't. Maybe you will have served that tenure. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: Yeah, who knows? 

Mark Carney: But we'll see. I'm not casting aspersions on people who are lifelong politicians, although if somebody is a lifelong politician and they're talking about, for example, as only someone like Pierre Poilievre who's been a lifelong politician talks about the market in a way, and the economy in a way, that betrays very limited understanding of how the economy actually works undervalues institutions, undervalues people, doesn't know this relationship. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: I like when he talks about electricians and lightning personally. 

Mark Carney: Yeah, Yeah. the capture, there's a few things that doesn't understand. So that's, that's the first thing. So I don't think this is a sort of simple, you're ruled out unless you've gone through the school of politics. That's number one. 

Number two, I think with, with the respect to Michael Ignatieff, I've been in the, I've been as close to the political arena as you can be. I have been a public figure through crises in Canada, elsewhere around the world. I've been there for making tough decisions. I've worked with a variety of governments. I've been in and around. Look, I know how to deal with tough issues and not just talk about them, but implement and get things done. 

So, you know, we'll take where we started today, this discussion on climate change and what's going on in climate change. Three years ago, there were no major, there were $5 trillion of money managed by financial institutions that was going to be managed towards net zero. Today, there's 150 trillion. 150 trillion. That is 70 times larger than the Canadian economy. 

I helped marshal that. I chair the group that put that together. I know how to get things done. I have a track record. So I have experience in working with a wide variety of stakeholders across different geographies, countries, continents, political classes. As I mentioned earlier, I've been appointed by the Conservatives. And so that brings something to the table. Does it answer every question?

And look, and Michael Ignatieff is a better intellectual than I am. I mean, I would not, do not aspire…

Nate Erskine-Smith: It comes down to connecting with people. And you mentioned it before we started recording, just everything, I forget exactly how you phrased it, but sort of everything is about authenticity. Because there's no perfect candidate and not everyone's going to see everything about themselves in any particular candidate. I was struck, I did my Master of Law in the UK at Oxford and my wife was there doing her Master of Nutrition at Oxford Brooks and

we visited the Imperial War Museum in London, and there was a genocide exhibit at the time. And I like, I recognize that voice. And there's a film of Michael Ignatiev in a Jeep. 

Mark Carney: That was Blood and Belonging probably, right? 

Nate Erskine-Smith: Right. And he in some ways ran away from that. It was Michael's just visiting. And there was no answer to say, you're damn right I've been overseas. I've been a Canadian overseas being, as Canadians act, we deliver for the world. We act in the best interests of people around the world. And I've been out there addressing genocide. I've been out there speaking about human rights. I'm proud of that record. And I'm coming back to Canada to make sure I deliver on those values as a leader here in Canada for Canadians. I think it was a disservice to be skittish about that record.

 And you don't have the same challenge in that you've had a high profile position here in Canada. You are now entering into partisan politics in a, you know, you're not jumping right to a leadership position. You're playing, I don't know if you have a view of- 

Mark Carney: I'm in the trenches. I'm in the trenches. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: Well, one question I would have is, do you see a value in elected office as a backbencher or as an MP before a higher profile role.

Mark Carney: I mean, there's, you can't map these things out. Of course there's value in that. But let me pick up, something popped into my head while you were using that example. So one of the knocks on me that the opposition makes, or part of the opposition makes. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: You're a WEF global elite. 

Mark Carney: Exactly. I'm a WEF global elite.

Nate Erskine-Smith: John Barrett is too, I don't know, campaign coach here, that never comes up. 

Mark Carney: And you know, when... 

Nate Erskine-Smith: He's banned his ministers from going to World Economic Forum events to cater to conspiracies and you've been a board member for over a decade. 

Mark Carney: I've rolled off the board, but that's absolutely right. I had a board member there and I used to go there with the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, when he was there, and etc. 

But let's be clear what you know, my international experience. I understand how the world works. You know, I know other world leaders, I know people and I understand, I know people who run some of the world's largest companies and understand how they work. I know how financial institutions work. I know how markets work. I know, and I know the good and bad of that. I've experienced it. I've had to, in some of my roles, discipline it, discipline the financial system, discipline, with others, the world's largest banks, the, you know, the Wall Street banks in America after the crisis. 

So I understand how the world works. I'm trying to apply that to the benefit of Canada, you know, so I'm not going to run away from the fact that I understand how things work. And actually one of the issues, one of the things that has drawn me more into, into politics, right now is that we have an opposition who's leading in the polls, who doesn't understand the economy, doesn't understand where the world's going, doesn't understand what's necessary to build this economy for Canadians who thinks it's a series of simplistic slogans. There's nothing behind those slogans. There's nothing behind those slogans. Plenty of opportunity, plenty of opportunity after this podcast comes out to release, you know, some platforms, behind those slogans. They won't. And, and that's a, that is a massive risk.

That is a risk. Doing nothing is a choice. Pretending we're in the economy of the 1980s and 1990s, that is a huge, huge mistake. And the other jurisdictions are moving. I understand that. I can contribute part of that. We've got to do it in a way that is socially inclusive, that brings Canadians along, that supports people through these big transitions. And we can do it in a way that really wins if we're deliberate about it. But if we shut all that out, we're gonna lose. 

Recommendations of Economic Task Force

Nate Erskine-Smith: That's a useful turn then to the role that you now occupy to chair this economic task force. You are in a position now, principally, I mean we've got a Fall Economic Statement and we've got a budget, but principally as I understand the role, it's also to inform, we have an election in the spring, in a perfect world that might last all the way to October, but that seems unlikely these days. 

You've got one version of the cartoonish slogans you've got a debate in Parliament right now where the Bloc is saying we demand support for 16 billion dollars over five years to a poorly targeted and expensive program, seems an ineffective way of using a taxpayer dollar we don't have right now. I don't want you to be so prescriptive about here are all the answers, I've got all the answers. I'm, you know, this is the platform today, because you're at the beginning of it, but where, if, put it this way, in 2021, you said, we need a growth agenda and this budget isn't delivering all of that, but it's the beginnings of it and it's gonna take a number of budgets to get us to where we are. 

Well, we're a number of budgets in and I was at the Canada 2020 speech where you were talking about, it sounded like a third way almost, you've got government spending, you've got cuts, and you were talking about a little bit of a different path as between them. Articulate what, and not at such a high level, maybe, but articulate, and maybe there are examples you could point to, of what we can expect to see in the advice you're giving and the approach that you hope the government takes hold of into the next election. 

Mark Carney: Yeah, well, let me, again, these are great questions and there's a lot in them. Let me make a couple observations, and I noted your comments, not because I was coming on this, I just happened to catch them in last 10 days or so, about that Bloc proposal and the fact that all the opposition parties supported it. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: Yeah, it's wild. 

Mark Carney: It's wild. So an extra 3 billion of spending each year, and is that really the best use of that money. And what came to my mind instantly, and I think you observed it as well,is that in the simple slogan category, Pierre Polievre has a simple rule, a dollar for a dollar. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: Yeah, spend a dollar, cut a dollar. 

Mark Carney: So what are the $3 billion of spending cuts that he's going to make? I mean, if you're going to put up new spending and you have that rule, you've got to show Canadians what's there. Okay, but let's talk about the growth issues in Canada. So how do we get growth back up? 

And let me put it in context, which is if the Canadian economy were as productive as the American economy, so if we had used all our resources, so to speak, as efficiently as the American economy, if we close that gap, which is about 30% with the US, it's an additional $35,000 Canadian, for every Canadian. So it's a huge amount of money. 

That's money that goes obviously for government, for social programs. We can invest in our health service, not rely on compound increases in foreign students in order to pay for our post-secondary education, all these sorts of things. So there's real value in doing this. It also means much higher wages for Canadians by definition. So, why are we less productive? Which things can we change in order to close some of that gap and where can we build on our advantage, our unique advantages? And that's basically what I'm looking at with others through this task force, and so one of the core things in terms of why we're less productive is we actually give our workers less to work with. There's less so-called capital, there's less software, there's less investment, fewer tools, so to speak, for our workers. It's like shoveling your driveway with a shovel. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: And it's business investment. 

Mark Carney: And it's business investment, yeah. And you have to, when you look at outside of the resource sector, we just don't, we don't invest in much in our workers. We also don't use those tools as effectively as others do, so it's also kind of how we work. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: We’ll talk about frameworks, just on that though and I'm interested in the rest of what you’ve got there, but you talk about the need for frameworks and the importance of a plan and a framework to deliver. What is the difference when you look at American companies that do invest in their workers to a much higher degree than Canadian companies invest in their workers? Is there a policy framework that explains the difference? What explains that difference? 

Mark Carney: Okay, so this is part of the challenge, which is there's no one magical change to the tax system or one regulation that you adjust that is going to instantly write this or start to close the gap. And you have to look across a series of options in order to get there.

Nate Erskine-Smith: But this will be a core focus. 

Mark Carney: But that is going to be a core focus. The element of the diagnosis of the problem needs to look at part of it fundamentally is about under investment. Why is that the case? How can we change it? 

Part of it is about the industries that we have. Where have we built up and what haven't we built up? But to use that overused analogy, also where is the puck going? If the world is going to be moving to lower carbon, which parts of that transition can we lead? In fact, can we dominate in? Also, how are we going to apply AI? mean, this is one of the world's leader in AI. We just had a Canadian win the Nobel Prize, Jeffrey Hinton. I mean, amazing, his impact in this country and the AI ecosystem has been absolutely enormous. We can build off of that in so many different ways. The companies themselves, how we use AI for all, not just use AI to displace workers. That's what we don't want to do. We want to use AI to give people more tools to have better jobs and be more productive and do that. So there's lots of things that we can do with that. 

So it shifts from the overall why do we invest not as much? Why do we not use the tools as well? But then we'll go to which areas, which parts of the economy can we build up and which are the elements that make all of the economy more productive. So let me be, can I be a little more specific about this? 

Nate Erskine-Smith: Specifics are good, yeah, specifics are always good. 

Long-Term Investments for Productivity

Mark Carney: So, you know, the previous prime minister, Prime Minister Harper wanted Canada to be an energy superpower. And in many respects, we are because we have hydro, we have oil and gas, we have nuclear, et cetera. We need to be a clean energy superpower. That's where the world's going. That means a couple of things. So there's certain things, my point, which I should have started with, is there's certain things that can make all of the economy better, all of the economy more productive, can help close the gap.

Nate Erskine-Smith: Cleaner, cheaper power is an example. 

Mark Carney: Cleaner, cheaper power across Canada is good for Canadians. It's good for Canadian jobs. It is great for Canadian manufacturing because companies around the world, as the world's being rewired, are looking for low-risk jurisdictions, we’re about as risk-free as anyone can be, with trade access to the biggest markets. We've got the best trade relationships of anybody, and who have clean power.

That is ever more the case in the new industries on technology, the so-called hyperscalers, the big technology companies. They are looking to build out data centers and computing in jurisdictions outside of the United States where they can trust, but they have to have clean power. So we have to take our natural advantages in clean power and grow them quickly. 

But let's do that in a way that benefits Canadians above and beyond just having those data centers come and built here by let's say, Google or Meta or Microsoft or whoever. We want to make sure that a portion of those data centers is available for our companies. The companies that Jeffrey Hinton helped spawn, the Coheres of this world, if you will. 

And as well, we want to make sure that Canadians are learning how to use these tools to solve problems for the world, whether it's protein folding, in life sciences, by the way, another Nobel prize, we're recording today, Demis Hassabis, won the Nobel prize for that. Okay. And we have the capability of building that out. So we build out the ecosystem around that. Then you take a step back and say, and there's every reason why we should, the great universities here in Toronto and in, in Alberta and Montreal, et cetera, that are building this expertise, the creative destruction lab just down the street here. All of that is part of, I'm sorry to use the word ecosystem, but it's relevant to how we can build this out at scale. What else do we need to do to incentivize and reward the builders of that economy? And so you work your way back. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: I'm curious. I haven't read Hinge. It's not out yet, but this is your book. 

Mark Carney: It's not written yet. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: It's not written? Okay, well, I saw an announcement around it. 

Mark Carney: It's large. I mean, it's not finished. Sorry, my publisher is listening. It's not perfect. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: I like that. It's good. In some summary that I read though, whether you wrote it or not, maybe the publisher wrote it, it does talk about it being time to build. But what I found interesting about the knock-on language was not just governments. This isn't just governments putting public capital in to build. 

This is about encouraging the private sector to invest in things that also are going to create long lasting value to our country. It's one thing to say we want businesses to invest in workers and that's a priority, but when we talk about building things and you know, I wish we were waking up 10 years after the Liberal government was elected in 2015 and we had high speed rail between Toronto and Montreal. We don't have that unfortunately. I mean there is high frequency rail, maybe high speed. 

Mark Carney: With a spur to Ottawa. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: Maybe it's coming, I don't know. 

Mark Carney: And between Edmonton and Calgary. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: But when you say it's time, do you have something in mind of what this country up looks like? 

Mark Carney: I've got, yeah absolutely, without question, without question. Look, and I'm glad you raise it because where we are around the world is, we are at the start of an investment era. I could call it an investment boom, but investment era.

Let me use an example from the European Union. So, Mario Draghi, central banker, became a prime minister, just did an analysis.

Nate Erskine-Smith: You should’ve used that example. 

Mark Carney: I know, I threw it in, took me a while. Just did a very comprehensive analysis for the European Union and where do they go in their next phase of their growth strategy. One of the things that's striking is their analysis is that the scale of investment that Europe needs to do for the net zero transition and the AI transformation or revolution, depending on how you frame it, plus a bit on security, is twice the size of the Marshall Plan, which was put in place after World War II to rebuild an absolutely destroyed Europe. 

So it's five percentage points in his estimation of GDP in additional investment year in, year out for decades. We have probably not quite that level, but something similar. That is building. That is an enormous opportunity for this country because the actual act of building clean energy, the act of building out the computing power for AI, the act of investing in skills, all of that is growth at the time. But what it will do if we do it right, it will lock in competitive advantage for our companies and futures for Canadians and their children in the industries of the future. 

And because both being low carbon and deploying machine learning, artificial intelligence, are generalized drivers of competitiveness, in other words, across a bunch of industries, you don't have to be working in AI to get the benefit of it if we do this right. You can be manufacturing or in the resource sector but if you're, if you're low carbon, you will have access to those markers. We talked earlier about CBAM. So how do we get ahead of that and how do we build? So it's absolutely a time to build. You had, you had Lisa Raitt on the podcast a few weeks ago. And she with Don Iveson, did, did great work, on this housing report. Mike Moffatt was part of it. Others, was, I was a small, part of, part of the group.

You know, we need to build a lot of houses. Okay. We all know that there is a smart way to do that. There's an effective way to do that. There's a way that builds a Canadian industry and Canadian expertise on next generation, you know, efficient, energy efficient and livable houses, housing that can build a real industry in this country, above and beyond provide the needs for that. 

And, and at the core of their report, is that strategy. We have taken, I think, as a country, components of that strategy, the more immediate components, but not fully drawn through the recommendations. It's time to build. We should pull that through because we don't just get the benefit of, I mean, look, it's an imperative. It's not a benefit. It's an imperative of building these houses, somewhere between five to eight million additional houses. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: Yeah, we're well short at the moment. 

Mark Carney: Yeah, we're well short. So we know, we'll worry about whether it's five or eight, you know, several years down the line. But let's do it in a way that builds an industry that, you know, Canada can export around the world. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: I've got a question around fairness, but before I get there, just on the productivity question, do you worry about, you've got, I think it's something like 75% of consumer debt is tied up in mortgages. You've got 50% of the bank balance sheet is mortgages. 

You've got, when you look at the percentage of our economy that is premised on real estate, and we're not just talking about building new houses at that point, which is productive use of capital. In many cases, it's acquiring an existing asset and it's not the most productive use of a dollar in Canadian society. Do you worry about just how much we have invested as a country in the real estate sector? 

Mark Carney: Look, I certainly had jobs where I had to worry about that. That was the second nature of that. I think the following, which is that we're in a position where we are very short housing and we have a responsibility, all of us, whether we're in government or those who are in the sector, in the private sector, and particularly, it's all levels of government to solve that problem to make sure that every Canadian resident has a decent place to live, that it's affordable, that they can manage it. We can grow our way into that situation. It's natural that, you know, the separate point or related point, it's natural that people, you know, that their biggest asset is their home. And, you know, their biggest liability is their mortgage. That's natural. You know, if everyone waited until they could buy their home for cash, yeah, no one would own a home. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: But it does strike me, pushing investment dollars into building. And again, what the framework is, we want to push any new dollar that's coming into the housing space, we want to get new housing built as opposed to competing with first time home buyers for residential resales, for example. 

Mark Carney: Absolutely. Yes. I mean, we need to build a lot of homes and that has implications for building standards codes, permitting, the way we build those homes. It would be a huge missed opportunity if we build the homes of yesterday for the world of today, in a world where, again, in Lisa's and Don's report, they quite rightly make this point that the risks from a changing climate change the specifications and the locations of where you should build. And, you know, the efficiency of greater density in our cities is, look, it's great for neighborhoods. I mean, we've got a great mixed, I mean, this is one of the classic neighborhoods, great neighborhoods in the world, let alone Canada. But more of that infill density is valuable if you do it the right way.

Inclusive Growth and Fairness

Nate Erskine-Smith: Your focus on this task force is growth productivity, but you have also written a good deal about inclusive growth. You have written that we have to be more honest with people about winners and losers when it comes to trade and technological transformation. And then the idea behind inclusive growth is to make sure we support people along the way. And there's an underlying sense of fairness to it. And when you look at the Canadian context, when you look at the work you're going to do with this task force, how much does inclusive growth factor into it? And how would you articulate, you know, I'm not gonna knock on doors and talk about inclusive growth. I don't think that is a doorstep way of talking about it, but helping people in need and helping people who are struggling and helping make sure we're addressing cost of living, that sounds like what we're trying to drive at when we talk about inclusive growth. What do you mean when you talk about it? 

Mark Carney: Yeah, I agree with everything you said. I would frame it a bit this way if I could, which is, it gets us substantially the way there towards an inclusive society, but not all of the way there to an inclusive society. By which I mean, there's ways to grow that recognize that you're going to have, it's an ugly word, but it's an ugly process, where you're going to have big churn in firms, in industries, and therefore in jobs. 

So new jobs will be created, but old jobs will be lost. And the question is what happens to the people in those jobs? Are they ready for the new jobs? How do you get them ready for the new jobs? And look, the lesson of previous industrial revolutions, and we are entering two industrial revolutions at the same time, the sustainable revolution and the AI revolution, the lesson of previous industrial revolutions is what happens is that you go through a long period with huge change of jobs and industries, and that workers are slow to benefit from the benefits of those new industries. 

Now that doesn't have to be the case and what happens is that eventually people get retrained, eventually new social safety net and welfare systems are put in place to support people, but it happens decades after the fact, the political process lags. I think we should benefit from that knowledge, that history, and do this in real time. And it therefore has to be part and parcel of the growth strategy. So a huge element of this is necessarily going to have to be around the skills agenda, and the skills agenda in real time. 

And make these changes not threatening for people, but legitimately, legitimately exciting for people because they have the opportunity to develop the skills that you know, are in the clean economy, are applying AI across a huge range of those economies and they're growing their jobs from there. And that means, you know, it means multiple levels of government, as you can appreciate, because the skills is not unique to any level of government. And it means being coordinated with industry, it means coordinated with other stakeholders. 

And I think it also means, and this is, I don't think I'll draw this out in the report, but it's a broader question. You've thought about this is, well, what does it mean for social welfare and support? Because ideally, look, what's happening, not ideally what's happening, but what is likely to happen is, you know, you have people in their thirties or forties and the industry is changing and they have an opportunity to shift into a new role. But ideally, this is where the ideal is, they have a partner. You know, they have a mortgage because they have a place to live. Maybe they have children as well. So they have obligations. So how easy is it for them to then take a year out or time out to develop some social support? And how do you, so how do you integrate the, both, the social welfare system with that, or the social support for that, as well as make sure you have real places, real opportunity to get that training.  And we need to be thinking about that right now to integrate that.

Nate Erskine-Smith: Well yesterday, because apart from any transformation which you're getting at, you have 1.5 million people that don't have a job right now. And there's got to be an overriding focus on supporting people through the social safety net, where they are unable to work and helping people, properly supporting them, not get off your a-s-s approach of Doug Ford, which is, I don't even know what decade to accuse him from being from. But actually supporting people with that skills training and that education and those social supports on the income side. 

The other question on fairness, and I did ask you this, a version of this at least, when you gave that speech and then no one was putting up their hand and I was like, all right, I'll ask Mark Carney a question. I'm not shy about asking questions. And I put it this way, and I'll give you a second crack at it. 

Mark Carney: You really liked my first answer. 

Nate-Erskine Smith: Your first answer left a little to be desired, I would say. So, you have spoken about income inequality, but you then have highlighted rightly that income inequality is sizably outpaced by wealth inequality. And there are challenging ways of tackling this problem, but before we get to the tackling of the problem, just so people who are listening understand this, StatsCan measures this in different ways. Social Capital Partners, and this is what I referenced in my preamble to the question previously, but they estimate that the top 1% owns 25% of the wealth in Canada and the top 0.1% owns 13% of the wealth. And it's an incredible amount of inequality when you think about the scale of it all, especially when you contrast that as against the insignificant disability benefit and the number of people who are truly in need in society. And so when we have that, I think everything through the lens of a fair and productive economy. 

You're focused on the productive end of it, but when we talk about inclusive growth, when we think of inequalities like wealth inequality, fairness looms large. How do you think we can best address this? Now, the capital gains changes, I'm curious if you have a comment on that because I think those were a very useful step forward in addressing wealth inequality as the OECD has highlighted personal capital income taxes as the most effective path forward in terms of tackling this problem because of capital flight risks with other changes, potential changes in net wealth taxes. How would you best address that question of wealth inequality? 

Mark Carney: Well, I think the following, and this is where the trade-off comes and this is where the political system comes together in order to make the judgments around those trade-offs. Because we're in a position where it's a time to build, right? Time to build out the housing, the industries of the future, get the economy growing, and increase income and wealth for all Canadians. And for that to happen, and I'm going to come to your question, but I want to pick up on something you mentioned earlier, which I didn't really highlight, which is, and you referenced it as a third way, as opposed to, you know, spend and subsidize and support or, you know, cut our way to prosperity, the destroy, deny type approach, demolish approach. And that's a way that is clear through a political process about what we're trying to accomplish, the missions, if you will, of the government. Are we trying to become a clean energy superpower? Are we trying to become the essential trading partner of our friends, et cetera, et cetera? What are we trying to do in order to create that wealth? And then how do we go about it?

And how we go about it, the role of government in that respect is partly through policy, present and future, partly through regulation, smart regulation, in fact, not too many, but smart regulation standards, and sometimes through a bit of capital investment themselves, is to catalyze a huge amount of private investment. That's what's necessary. Because the orders of magnitude are so large that no government can or should try to take it on. 

In order to get that last component, the private investment, we need builders. We need companies and individuals and entrepreneurs and people to figure out better, not just to invest, but also figure out better ways to accomplish the goals that we've set as a society. And they need to be rewarded, right? I mean, they're going to do it in part to be rewarded. So they are going to create wealth. They're going to create wealth for the country as a whole, but also they're going to have some of that. And so the judgment is around what's the right reward and how do you balance that with how much of the wealth that's created, the total wealth is created that is captured by society. Do we capture it in general in the economy? Do we tax the economy in general, or do we go and tax at that, at that source, so to speak?

And the thing I didn't, I'll be candid, what I didn't like about the capital gains discussion earlier this year was the way it was framed, the way it was toned. It was a kind of class warfare type language, which, well, as if, we're entering an era where if we're going to be successful, we need some people, some companies, some Canadians to be successful.

And that doesn't mean they're bad people, that they've done the wrong thing. In fact, they've been doing, they will have done what we want them to do. If we have a clean tech entrepreneur, carbon cure, carbon capture, you know, those people, and they get to scale. If, a Canadian company is the world leader in small modular reactors, for example, which is necessary for so many solutions around the world, yeah, actually we do want them to see some of the gain. They're not bad people, they're good people. They're part of what we need to do. So then how do we balance that? And how do we balance it through overall levels of taxation, taxation of income on the way up? And do we have some form of, is it around capital gains? Do we have capital gains at the right level now? 

Nate Erskine-Smith: And is there a way to distinguish at times between active and passive income? Because, like, take housing as the classic example, but if you've got, and I mentioned this example earlier, but if you've got dollars coming in to build, I want to incentivize that every chance that I get, more dollars coming in to build. But I want to disincentivize if anything, dollars coming in to compete with first-time homebuyers in the residential resale space. That's not productive capital in the same way, and you could have a tax regime that treats that wealth differently.

Mark Carney: Well, you can have, and we do have some of this, which is you can have other elements of the regime which support the first-time homebuyer which tilts the, you know, the playing field that way. So these are, look, these are all crucial things and I used the term earlier, the adjective earlier, it's not gonna be a magical ... 

Nate Erskine-Smith: It doesn't sound like you're gonna address extreme wealth inequality, but you are addressing productivity. 

Mark Carney: Well, no, but I think but you've got to address, yeah, you've got to address how are we going to grow this economy? How are we best going to grow this economy? And in part, how are we going to grow this economy in a way that brings, that puts people first and brings as many Canadians along as possible in that growth, in and of that self, in that growth, in the dignity of a job and a career and flourishing in Canada. 

And then, and then, but above and beyond that, there is these questions which you're rightly raising, which is, okay, but there's no perfect growth strategy that lifts absolutely all boats. That's absolute. We've lived through that.

Nate Erskine-Smith: And we've just delivered after, so here's the, you didn't live through this in the same way I did, but we just promised people with disabilities, like we set an expectation here, we delivered this and it's not nothing, it's like effectively a billion dollars plus a year works out at 1.2, 1.3 on an ongoing basis, but it pales in comparison. I mean, we're now having a debate about $3 billion in new spending for old age security, which is poorly targeted, when you're talking about a senior that makes $120,000 in a given year is gonna earn, you know, they’re taxable benefits, but would receive $4,000 in benefits. That doesn't stack up when I look at the who are we, what is inclusive growth, how are we gonna help people and make sure people aren't left behind? And I do think as we think about productivity and growth, and that's your overall variety objective, and rightly so. There, does have to be this knock on consideration to say, okay, well, I don't see this skills training and this AI transformation necessarily benefiting someone who's really struggling, who has a disability and is on this support. So how do we make sure we do both at the same time and we deliver the growth we need, but we also have, we also have promised to expand that disability benefit. 

Mark Carney: But that's why, okay. But that's, that's, and you talked earlier about, why, you know, why am I involved working with the, with the Liberal Party working for the Prime Minister on this? But that's because both questions get asked and both questions are looked at, to be answered. So the growth element and the social element, broader social, as opposed to growth, as the be all and end all. 

But we are in a position now, as I think other economies, you know, the UK, the EU, the US has a different weighting of these issues, but certainly those other economies that have a similar, not exactly the same, but a similar set of values, a similar set of balance between equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, and fairness across generations. Those three big factors, different societies weigh those differently. I think we as Canadians try to balance across all three as much as possible. 

But we're in a situation, as is the UK, as is the EU, where our ability to meet all of those will be compromised unless we solve the growth equation. Okay. We have to solve this. That does, it does not follow that by solving the growth equation, we solve all these other things because we then have to make choices of what do we do with that growth? And what do we do with the fruits of that growth? 

Nate Erskine-Smith: Yeah, redistribution is still part of the conversation. 

Mark Carney: Yeah. That bring all Canadians along. 

Conclusion

I think you talk about it is redistribution and regeneration, but you need both.

Look, I appreciate the time. When you are, when you're ready to beat Kevin Vuong in Spadina-Harborfront, I'm there to canvas for you. If you need any political advice along the way, I'm happy to help. And I really, I will, you know, with all sincerity, I really am glad that you have not been put off by the absurdity of our politics and that there's still that interest. And I hope many people who are, who see you doing it will follow suit and say, look, I've contributed, I have a lot to contribute, I'm gonna contribute to politics. Because I do have this great worry that we're gonna see people not leave the sidelines in a way that you seem to be willing to do because of the state of the state of our politics, so I appreciate you joining. 

Mark Carney: That's very, that's very kind I mean, but let me just say this, which is that if there are people like that on the sidelines and they come in, you can, they can flood the zone. They can come in and flood the zone and change the tone. 

Nate Erskine-Smith: We’ll leave with that optimism. 

Mark Carney: We can leave with that optimism. Okay, thanks Nate.

Nate Erskine-Smith: Thanks for joining me on this episode of Uncommons. A special shout out, by the way, to Beaches Sandbox, which is where we are recording this. You might hear the daycare that is happening right beside us. As always, you can reach us with topics, with guests, with ideas @beynate on social media and info@beynate.ca by email. And otherwise, until next time.

Watch the full podcast on YouTube:

—

Transcript:

Nate: Welcome to Uncommons. I'm Nate Erskine-Smith, and on this episode I'm joined by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and you should know at the outset there were no pre-approved questions. Now, before we get to that conversation, two quick public service announcements. We've started these weekly update videos of the week that was in Parliament. We of course call it Uncommons Weekly, and you can check it out on our social media @beynate.

The second thing is, do me a favor. If you like what we're doing, go to your platform of choice and leave us a positive review because it does help us reach a wider, greater audience. And I could do a big preamble, but you know who the Prime Minister is. So let's jump to the conversation.

The Importance of Conversations in Politics

Nate: Justin, thanks for joining me.

Justin: Oh, so good to be here Nate.

Nate: I was laughing. So, you, in the same week, you're looking at your itinerary and you're doing the Colbert show, and then you're looking, you're going “Oh, and I'm doing Uncommons with Nate. What is – what is happening? How did these two end up on my schedule the same week?”

Justin: Yeah. You know, it's actually, it's actually just right, because a big part of what I've been trying to do is have as many different conversations in different places about, about the challenges we're all facing, because one of the things we learn and we've learned over the past years is, if we don't go to where people are, then people aren't listening. It's not like I can give a speech on the steps of Parliament and know that most Canadians will have tuned in to the speech, through the nightly news or through – no.

Nate: Five people are really fantastic.

Justin: Well, and it's great that they're then, I'm happy to give speeches for them. But if I don't start, if we don't start making, you know, space for real conversations that actually do filter through everything that people are either bombarded with or just busy doing in their lives, then we're not doing right in terms of either representing or serving people.

Nate: So for those who are regular listeners, they know a bit of my background. But for those who may be tuning in the first time, because we've got you joining us, this is a Liberal MP’s podcast, but, you and I have not always seen eye to eye. And I get asked all the time, well, what's your relationship like with the Prime Minister, thinking that there's some, you know, animosity that’s between us.

How would you describe our relationship to sort of set the stage for this?

Justin: Well, when people ask me “So, how do you put up with Nate?” I actually laugh because you're actually one of the MPs that I have a better type of conversation with than many others. 

And we have all, and we've had some, some pretty important conversations over the years or at least crunchy conversations over the years. But I've always thoroughly enjoyed it. And for me, it's a feature, not a bug, that I have thoughtful MPs who come at this with, you know, ways of challenging me with strongly felt beliefs, with points where we will diverge on things. 

And as long as I can have, as we have always had, and perhaps better than many others who are sometimes more divergent in their perspectives, as long as we can have really good conversations where you understand where I'm coming from and I understand where you're coming from, then there is, I mean, that's almost the way democracy writ large is supposed to work. As you know, people come together to vote on, you know, what direction the country's going to take. If we can't have these conversations, then, then nothing else is working in democracy.

Reflections on Leadership and Governance

Nate: Yeah. And a reasonable disagreement is, I think, central to not only our politics writ large, but also to the Liberal Party as, as I hope many of us see it. But when you think of, the Liberal Party, when you think of, you know, you've got, I will never be an anonymous MP in the media, I think it's cowardly, but you've got any number of colleagues who are now speaking out in, less than helpful ways, if I'm putting it more politely. 

You've got others who are going on record and raising concerns, and the concerns are mixed. Sometimes it's about direction, sometimes it is about you and, and they try to cast it as it's not about, you know, fair or unfair criticism, but you know how people feel. When you look at it, you know, you're in this for nine years. And I want to start with a bigger sort of question of why. You articulated the need for serious change heading into 2015. Many people like me left this, got off the sidelines to participate, because of that call to do things differently, when you think of what's to come next, you've got anonymous MPs raising complaints. You've got people who are, who are, frustrated for this reason or that reason. 

Governing wears on governments. Why do you want to do this again?

Justin: It's interesting that you go back to 2015, right. And that, the why we did this, because first of all, there were a lot of people, you know, telling us that we were wrong, that I was doing things the wrong way, that I wasn't, I wasn't, you know, tackling the right things the right way. There was a lot of skepticism about what that was.

And it was an opportunity to actually give Canadians a choice that I think was absolutely necessary for the country to say, okay, we've got to double down on fighting climate change and growing the economy at the same time. We got to step up in supporting the most vulnerable. We got to move forward on reconciliation. We got to, we got to figure out how we navigate through a much more challenging world that has impacts on us.

Those are all things that the Harper government wasn't doing, and those were all the things that drove me to saying, “Yeah, Canadians need that choice to be able to make,” well, that's sort of the same choice they're going to make in the next election. Choice whether you’re moving forward on the fight against climate change or whether we just basically throw up our hands and go back to leaning heavily on fossil fuels with the kind of short term thinking that is going to end up being so costly for Canadians just a few years down the road, not just with, with the, the, the costs of climate impacts and wildfires, but also, with the missed opportunities to participate in where the global economy is going. That question of, okay, at this time of backlash against progressive policies of inclusion and diversity, you know, are we going to double down on making sure that everyone gets to participate, or are we going to continue to drive wedges into people and, and, you know, group Canadians into, into subgroups that are angry at each other?

I think all those questions are just as important now, if not even more important, because back in the run up to 2015, I think everyone got a sense of, okay, yeah, we just need to find an alternative to Stephen Harper and whether it's Mulcair or whether it's Trudeau, the winds were turning in that sense. Yeah, this is going to be harder on a lot of levels, because it's, it's, a time where people are frustrated.

But the choice to make a deliberate choice to say, no, we're going to continue and even double down on the things we know are going to get us better, which is more protection of the environment, more inclusion of people, more understanding how you have to build the economy from the bottom up, from the center out, instead of from the top down, which Poilievre is still proposing. Like, this is going to be a much harder election in 2015. It always was going to be.

Nate: Set up, but set up that choice. So I agree, I want to protect the progress. Right. So we, leading into 2015, there were over 100 communities without clean water, Indigenous communities. And there's imperfect progress, unquestionably imperfect progress, that there's still communities. It's still a failure of any community that doesn't have clean water, but we have massive progress. Over 80% of those advisories have been lifted, any new advisory that's come on has been treated with seriousness. There's water projects in most communities already underway, and many short term advisories have been addressed as well to avoid them becoming long term advisories. So I care about progress on climate change. We're finally bending the curve on emissions, there's a comprehensive, serious climate plan.

We can fight pricing pollution. We should defend pricing pollution. But it's about much more than that. you look at poverty reduction, you look at addressing the opioid crisis. I run down the list of issues and I care about protecting that progress. Now, I'm gonna, you know, if you're speaking to, a Canadian who's sitting at home and saying, yeah, I agree, I don't, I don't want Pierre Poilievre.

I don't, I don't want to move in that direction, but we, we need to protect that progress, and we need to put our best foot forward. And you’ve probably had some reflections, because I'm sure this is not the first time someone said, well, look at what's happening south of the border. Obviously your brain didn't melt on national television the way the Biden’s did, but, Kamala has obviously put that party in a better position to win, although still a struggle, but a better position to win.

Why do you think when you take a step outside of yourself and look and say, I still think I'm the best person to, to fight that fight?

Justin: Well, first of all, let's, let's look at, you know, people who are saying, oh, I'm not sure. Would they be saying that if I was ten points ahead in the polls right now?

Nate: No.

Justin: Right. I mean, are there a lot of Liberals who who are thinking, that, you know, Justin's priorities aren't in the right place or Justin doesn't have the fight in him, or Justin, you know, is wrong to be continuing to believe in protecting the environment and growing the economy and protecting women's rights and stuff. In terms of the substance of what we're doing, I think that's pretty much the fight.

There's a question on whether or not, I still have the drive, the fight or the ability to win this fight. And I sort of say that that's obviously a question that I have to ask as well. Do I still have the drive to do this?

Nate: You’ve got the drive, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not dismissive of that.

Justin: And do I still have the- okay, but do I still have the understanding of what this is going to take to win the next election? Yeah, absolutely. Better than just about anyone else, because I have been fighting through crises and fighting against Conservative opponents who are trying to undo this and bring Canadians, you know, backwards, and polarize them.

Like, I know exactly how hard this fight is going to be. And I also know that I am absolutely roaring to go, because this kind of fight that is so fundamental to, you know, how Canadians come out or come through what have been really, really difficult years, I think, is exactly why I got into politics to make sure that we are delivering the absolute best future for Canadians.

Poilievre and Choices Within the Upcoming Election

Justin: And I think one of the interesting questions that, even as people ask me why I want to do this all the time, nobody's asking Poilievre why he wants to do this, what is it that he is being driven to fight for? We know what he's fighting against, what is he fighting for? And he hasn't even come, and we've been watching him and debating him, and trying to counter him for years now, 20 years in the House, he's been we know what he's been all about fighting against. He hasn't even begun to articulate what he's fighting for. And I think and I'm happy for people to be asking me the question as you are, I think more Canadians need to be asking Poilievre who and what he's fighting for, other than himself and his desire to be in power.

Nate: I mean, there is, obviously in that choice, the choice matters, it's not just a referendum on you. I've told the story before, but there is, senior in a legion in Sioux Lookout who said, you know, I don't like your boss, too much spending, too many apologies. But I know what I'm getting with Justin. I don't know what I'm getting with the other guy. And I'm still going to vote for you. 

And so there is a bit of, there is a choice there that really matters. I mean, he's obviously walking away from some of that 20 year record. He's got a 20 year record of anti-labor advocacy, and now he's trying to, you know, more boots, less suits, and he's wearing- wearing a suit while he says it, but regardless, he's he's trying to, you know, win over labor in the Monty McNaughton kind of style. Whether that works or not is an open question. But he does articulate, relentlessly to the point that it's now seared in my brain, the “axe the tax”, “build the homes”, “fix the budget”, “stop the crime”.

And, you know, I want to build the homes, too. And I don't think his plan stacks up particularly well as against our more recent ones, certainly. Axe the tax is a silly slogan and belies the fact he doesn't have a plan on climate change. And the carbon rebate makes most people better off. And we can run down the list. I'm less interested in, for the purpose of this, at least combating that absurdity, however you want to frame his, his arguments. 

But for you, you know, I've said this to you before, I think I said it in January. I said it again more recently. But when your father ran that final time, he articulated five things that mattered to him that he wanted his final term to be about. And it was international peace, it was economy, energy, fighting Quebec sovereignty and delivering the charter. Whatever one thinks of his success, obviously the charter got delivered and that is part of who we are as Canadians and and rightly so. How would you articulate the two, three, four – what do you want to see through in your final term?

Justin: Even before we get into that, though, I think in your very first story, there was something really, really telling in that, you know, someone may disagree with me on this or that and the other things, but they know. They know the frame that I'm working from. They know what drives me. They know what matters to me.

And that is not something to simply shrug off, because what we've seen over the past number of years is crises that nobody ran on. Nobody asked me in 2019 how I was going to handle an eventual pandemic that was going to hit the next year. Nobody talks about, well, how would you react if Russia were to invade Ukraine.

Whatever this next election is going to be about, I think the pattern of crises that we've hit, whether they've been economic or military or geopolitical or health, have not been something that was on the ballot or even discussed in the debate. And that idea of knowing someone's values, knowing the frame with which they approach challenges is not just important, it's ultimately sort of the only thing when you are picking your representatives, whether it's, picking you to, to, to represent them, in Beaches-East York, or, whether it's picking a prime minister, having confidence that the person both sees you and is going to make decisions with you in mind that align with what you are most preoccupied about is what democracies and elections are supposed to be all about. And often we get pulled away from that. So for me, you ask me about the things that drive me more than anything else right now is understanding that we are in a moment in this world where everything's changing. People are saying, oh, it's going to be a change election.

Yeah, it's going to be a change election. Everything is change. Not just climate change, but the way we work, the way AI works, the way, the way the geopolitics happens, the pressures on everything. The world is in a massive pivot moment right now, and we don't know what the biggest issue is going to be. For the past year and a half, Poilievre has been screaming his head off about, you know, inflation, and it's all my fault on inflation. Well, inflation is now down, because we've got “justinflation”.

Nate: We’ve got inflation down to 2%, to where it's supposed to be, and that's the whole thing. But, yeah.

Justin: Who knows if whatever issue we're picking is actually going to be it. And it was, it's sort of lovely to look back on my dad's last term and say that was what he was saying. We don't know what crises are going to hit the world. We only know there are going to be. And the question on who has the capacity.

Successes and Failures in Governance

Nate: Not a question on crises, I’ll push back a little bit though. So I think that's fair. And I think actually, if I were to articulate some of the successes, I want to get to successes and failures. And if I were to articulate some successes, chief among them is actually the Covid response, imperfect as it was, people could see you in front of that cottage every morning, and you were there, and we, you know, we could point to emergency benefits, we could point to, we could point to vaccine rollouts.

Justin: The fact that we bounced back faster than other countries.

Nate: Yeah, and overwhelmingly, I think Canadians do feel that. We just did a survey over the summer, and the number one thing people feel strongly about that the government's done well was the Covid response. Dental care came a close second. But, but having said all that, there are still things, and I'll use an example.

You're a dad. You've got kids that you love and Canadians can see that. And if I were in your shoes, I've got kids, too. And the Canada Child Benefit childcare has made a massive difference in so many people's lives. And now we're promising healthy school food, for the, to set kids up for success to an even greater degree.

To me, and I could add, we're protecting kids online. So let's take that package of delivering for families with kids. Poilievre doesn't talk about it. He doesn’t want to talk about it, because there are successes there that he doesn't want to point to. But you could talk about it and you could say, we have delivered for families with kids in a serious way, and you could point to progress, but people don't just want to vote for your record, they want to vote for what comes next.

And you can say credibly, because people know you care, they know you care. And especially about families and delivering for families with kids. And here's what comes next. If I, I'm in this again, this is what I'm in it for. And I do think there needs to be more of, yes, it could be, It's change and it's high level, but it sounds a lot like when Biden talks about defending democracy and it's, it's important and I, and I, believe in that but it's a little bit disconnected from people's day to day. 

And if instead it's, you know, I think, protecting the environment where people have seen flood risks, people see insurance premiums going up, they see the forest fires, they feel the forest fires. But when we're connecting issues like that, and there's another issue that I, you know, you've already talked about, but that is, I think, central to what you want to do next.

I do think it doesn't have to be so like, it doesn't have to be so, you know, cartoonish. But I think telling that story. Stories matter in our politics and you telling the stories of what you're in it for, I think is, is crucial.

Justin: Yeah. No, I entirely agree. And that's very much what we're, what we're putting together and building on. I mean, part of, but part of before we can properly pitch the next step, we, as you pointed out, we have to sort of highlight some of the things that we have done and that, quite frankly, are at risk. I mean, the Canada Child Benefit, the last time there was a vote on that, Poilievre voted against it.

Is even that at risk, let alone everything else you mentioned that he has actively opposed, from dental for kids to, to school foods to, to child care. We know he's nowhere on child care. These are things that have concretely helped, but also concretely improved our economic performance, improved the jobs, improved the opportunities. As a country, that is always the thing we're doing.

But if Canadians don't understand the things that we've done and that we've delivered, then there's, there's a real challenge in saying, oh, we're going to do this. Go, why should I believe you did this? You haven't done anything else. I mean, what are you talking about that we didn't do anything else. I mean, that's, and that's something that you’ve, you're, you're in caucus every week.

I mean, this is what we struggle with Nate. I mean, we. we're really trying to, trying to dig into how we both have Canadians understand what it is we've done and what it is at risk in the next election, because Poilievre has basically said he's going to undo everything that we, we did. The only thing we do know is he's going to continue to, to give tax breaks to the rich, he's going to reverse some of our tax breaks, that ask the wealthiest to do a little bit more. I mean, these are things that are really tangible. And we also have to have that positive ambition of this is what we're going to do together, in the next mandate. This is the next step of what we're going. And that's something we're busy putting together with, with caucus and everyone right now.

Nate: I think there's a lot. So there are certain issues like build the homes where we have to win that fight that matters too much to so many people, especially young Canadians, into our economy when you think of productivity. There are other issues, axe the tax is a powerful political message because especially when it's not tied to anything environment related. and it's just a broad, sweeping promise to axe some tax. Those who know us about the carbon tax and care a lot. Okay, it motivates a certain base. Just like how gutting the CBC motivates a certain Conservative base. But on some issues, we just have to fight them to a draw, right? We have to articulate the things we've done on auto theft.

We have to articulate the things we've done on climate. We just fight some of those things to a draw, axe the tax, stop the crime and fix the budget. And we hopefully win build the homes. But there are other issues that we need to, on fixing health care, we did deliver dental care and 6 million Canadians don’t have access to a family doctor, on delivering for families, as I mentioned, on protecting the environment. There's other issues that we have strength on, that we have credibility on, that we have a record on, and there are other things we want to do next. Taking the fight to Pierre doesn't just mean pointing out his inadequacies and his 20 year record. It also is to push him on issues the same way we did say gun control and environment with Andrew Scheer and Erin O’Toole, taking the fight to him, we've given him a little more of a free pass, I think since he was, since he was elected leader than I would maybe have if I could go back and do it again.

Justin: I've heard that a lot. And, and for sure to a certain extent, there absolutely was a theoretical path or was a path where we came out of the gate, greeted him when he became leader, the same way I was greeted by Stephen Harper.

Nate: You did a bit of it with Bitcoin, right? You did a bit of it.

Justin: Yeah, a little bit of that. But, but I mean, he actually did that to himself as much as anything else.

Nate: He mostly does it to himself. He can’t help himself.

Justin: Yeah, the thing that happened when I first came out, with, when I became leader, Stephen Harper, you know, attacked me out of the gate, greeted me with a, millions of dollars of ads. 

Nate: Just not ready.

Justin: No, that was, that was the last. That was the last one.

Nate: What was the first one?

Justin: The first one was oh, he's just not serious. He's, you can't, can you imagine him as prime minister? They had, they sorts of little. None of that really worked, but they came out and greeted me with that right away. Did it define me? Not particularly because Canadians sort of had an idea who I was. 

Canadians don't have much of an idea who Poilievre, he's been in the house for 20 years. Nobody knows who he is. There would have been an opportunity. At the same time, one of the things that gave me real pause on whether I would come out and start defining him right now is, we were busy governing through a really tough time, and we were fighting for Canadians and for me to come out and pick a fight with Poilievre right out of the gate. He's the new sort of leader, and I'm suddenly so worried about him that I'm going to put a millions of dollars of ad buy to try and tell Canadians how scary or reckless or dangerous he is. It could have worked, it might have worked. We might, you know, be sitting on couches ten years from now saying, oh, man, I was right, Nate. I wish we'd done.

But at the same time, there was something that didn't feel true to me, in terms of, now I'm going to pick a fight with him when I should be fighting for Canadians, when I should be trying to tackle inflation. That was a big challenge then, which we successfully tackled. So there's also part of the sequencing too, right. If if I'm going to, you know, drive someone down in the polls a year or two before an election or even 3 or 4 years before an election, is that the best time to knock them down and lift myself up, or do I want that to happen a little more organically, closer to the actual day when people choose?

Nate: Well, I won't dwell on it, but in Toronto–Saint Paul's I would have liked to have seen as an example some kind of paid ad, I would say, that is Pierre Poilievre, you have stood with the convoy in a public health crisis. He doesn't believe in serious climate action and he wants to gut the public broadcaster. Does he represent Toronto–Saint Paul's, and some version of that like I do think.

Justin: I like that. I can't argue against that, particularly knowing the, the result in Toronto–Saint Paul's, it certainly wasn't what we wanted. So I would have said, yeah, I wish we did something.

Nate: Yeah, because you want to set it up as a choice, but it was going to require work to set up as a choice, because there's a lot of work on the other end to set it up as a referendum on just you and your socks. And if that's the case, then it's, I don't even know if we have.

Justin: They're not even that bad today.

Youth, Long-term Thinking and Politics Today

Nate: But okay, so, I mentioned we're getting to successes. I got a little ahead of it and that we, at least in my community, I can say there's certain obvious successes that people would point to, to, not only Covid response, navigating through the first Trump presidency. God, God help us if there's a second one, looking at social programs in general, Canada Child Benefit, child care, dental care, there's a lot of hope around pharmacare, although I know we're at the beginnings of it, but people would point to, I think, navigating through crises and delivering social programs as, I think, these successes in some ways, when you reflect though, like not listening to my constituents, not listening to a survey, when you think back, you know, you've done this for now, nine years elected and you've been in this for much longer as leader, what do you look back on and say, if I hadn't been there, this wouldn't have happened, and I'm so glad I was there to make this happen.

Justin: I think a part of that frame for me is, well, what you did earlier Nate, which is go back to my dad. When we think of what my dad did, it's the things that still have an impact today. And that, fairly or unfairly, is the frame I tend to put on the things we did. So, you know, a particularly good policy that was right in the right moment, okay. But is it something that is going to make a material difference for my kids, two of whom are teenagers right now, ten years from now, and they're trying to buy a home? You know, 20 years from now when they're dealing with, you know, their kids in childcare or whatever it is, these are the things that is the frame for me.

So everything from the first moment when I was welcoming in that very first Syrian family in the airport in Toronto, in an evening in December, where I'm like, okay, decisions we made as a government have changed this family's life for the better forever. That's meaningful. Things like the Canada Child Benefit where part of the benefit is, yeah, putting more money in families pockets every month. Hundreds of dollars a month, tax free. That makes a huge difference. But the real impact of that is the adults that will have had that extra money in their pockets, in their families, all the way through childhood, having better outcomes, you know, having had more opportunities as kids, having been lifted out of poverty, being able to contribute even better.

Same thing on childcare. Yes, big difference right now in the workforce, certainly in the lives of moms who can choose. But you think of that, that leveling and that opportunity for early childhood education, that you don't actually feel the response to until 20 years from now. Same thing on climate change, like the things that we're doing now. Yeah, as Poilievre loves to point out, didn't prevent, you know, your, your price on pollution didn't prevent Jasper from burning. What a failure that is, let's just stop doing it. I mean, even a ten year old can see through the logic, the logic holes in that. But for me, I know that maybe what we're doing now means Jasper doesn't burn again 25 years from now, when everything is so much worse. Maybe we've actually managed to, to bend the curve in a way that is going to have a material impact.

Justin Trudeau

So one of my challenges, I know in retail politics, that's all short term, is I do tend to get wrapped up in the long term, and I think it's probably a product of having spent so many time with, so much time with young people. I came into teaching.

Nate: Yeah, you were the youth minister, you made yourself the youth minister.

Justin: I was. I made myself the youth minister as prime minister at the same time, but, but I came in as a teacher. I came as an environmental advocate, and I saw that young people were frustrated because we were making long term decisions in government, successive governments that we're not, we're not putting them and their future at the center of it. So bringing in long term thinkers, because that's what young people are, they're imagining, okay, what's my life going to be like 40 years from now, not just four years from now?

Harnessing that and keeping that in mind has been, I think, a real guide to how to think about and reflect on our successes. And that maybe, is why I don't wander around saying, we just did this really big thing, because people won't really feel the impact of it for another ten years, and maybe that's part of why I am so incredibly motivated that we've got all these things set up to ensure real success for Canada over the coming decades.

The danger of, of squandering that, that lead we have over so many of our competitors around the world, whether it's on the environment and the green economy, whether it's on child care and a responsible safety net, whether it's on all sorts of different things. These are the things that, that, oh my God, we have worked so hard for so many years to get Canada to a position where the coming decades are going to be so good for us, that the idea that a short term, you know, mistake, like electing a Conservative government that wants to bring us back to some past that never actually existed, and give up on climate change and give up on, like, all these things. It just would be so devastating to everything that, that we have been able to build that's going to make the future better for so many.

Nate: So you talk, I mean, that was a lot of different issues you point to as successes. But I take the overall point that you would say it's hard to judge in some ways, the things you you care about the most, the things that matter most to you are the longer is the longer term vision for the country, whether it's helping families but with a longer term view for long, long term outcomes, or whether it's climate change.

Electoral Reform

Governing wears on governance, as I've said. And there have, there have been challenges and, and mistakes made over nine years. You reflect on some of your successes there and, and what you see is what you want to leave and make an impact on the country for your decision making. Well, what do you see as, if I, if I could have that one back, I would do it differently the next time.

Justin: Electoral reform.

Nate: Ah, yeah. Music to my ears. You said that just for me, right?

Justin: I don't say that just for you. Actually, in one sense, I do say it just for you, because I know in just about any other interview.

Nate: I was going to raise it. 

Justin: Any other interview, the interviewer’s eyes glaze over.

Go, okay, yeah, but give me something real that you regret, right?

I said, no, no, no, this is real for me. I look at where the world is going and where polarization has happened, and where excesses of populism have been able to come in. And the winner take all version of first past the post that we have right now, where you can get elected as the MP for 100% of people in your riding with 30, you know, 32% of the vote if it's properly divided, if it's divided amongst other parties, is not just devaluing the votes of so many others, but it's giving you a false sense of, you know, being the only legitimate voice for your community.

Justin: And I, if I could do things differently, I don't know exactly how I would have, but I certainly would have done things differently around electoral reform to try and make sure that we are not going to be fighting this next election under first past the post again.

Nate: Yeah, this, easily in nine years, the worst day I had, as a Liberal caucus member, was the day we broke that promise. it looked, I mean, there's there's, it looked a little bit cynical to say, oh, we couldn't we can't figure out a path. And so we're going to, you know, just burn it to the ground, never talk about it again. That's probably not how you would feel about it.

Justin: I made two, two big mistakes on this one. The first one, because of some very strong voices in my caucus who were very, very clear that they wanted to, at least be able to make an argument for proportional representation, which, which I, I feel very, very strongly would be a mistake for Canada. I left the door open to proportional representation instead of ranked ballot, even within my own team.

And that made, made, a whole bunch of people who heard me say “last election as first past the post”, translate that into he's going to bring in proportional representation, which I was not, which I never was going to, and I wasn't clear enough on that. We can have the argument about making it.

Nate: But it wasn't, so it wasn't last election on our first past the post, it was make every vote count. Make your vote count. 

Justin: No, no, the vote was.

The vote.

Nate: Yeah, I know the language. You know, I know, but make every vote count was in our, was in our platform. Make every vote count was language lifted a little bit from FairVote so that it was like a few different ways that it was, it was like, oh yeah.

Justin: Oh yeah, no, no, no. And that was, and that was deliberately that people wanted to, to make sure that we were bringing in the FairVote people. And I, even though I had been very clear with caucus and at the Liberal convention in 2012 how much I am opposed to the idea of proportional representation, I couldn't, I it was something that I had to leave a little bit of a door open to, and unfortunately, because of that, it got further. And when people realized that, no, I was not going to let that move forward.

Nate: Yeah, you were never going to go there from the get go.

Justin: I could have been clearer on that because, I mean, we could talk about why, why, why I think proportional representation is, is dangerous for the country, and it doesn't have to do with as much with sort of, augmenting fringe voices, although that is is one of the arguments I think is interesting. The big one is I am really worried about decoupling members of Parliament in the House from a community of people who both voted for them and didn't vote for them, that they have to serve, you know?

Nate: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't think anyone, I don't think any advocate in Canada is arguing for doing away with, anyone who advocates for more proportional systems, advocates for doing away with local representation.

Justin: But, but then you also give people who got elected because they were on a party list, and you have MPs who owe their existence as MPs to a political party, as opposed to specific Canadians. So anyway, but that’s not the point.

Nate: Yeah, but you could do open lists. 

Justin: I said two things on that.

Nate: What was the second one?

Justin: The first one was I wasn't clear enough that I had real concerns.

Nate: And he turns into a nerd on electoral reform, I guess. 

Justin: Yeah, we knew this was going here because we're both total nerds about it. Right?

The second one is, me not using my majority to bring in, to bring in the model that I wanted, right, right. Because I could, I believe in ranked ballot. I think that if you give people choices to rank one, two, three, parties will try to pitch to be people's second or even third choice. and that brings in more cooperation and overlap between political parties in a way that counters anyone who is aggressively trying to polarize.

That's why I love ranked ballot, I think. I think it's also an easy switch where people get to write one, two, three, because it doesn't change the ridings, doesn't change anything, doesn't even change the ballots. You just, you know, instead of an X, you put one, two, three or four or five or whatever. 

But the consequences of changing our electoral system are so significant. It's not like bringing in a budget or a policy that you don't like, that you can then vote out the next election. When you change the way people are elected, it becomes really hard to change it because by definition, whoever won under that new system likes that system a lot. And, and that idea of needing consensus across, and not having it was why I chose to say, okay, I'm not going to risk an irreversible change just to fulfill a promise I made to, to change that.

So that was it was, it was a difficult day for you. It was a gut wrenching day for me to decide that I couldn't move forward on something that might hurt Canada in the long term and be irreversible without having a broader level of support in the House.

Nate: Without turning it into a proper debate on electoral reform, I think there are probably a few paths to, having moved forward without burning it to the ground the way that we did. And, and, you know, I was saying we should, we could have had a referendum at the same time, a 2019 election and save the money, and, but, I don’t want to go down, I don't want to go down that route.

Justin: I, and I take all those. And that's part of the whole regret. I wish there could have been a different way, that I could have done it.

Immigration and Housing Challenges

Nate: Here's one, though that is worth reflecting on because, we are right now grappling with getting nonpermanent resident numbers under control. Mark Miller is doing, I think, a good job. He's doing a good job on immigration. Sean's doing his utmost on housing, but there, you know, again, the feedback we've gotten overwhelmingly even, you know, strong proponents of immigration say, but it's got to be sustainable. 

And if we want this to work in the long term, we've got to make sure that sustainable, in keeping with, making sure we can look after people who get here and do you reflect on, you've said before and then, you know, I think you were kicking yourself afterwards when you said, that's not a primary federal responsibility. It's true. It's not. But it's a political message. Yeah, housing is not. But, you were probably kicking yourself afterwards, because it got politicized in a negative way.

Justin: Well, it's not something we can do alone.

Nate: We can't do it alone.

Justin: I mean the municipalities, provinces. 

Nate: If we can't do it alone, having said that, we've obviously leaned in in a significant way in the last, I would say, two plus years. If you were looking back at the nine, do you wish we had gotten ahold of that sooner?

Justin: I mean, we put forward a really ambitious national housing strategy in 2017, that was, you know, $70 billion. And it really did create a number of successes that we've seen over the past years. I mean, most of the things that most of the announcements we've made now about our latest housing initiatives, we're doing, in almost completed things that we, we invested in years before.

So we have seen successes. But I, I think that we were on a decent path where, yes, we should have leaned in even harder on provinces and municipalities to push back against NIMBYism sooner. But the pandemic came and changed everything so aggressively in terms of numbers of people, because we came out of the pandemic with a massive labour shortage, and provinces and business communities were screaming at us to bring in more temporary foreign workers because, you know, the economy was, we were bouncing back. People had money in their pockets, and we couldn't spend it on anything. 

Nate: Yeah, and to allow international students to work more.

Justin: Exactly. All these sorts of things. What that did was it shot up the numbers of international students, of temporary workers, and the global context, context pushed up asylum seekers as well. And that created more pressures and brought even more imbalance to the housing immigration thing.

So if you just look at, can Canada welcome foreign 450 or even 500,000 permanent residents a year? Absolutely. We can. It was the 2 million temporary residents on top of that that post-pandemic were asked, yeah needed that. We couldn't quite get, get under, under, to the right pace that we needed to that is requiring us to dial things in.

But overall, the most important thing, and the biggest advantage Canada, one of the biggest advantages Canada has over so many of our peers is, Canadians remain positive towards immigration. Even when you talk about building the homes and the services, you know, new Canadians who are working in our healthcare system, new Canadians who are in the construction industry are going to be essential for us to even meet our own needs, let alone the needs of, of, of a growing population.

So getting that right requires a level of clear eyed thoughtfulness that the pandemic certainly threw a wrench into. But as I look back, could we have made the shift, or should we have made the shift to integrate temporary immigration into our levels plan? Because we have that sort of, we talk about permanent residents as a levels plan, and then it's sort of a little more province driven, business driven for the temporary workers and the students, that we, we should have said no, no, years ago, okay, let's put it all in a cohesive thing and and take a careful look at housing starts. But we're doing that now in a very real way.

By-Election Losses and Relationships in Politics

Nate: I have two more questions. One is, you've got two by-election, tough by-election losses. And we, you know, there, Karina and others rightly are articulating, you know, we're listening and and we recognize that there's a need for change. And you even said, you know, people, if it's a change election. What change to you, if you're self-reflecting for our party, for, for cabinet, for the way you govern, for the way you individually approach communicating and delivering for people, or managing your own caucus or managing your colleagues, what change are you reflecting on?

Justin: Well, there's a lot of a lot of things that were particular to those byelections. There's lots of factors that maybe.

Nate: Yeah, let’s not get into that, maybe just like if there's a message of change.

Justin: One of the things, one of the things that I know that I would have liked to have been able to do, earlier is get the candidate in place and working the ground for longer. I mean, you benefited in your riding, right? Which was not a, not an easy riding. 

Nate: Excruciatingly long nomination, and then knocking doors in the snow.

Justin: And then time to fight. Exactly. No, no. But, and I did that too. I had a whole year, to, to be a nominated candidate before I won my first time in Papineau in 2008. And in taking the riding away from a really strong Bloc MP, and it was the work on the ground that did it. 

I, in both of these byelections, we didn't give Leslie enough time on the ground, we didn't give Laura enough time on the ground. And that, that's something that in this, in this age of information overload.

Nate: Yeah, yeah, I agree with you on that, but that's more tactical. Like I think that and that's sort of like, same as it ever was. Like, we always need more, more time on the ground. I, you know, you'll hear Brian May talk for years about early nominations. I agree with all that. But do you think there's something, larger like, here's one example. Yeah. and then I'll leave you with, an opportunity with my last question to, to, do your own kind of rant, but, I, you know, just on a on a interpersonal side, like, I am, I'm nothing if not persistent. And I've had no issue with face time and building a relationship. And we don't always see eye to eye. But I when people are like, oh, when was the last time you said the Prime Minister, and I was like, if I want to bother him, I'll bother him and he will allow me to bother him. At the same time.

Justin: It’s a nice break in the day, actually, usually.

Nate: No one else says that, but, but, but regardless, not all of my colleagues feel that way, and, you know, I'm not going to get into, you know, the SNC stuff. I'm not going to read Jody's book, but there is an excerpt in there that, where she didn't have your cell phone number. I found that kind of astounding.

And I don't know if Jagmeet Singh had your cell phone number, but if you were, you know, part of me thinks if he did and if you were regularly texting, if he felt like he was more attached and involved and connected, maybe he doesn't aggressively, you know, I know there's shameless politics at play there regardless, so maybe he does, but maybe he doesn't, like because politics, like life.

Justin: Maybe he doesn't walk away from SACA, you mean? Maybe he doesn’t campaign as hard.

Nate: Maybe not in quite the same way, maybe not in quite the same way, because maybe he does. I'm not saying maybe, but I'm just saying everything depends on relationships. Like, Charlie's not going to, Charlie Angus isn't going to screw me the same way as some other NDP members are, because I have a relationship with him. I'm not going to I'm not going to go after Michelle Rempel in the same way, because I have a relationship with her, everything's relationships. And when you think of, you know, changing things, in some way, does that enter the conversation?

Justin: Well, listen, I mean, the example of Jagmeet is, is an interesting one because we we created SACA together. Yeah, because he just had a baby, and, and we just come through a brutal, brutal, brutal, grueling election, where the NDP went around saying that we've done nothing.

Nate: That's right. I mean, I was there enough. I ran against the NDP

Justin: That we didn't do anything was a really cynical ploy that undermines any faith that progressives have in what we elected this progressive government.

Nate: It was easy to run against.

Justin: But yeah, it was, but, but no, but it, it, it hurt us. And I said, you know what Jagmeet, we’ve got to get past this. We got it too. And I sat down with him and I actually developed a really good working relationship with him, and we'd have great conversations about a whole bunch of things, and we'd get into policy and we'd get like, and I'd meet with him and talk with him in person, or on the phone, every, every few months for the entire duration of SACA.

Nate: Okay, okay.

Justin: And then when he decided to, to end SACA, he didn't even call me right, there was like, so. So the relationship obviously wasn't what I thought it was. Yeah. where I know that if I had chosen to end it, it would have started with a call to him or I would have said, you know what?

Jagmeet, tt's not going to work. I'm, you know, you make those tough calls. I don't know why he didn't reach out to me, because I know. I know what he cares about. I know the things that matter to him. I know he is genuine in wanting to see this country move forward in more progressive ways.

For him to do that that way, it, it bugged me, and it bugged me because I know these things matter to him, but having politics sort of kick in and him having to deal with pressures from his caucus or his base or whatever.

Nate: And the by-election.

Justin: And then in the by-election, like, all those things just sort of emphasize for me, okay. I wouldn't do that. And I, I still believe and I, there's no hard feelings on it, we’ll be, we’ll be engaging those and listen, I know that Jagmeet really cares about the environment. I also know he doesn't know what to do about the environment. I'm happy to say that and argue with that. But I'm like, I know what we can do about the environment. I'm demonstrating how to reduce emissions and grow the economy and put money back in people's pockets. So come on board. And for him to say, oh, maybe we're not in favour of carbon pricing. It's like, oh, come on, really? This is, what, this is why you wanted to step out of SACA? Because you're going to try and, you know, cozy up with Poilievre, or get away from the difficult conversation about how we continue to fight climate change? I mean, hard things are hard sometimes. and it just sort of disappointed me that he didn't, he didn't, you know, pick up the phone and say, okay, this is time.

Mobilizing Youth and the Liberal Party

Nate: All right. So this is my last question, and I hope.

Justin: I hope it’s about all the times you voted against me in the House.

Nate: Not, no, I wasn't I mean, like, people know that, but what are we going to, you know, I could go down a rabbit hole and talk about, you know, drug policy. We go down a rabbit hole and talk about animal welfare.

Justin: What I would talk about is, is why it matters and why I think it's the strength of the Liberal Party that people can vote against, the party, on a whole bunch of different things. And so nobody, I guess we don't ever disagree on this.

Nate: You don't have to debate it, because I agree. And, but this is a bit of a preface to the last question because, I was a young lawyer and I left that. I left a more lucrative career. I didn't have kids at the time, but, I love my wife a great deal and spent less time with her. And, and I left all that to make a difference in politics.

I believe it's the most important way to make a difference. I was able to represent my home community. Nobody knew who I was in the broader political picture, you're probably anyone looking at Beaches-East York at the time is going like, who is this kid? And, like, well, you know, maybe he wins, maybe he doesn't. But he's not really he's not going to help us win, when you look at the ledger of name recognition and, but you had open nominations and now I know people will complain about different nominations, in my nomination, I wouldn't be doing this but for that commitment that you made in that leadership of doing things differently and more bottom up democracy, I wouldn't have run for you if it weren't for your commitment and your leadership to empowering parliamentarians, which I think is critical. And it's not just better for our politics. It is, of course, better for our party. So I don't think we have to, I don't think we have to debate it.

I think it's I think it's, you've already said it's a feature, not a bug. In the course of, when we started this conversation. I do think, though, that I would, I was deeply motivated to, to make a difference and to leave in part because of, you know, this idea of doing things differently and building something, something new.

Nine years in, it's different, right? It's, and, I'm still, you know, I might not be the person on the ballot in Beaches-East York, but I'm going to help no matter what. And I'm not walking away from the cause. But you have a lot of people who aren't like me, who are still in the thick of it, who are on the sidelines.

People who have volunteered in the past and what is your message to people who, who were just so excited heading into 2015? And, you know, not everything's been, I forget what you said. It's not everything's unicorns and whatever in Canada. Well, not everything's unicorns when everyone you're when you're governing either. What do you say to them to motivate those in many cases, Liberal volunteers, what do you want to leave them with? To say, I need you now, and this is why I'm in it, and I need you to be in it to know.

Justin: First of all, to go on the specific examples, then to, to, to get larger, the same things that drove us then to make sure that people were strong voices for their communities in Ottawa as opposed to being, well, I, as we were first running Stephen Harper's voice in their communities, which was what most conservative MPs now they're Pierre Poilievre’s voice in their communities, but that's what it is. 

Saying something like, okay, it's going to be free votes for members of the Liberal Party, except for things that are explicitly in the platform, because that's what you get elected on. Things that are confidence, because we're a team that needs to stay in power, and things that go to the heart of the Charter, because that's what a Liberal is.

Nate: And that was a thoughtful way of articulating it.

Justin: And we've been consistent on that. And that's still very much our place. And it's still very much in contrast with the approach that the Conservatives have. All right. And that, that's still an active choice. Open nominations, same thing. It was really important in 2015 that everyone have open nominations, partially because we were trying to build an entire new team, we were down to 35 seats. And I said, you know what? Each of you, 35 who are still here, you should be able to take on and win any challengers. And we're going to do it right. Because it was a full reset.

Nate: I thought about this a lot, running for leadership last year. I was, and very much of the same comments I was making in that, on the democratic reform side was consistent, because that's what motivated me to get involved.

Justin: Yeah. and that's something I still believe in. I mean, now we don't need the same level of reset in people. We perhaps need it in policy and a few different things. But, so, we have appointed people from time to time in very rare exceptions. But, the leaning in on open nominations is still a huge priority for me because it's so great, I agree.

Now, how do you motivate people who've been perhaps sitting on the sidelines? First of all, there's sort of a negative way of. and that, that's an important driver as well. People look at Pierre Poilievre and they imagine the damage that he'll do we’ll, we’ll, Canada cannot, you know, go down that road. People who do remember, Stephen Harper do remember all the negatives out there and say, oh, my God, this will be even worse.

So this is a challenge, and that motivates some people. But Liberals don't get out of bed to fight against something. We tend to fight for things. We want to know what that vision is, what that ambition is, what the excitement is about the future. And that's really what I've been focused on articulating and what we will be articulating over the coming months, over the coming year, hopefully we get to October of next year because my, my son, my eldest, who was, in utero while I was running for the nomination, Sophie was pregnant with him when I was running for the nomination in Papineau, will be old enough to vote in, for the very first time in the next election. So that, for me, is a beautiful bookend. And it's something I'm.

Nate: Axe the tax.

Justin: He’s not voting that, although he did ask me why he didn't get the Canada carbon rebate, that, that I said, no, I get that cheque at home. That's, I, I think you're a lightweight because some of my friends got it, because. Yeah, well, your friends live on their own, that's a different thing. So it's, yeah, it's a, that's a good line.

But what is, what is the positive, ambitious vision of this country that we're putting forward. And the challenge is because everyone says, okay, what's the new vision? The things we've been fighting for for eight years: environment and economy, inclusion, progressive values, defense of individual rights, respect for everyone. Non polarized politics that focus on bringing people together. All those things that we've been fighting for are not just still important, they're more important in this upcoming election than they ever have been.

That's on the line. Canada has built, actually an edge, an advantage over so many other countries in the world because we've been leaning in the right way and the retrograde forces that are pulling back and saying, oh, no, this is, this is why we're doing badly. This is fighting against climate change is why Canadians can't afford their groceries, which is a massive oversimplification, and has has been shown by many experts, just wrong, but certainly bodes poorly for the future. 

All those things remain at the heart of what we're fighting for, how we wrap that up into a compelling, ambitious vision that gets people out into the streets to be a movement like we were in 2015, that is going to be tackle, tackling, Pierre Poilievre with that same enthusiasm that we did at nine years ago. That is the single minded focus that I have over the next few months. As a party leader, even as I continue as Prime Minister, with a single minded focus on actually delivering the things that are going to get Canadians back to a place of positivity and ambition, because that's what we need, and that's, that's the place where Canadians naturally sit in. Right now, they look at me and, and they're not feeling it as strongly as I think we need them to when the election rolls around. And I'm very much focused on tackling that.

Nate: Well, and the ideas you’re for, I'm glad you emphasize that. So, serious, ambitious plans. And I think that is what, it's those two ideas that have to be married, that there's a serious credibility to what we do that oftentimes, sets us apart from the NDP, who might have shared 

So it's ambition that we need as well on housing, I think protecting the environment, delivering for families with kids, and fixing health care. I think that, that's the ground that we have to stake out in a serious way, point to progress and articulate what we're going to deliver next. The one thing I’ll leave you with, you obviously have the drive, you said to me back in New Brunswick, when we had the caucus meeting there, you play to your competition, and I think you were referencing your pool playing, and I don't know if it's good or not, but you referenced your pool playing, and you are so keen. 

Justin: I’m very erratic. I can be brilliant.

Nate: And you were keen to rise to the competition because you, you recognize, I think we all recognize it here, Pierre Poilievre is a better communicator than past Conservative leaders that we’ve faced. I think the only thing to reflect on is just a timing question, because, you want your ace to, to have that drive and think that they've got, they want they, they have to want the ball in their hand and they've got to feel like they've got gas in the tank.

You also want a coach who goes, you know, are we in a position to win with this guy on the mound at this moment in time? And this is just a timing question, like I want you to, I want you to fight the fight, have the drive that you've got and, and take it to Poilievre. Yeah, and turn things around.

I think you have, you're capable of doing that. And I want you to give it your go. I do think you have to also, both you and your team be looking at and going, it's a timing question too, if we throw everything at the wall and it's not working, then we also have to consider, you know, what's in the best interests of the country and at that moment in time.

And so I think you just have to carry both of those ideas in your mind. You have to have the drive. You can't ever turn that off. But you also have to say, you know, if, if Canadians are tuning me out at some point, then I got to recognize that too. And that's not a today conversation that's, you know, continue to have that, that reflection over the coming months. But I really appreciate it, I really appreciate you joining me.

Justin: You know, always great to see you. Always great to chat with you.

Nate: Yeah. It's great. I'm glad you joined, I'm glad we made this happen. 

Outro

Nate: Thanks for joining me on this episode of Uncommons. I really appreciate the Prime Minister’s time, of course, he could be doing lots of other things, and we don’t have quite the same audience as Colbert, although we’re growing, thanks to you.

The second thing we’re doing, we’ve got future episodes coming up with Mark Carney, we’re scheduling Chrystia Freeland, if you have suggestions for future guests or topics, you can always reach us at info@beynate.ca and otherwise, until next time.

—

Keywords: Justin Trudeau, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Canadian politics, Liberal Party, leadership, governance, climate change, public service, elections, democracy, governance, climate change, electoral reform, immigration, housing, by-elections, Liberal Party, political relationships, leadership, Canada

She now works for Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) as the Vice-Chair and Managing Director of Global Investment Banking.

Lisa and Nate explore the pressures that are placed upon politicians in their day to day lives and the increasing importance of co-operation across Canadian politics. 

Matthew's extensive background includes serving as the Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Results and Delivery) in the Privy Council Office of Canada, where he played a key role in developing and implementing the federal government's policy agenda.

His work focused on achieving measurable results and improving government performance, particularly in areas related to inclusive economic growth, tax reform, and public service effectiveness.

Nate and Matthew explore the concept of inclusive growth, which focuses on equitable and sustainable economic growth benefiting both communities and individuals. They also highlight progress made on Indigenous issues and the need for transparency and risk-taking in the civil service.

Watch on YouTube:

Transcript:

Nate: Welcome to Uncommons. I’m Nate Erskine-Smith, and on this episode I’m joined by Matthew Mendelsohn, a great thinker in Canadian public policy over the last number of years. 

He has done many different things in this space. He has been a professor at TMU and Queen’s. He has founded the Mowat Centre, which was at U of T and the Monk School, and obviously canceled because we had a Doug Ford government here in Ontario after 2018. He, federally, he was the chief architect of the 2015 election platform for the Liberal party.

He led efforts to write and create openness around those ministerial mandate letters out of the 2015 election, and he led the Prime Minister’s results and delivery unit from 2016 to 2020. Now more recently and currently, he’s the CEO of Social Capital Partners. It’s a great organization focused on the social good in many different ways, from social enterprise to employee ownership to so much more, including a more recent focus on wealth concentration and wealth inequality.

That’s a big part of this conversation. We talk about wealth inequality, what we can do about it. We talk about democratic resilience and the connection to a lack of inclusive growth, a lack of equality, and too much concentration in wealth.

And we talk about the ability, or inability at times, of the federal public service to get big things done.

Statistics of Wealth Concentration

Nate: Matthew, thanks so much for joining me.

Matthew: Thank you for having me, Nate.

Nate: So you and I have come across one another when you were working in the federal government, but you were no longer working in the federal government. You left in 2020. You're still doing very interesting things. And before we get into some conversations about your work in the civil service and your history in politics and in public service, you're now at Social Capital Partners. And the current work of Social Capital Partners is very much focused on wealth concentration, which is an issue that I have a great interest in.

So let's start there and let's start with social capital partners, your role there, and the work that you're doing on wealth inequality.

Matthew: So Social Capital Partners is a not-for-profit that has been focused on impact investing, social enterprise, financial inclusion for over 20 years. Over the last five years, we have started to focus on the issue of wealth inequality, wealth concentration, the threat that it represents to democratic stability and democratic societies, the fact that it's not getting nearly enough attention, I think, in the public debate.

And we have been focused on very practical solutions. So at Social Capital Partners, we have always been interested in very practical, actionable ideas to push back against, earlier time, financial inclusion, but now wealth inequality.

So we've been leading the work that your government has supported around the creation of employee ownership trusts, making it easier for retiring business owners to sell their businesses to their employees rather than to private equity or to a competitor. And this creates options for business owners, but it allows workers to build state equity pathways to wealth in the businesses that they are working for and building. 

It also creates more community resilience, that you have small and medium -sized businesses that are being run and owned, and with equity and deep roots in the community, with the people who work there and live there rather than being run by multinational global private equity funds out of New York or heaven forbid Toronto.

So that work is really important to us and we think that the wealth concentration question is not getting nearly enough attention in any of our discussions. The productivity discussion and the democracy discussion, the economic growth discussion. And our goal is to identify really practical policy and legislative changes that can push back against what I think everyone sees as a huge problem, which is the pooling up of wealth, like unbelievably mammoth pools of wealth in fewer and fewer hands, and more and more challenges for young people to buy a home, to save for retirement, to build economic security. So that's what we're focused on.

Nate: And let's dive into the specifics of that challenge in some ways, because StatsCan counts some of the numbers, but they count it very poorly in comparison to what we see in other jurisdictions, especially in the US. And I was following along with the work that Social Capital Partners has done through Billionaire Blind Spot, a report that better tracks wealth inequality in this country. And it's shocking. So it's...

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it’s that the top 1% owns 26% of all wealth in this country, and the top 0.1% owns more than 12% of the wealth in this country. And it's not as bad as the US, but it's close to as bad as the US, and it's much worse than the picture that StatsCan provides to us.

Matthew: Yeah, that's right. And I don't want to overstate the accuracy of our work, but what we did, Dan Skilleter, our Policy Director, combined a bunch of different publicly available data sets. I'd also point out that the Parliamentary Budget Officer did good work on this and their work is out there publicly. And it's just very different than what StatsCan reports. And I think it's useful to remember that whether it's StatsCan or PBO or an academic study, a lot of these things are estimates, not just on wealth, but on lots of the data that we use publicly. We use it because we need to use something, and it helps us understand the world, but certainly around how one measures wealth, what gets counted, what gets reported. 

I mean there's lots of uncertainty and ambiguity there, but the point that you make, and that Dan's report highlighted, was that StatsCan’s numbers are like an extreme outlier in terms of their estimates for wealth concentration. You know, talking about the top 1% from, you know, our estimates and PBO that hold, say, a quarter of all Canadian wealth and the top 0.1% owning, holding, you know, 11 or 12% of the wealth. It's an enormous concentration. 

And, you know, while I recognize that StatsCan has some challenges, the US Statistical Agency does a much better job, European agencies do much better jobs, and I would like StatsCan to do a better job. But if they're not going to do a better job, they should at least be a lot more upfront in how bad their data are, and maybe stop recording it, because they put it out and then everyone talks about it and it gets picked up, and yeah, they'll have a footnote or they have a paragraph that highlights that the data probably aren't so accurate. But by the time that gets into public discussion, media discussion, from my perspective, the damage is done. And it allows us to tell ourselves this story about how equal we are and everyone has a fair chance. And sure, obviously, if you're born wealthy, you're more likely to end up wealthy. 

And we recognize, you know, challenges for people growing up in more economically vulnerable situations. But we tell ourselves a story about how good we are, compared particularly to the United States. And for me, as someone who believes deeply in democracy, you want a story that citizens hear that aligns with reality. And it just doesn't align with reality.

Young people without access to family wealth in Canada today know how difficult it is to save for a home, pay for rent, pay off student debt, forget about saving for retirement. We understand all of these things are huge challenges. And not only the media narrative doesn't, you know, highlight these enough, but then there are these StatsCan reports that keep getting picked up that say, yeah, no, things aren't so bad after all.

The Role of Capital Gains Taxation Within the Fight Against Wealth Concentration

Nate: And then you have, unfortunately, and you track even over the last 10 years, over this Liberal government's tenure, you have a situation where when we first came into office, there was a conversation around inequality, but it was focused on income inequality. And you had measures focused on addressing that challenge. It wasn't until 2021 in the throne speech that we started to see a small commitment, but a commitment nonetheless, on tackling extreme wealth inequality, although I would argue we haven't really seen commensurate policy action until fairly recently, and other countries are having a more serious conversation in this regard. I know more about this in part because the OECD has done work on assessing wealth taxation, net wealth taxation around the world and what works, what doesn't, and assessing effectiveness. There are academics in the US that have done some very serious work. Obviously, Piketty has done some very serious work on this. But in the UK, there was a wealth tax commission that was comprised of a series of experts that put work out. And so I actually, in the last parliament, put together a motion to address wealth inequality, pulling from that more international literature and expertise. And capital gains taxation is very clearly part of the answer. And we don't really always frame it in that context even in the course of this debate that we're having. 

But starting from the point of wealth accumulation, the fact that you've written this, that the benefits from economic growth have increasingly gone to capital rather than workers. Well, what are the solutions? We know we have a problem, so what are the solutions? And net wealth taxation is one answer, and it can be a bit fraught on implementation. And one other answer is to address capital gains taxation and accumulation of that wealth and the increased concentration of it as a result. Do you think we've sufficiently placed that debate around the recent tax changes within this broader conversation around wealth concentration?

Matthew: So this is something that we could talk about for an hour, Nate. So there's so much in what you've just said. I think that the first thing is, you know, are the points you make about growing wealth concentration during the last decade, to me, these are not a commentary on a failure of any particular government. These are global trends that have been taking place. 

And as you say, in 2015, as you know, I was involved in writing the Liberal platform in 2015, the Canada Child Benefit and other measures were really focused on income inequality. But over the last number of years, the issue of wealth concentration has become much more important, and much more prominent. 

And I do think where in Canada we are behind is that we have not engaged with this debate nearly as much as, I mean, you mentioned Piketty, the European Tax Observatory. There are all kinds of processes going on in European countries and other countries to talk about these issues. I'm not saying they've made lots of progress, and there are lots of problems with a lot of wealth tax proposals, and we're seeing that, but other countries have really, I'd say, engaged in this debate. And in Canada, I really do think that our public discourse, our economic commentary, our established economic think tanks are not engaged with a deep, meaningful, serious, sophisticated debate about what's going on in the economy and what to do about it. 

And when we talk about these issues, people say, well, you're going to just raise taxes on the wealthy and then you'll have capital flight, and that's going to be a problem and people are going to take their money to tax havens or to the United States and all of those things are true and we can talk about how to tax wealth in the most effective, efficient ways but there's also a whole series of policy initiatives like employee ownership and others that we can talk about that create more pathways to accumulating wealth and assets and equity for working people. 

And so, you know, some of the things we're talking about at Social Capital Partners, and in a number of stakeholder communities, you know, are how do you get lower cost financing to small and medium -sized businesses in small town and rural Canada, which go to big commercial banks, which are highly concentrated, which have very high interest rates, which think about risk in ways that are often quite difficult for small and medium -sized businesses, Indigenous business owners, Black business owners, to get access to capital. BDC, the Business Development Bank of Canada, in my view, could be doing a much better job getting access to capital and access to financing to small and medium -sized businesses in this country.

We have an entrepreneurship problem, but we have an entrepreneurship problem in part because our economy is becoming more and more concentrated. Our economy is becoming more and more concentrated and our financial institutions are not transparent. So there are whole bunch of different things that we can be doing in this country through policy tools, not just tax the rich, although we can talk about that. 

We can talk about how you, how you tax people's third or fourth properties as income. In this country, we have not wanted to take on mom and pop real estate investors. We don't want to take them on for their, because we're concerned about their retirement savings. But plenty of mom and pop real estate investors have six, seven, eight, nine, ten, twelve properties, and those properties are not being taxed appropriately. So there ways to get at these things through taxation, but there are also ways to get at these things through policy. And I think, unfortunately, in Canada, we have not framed this issue, wealth concentration, wealth inequality, challenges for young and working people to build assets, as an emergency, as a crisis that requires that we need to focus on it.

Nate: It's interesting, I was in a conversation not so long ago where the couple I was speaking to was quite concerned about the capital gains changes. But when placed in the context of the unfairness we see in housing, when placed in the context of the unfairness generally we see on wealth accumulation, and this is one small way to raise revenue in a more fair way, but also to then take that revenue and deliver it to priorities like housing, the objections soften significantly, especially when they learn that we were taking into account small business considerations and entrepreneurial considerations and that this wasn't about hurting a sense of real entrepreneurship for small business owners. 

And I think you're right, that there are many things. You're talking about broadening the ownership of the economy through things like employee ownership. We could talk about how we're a country of oligopolies and we need to break up those oligopolies and have much more competition in this country if we care about productivity for sure, but also if we care about fairness. We can talk about the financialization of the economy and housing is the example of this when it's such an absolute necessity, it is the necessity and yet we have unfortunately treated it as a financial instrument such that it's run away from so many people.

We can talk about tax shelters, and we can talk about the use of corporate profit shifting and all that. We still, of course, have to talk about taxation, even though it's very fraught politics, as politicians discover, for better and worse. 

But this conversation around capital gains changes, I found really interesting because when I went down this rabbit hole of net wealth taxation, and my initial instinct had been something more along the lines of what Jagmeet Singh and the NDP had proposed of this very high net worth, a small percentage hit every year or so, the implementation is very difficult. Just the assessing the value of individual wealth can be difficult. It's not to say it's not doable. I've seen others like Gabriel Zucman say it's doable and here's how.

But, when I engaged with the OECD and engaged with folks at the Wealth Tax Commission in the UK, their view was, a one-time wealth tax is very achievable because you don't have capital flight risks in the same way. And then beyond that, the best approach would be some combination of capital gains taxation and inheritance taxation. and gifts taxation. If you combine those measures in a thoughtful way, you reduce the capital flight challenges that we would otherwise see, and you're addressing the challenge still in a very significant way. We at, in fits and starts have talked about this as a generational fairness issue and a taxing very wealthy families and estates issue, but I don't think we've framed it in the context of this broader wealth concentration challenge. There are different ways of approaching this challenge and here's the most efficient way of doing it.

Matthew: So again, there's a lot there and I agree with that. I don't want to underestimate the complexity of trying to do wealth tax, and the challenges of implementing it, and the difficulty in getting it right and fair. All of those things are true and countries have tried to do it and have been unsuccessful at it. 

But it does speak to the broader question of our lack in Canada of really sophisticated tax policy debate. So obviously, most people aren't going to be tax experts, but we have a very, very narrow range of people who are to speak on media panels about tax issues. And we need a much broader understanding of tax. We need more capacity. We need more research, people doing this from all kinds of different perspectives. We have a kind of narrow C.D. Howe Institute business perspective on taxation issues, whose instincts are, if you tax capital it will have a productivity hit. And the evidence of that is mixed, but it keeps getting repeated in our mainstream media narratives. And I just think we need a more sophisticated conversation about that. 

And at Social Capital Partners, you know, we are going to be doing that and supporting that kind of work so that we can have a sophisticated fairness and productivity tax policy discussion that isn't just repeating things that people read in the first five minutes of Macroecon 101 in 1977. There's a much more sophisticated understanding of how the economy works than what, unfortunately, a lot of our commentators want to repeat and then get repeated in the mainstream media. 

And there are a whole series of non-orthodox critiques of how economics and finance operate, that we're just not talking about in Canada, and they're talking about them way more in other places because to me the biggest risk, the biggest emergency is not a productivity emergency that all our mainstream orthodox business lobbyists and Bank of Canada want to talk about. 

Our biggest crises and emergencies are housing, infrastructure. For those in Toronto recently, the fact that the city gets flooded when it rains, like that's a problem for productivity and that requires investment. But to me, the biggest emergency and crisis is for young people without family wealth trying to build a stake in society, to build economic security, to build economic security that allows them to go be an entrepreneur, that gives them freedom to fail and make choices and start businesses. So I think we really need to be focused on that issue because if people lose hope that their democracy is delivering them a fair chance, then we've got a real problem.

Defining and Achieving Inclusive Growth

Nate: Well, I want to get to that real problem when we fail to deliver results for people. But before we get to that particular question around resilience in our democracies, you've mentioned fairness and productivity, and sometimes they can be at odds, but on housing they certainly go hand in hand. And as you have written previously, there is growing evidence that more inclusive growth isn't just more equitable, it's also stronger growth. And that fairness and productivity can very much go hand in hand, taking a lens of inclusive growth. I've seen politicians talk about inclusive growth. I was at a talk recently where I asked Mark Carney about this around wealth concentration and what his views on, what did he mean by inclusive growth. Canada Child Benefit is an example of how we might tackle inclusive growth, as one example among a variety of different policy instruments. But when you talk about inclusive growth how do you, how do you best explain it, so it's not at some international forum for policy experts to talk about, but people actually feel it?

Matthew: So most of our public debate at the moment, and all of the, you know, the orthodox economic commentators and the business lobbyists, are speaking about growth and GDP per capita, and we have to increase that. Growth is good. I'm pro -growth, but all growth is not created equal is just not true. And the fact that GDP per capita goes up doesn’t tell you anything about whether people are doing well, whether the economy is sustainable, whether communities are healthy, whether people are building economic security. GDP per capita going up is fine, but it’s just a number. And we have to know the distribution of that GDP, of that economic growth, because if it is creating enormous pools of wealth, and depression in other places, that’s not good. And I do sometimes draw a comparison with public finances and when we look at the budget, the budget reports on numbers, or budget reports on spending. 

But we don't do a good job thinking about is this in the medium term economic interests of communities and working people? Is it in the medium term and long term interests of the environment? If you spend a billion dollars, the federal government, if it comes up next budget cycle and a minister comes up and says, I would like to take a billion dollars and set it on fire, and you guys all approve that and you vote for it, it's a billion dollars spent in the budget. And that's how it's booked in public finances. And if you take a billion dollars and invest it in early childhood education, it's also booked as a billion dollars. They both look the exact same, but one is an investment, one is inclusive, one is creating medium term value, and one is obviously doing nothing. That might be an extreme example, because I don't think anyone's going to propose that, but it is an example which highlights that we have to look at these things, not just in terms of how much they cost or whether it creates growth, but what the sustainable long -term benefits are.

The Consequences of Economic Inequality

Nate: I have so many questions about the way to measure government spending, which I will get to later on. But I first want to ask you about the failure to deliver that kind of growth, the failure to ensure that you're bringing more disadvantaged communities along, that you're bringing people along who don't have generational wealth in their own families, that you're making sure that there is opportunity for everyone, that there’s, we don't use this language as much in politics as we used to, but there is that equality of opportunity that is substantive and real. And if we don't have that equality of opportunity, what are the pitfalls? And you have written that wealth concentration is destabilizing democratic societies and that authoritarian populists are winning in many places because in part, the benefits of economic growth have been accruing disproportionately to capital, and so walk me through how you see this inequality challenge, especially around wealth inequality, but the lack of equality of opportunity, how that translates to undermining democratic resilience.

Matthew: Yeah, that's a great question, Nate, and there's a lot there. And there are some facts that are important to highlight that are part of this discussion. You've indicated some of them, but that the benefits of growth have accrued disproportionately to capital rather than labor over the last 30 or 40 years is undeniable. 

And so that creates concentration, that creates more and more people who earn more and more of their income, and we'll call it income, could be called different things, from passive investment, or even active investment, or investing in housing and financialization of housing, rather than their labor. And that creates a real chasm, it creates resentment, and it creates social chaos, and eventually it can create social collapse.

You know, I don't want to overstate it or be alarmist, but you know, who is watching what has gone on in the United States over the last 15 years, as more and more people both felt completely economically isolated and disadvantaged, but also that comes with that, not respected, not valued, not seen, not part of the mainstream, creates huge social problems and people opt out of the system. 

I think that we in Canada really need to look at what's going on in the United States, and Canada and the United States are quite different countries and there's some facts on the ground that are quite different, but we really have to be attentive to that and we really have to think about what populism means.

One of the things that I'm not super happy about in Canada or in some progressive circles is that we assume populism is bad or that all populism is authoritarian. And that's just not true. I mean, some of the great changes in Canadian history have been populist ones, like challenging the power of concentrated capital, challenging the power of banks to steal people's houses during the Depression, the CCF and the social credit, you know, focusing on the challenges for farmers and working class people at periods of economic dislocation, and building a social safety net and Canada Pension Plan and Medicare. Like all of these things were populist initiatives opposed by the elite at the time. 

And so, I think that it's a problem that Donald Trump and MAGA take up so much of our mental room, because there's so many other versions of populism. There's the authoritarian version of populism. And I think that your government, the Liberals over the last number of years, have been building progressive populist agenda, practical populist agenda, challenges around competition, challenges to financial institutions and the amount of interest they can charge, questions around junk fees, and the ability for individual consumers to have access to their banking data and to be able to switch cell phone providers. I mean, there's a whole series of things, which there's lots of cross party support for, I’m not suggesting that this is particularly a Liberal agenda, but there's a whole populist agenda that pushes back on the narrative from, you know, the Business Council of Canada and the business lobbyists, that is focused on the financial interests of working people. 

It's a coherent agenda. It's a populist agenda. It's a pragmatic agenda and I think every party at this moment, Conservatives and NDP are good at it, probably historically. Liberals often focus more on elite accommodation historically, but every party needs a populist agenda right now and those will look different between different parties. 

But every party has to be speaking to working people who are participating in the economy, who are struggling to pay bills and pay rent, and what specifically is each party going to do about it. And the authoritarian populism view is one that only leads to destruction and death. 

And this is another observation that I would make, which is that I think the business community, which spends a lot of time talking about productivity and taxes and taxes on capital and are concerned about the capital gains tax. I would love the business community and smart, sensible, thoughtful, sophisticated business leaders to get engaged in the question of democratic resilience and the protection of our democratic institutions because, you know, I looked at that Republican convention and the labour leaders there, and the business leaders there, they were terrified because it's not good to live in an authoritarian country. It is not good to live as a business person in a country where there's no rule of law, where the ability of your business to succeed depends on the whims of a party in power. 

Like we know this, and Canada's huge advantage is we are a country of rule of law, we are a country of opportunity, we are a country of democracy. We believe that our civil service for all its flaws is independent and professional and nonpartisan. We believe our courts are independent and will enforce the law and we will disagree with the decisions they make. But the business community should be concerned about what's going on in some other countries. And they should start figuring out now how they invest in the stability and resilience of our democratic institutions and the rule of law and the protection of human rights.

Communicating Policy and Establishing Trust in Governments

Nate: It's interesting channeling populism, and let's bracket off more authoritarian populism for a moment and some we see obviously out of former President Trump. But in Canada, we have seen, at different points in time, see, let's take the current Conservative leader. He's certainly, I would say, weaponizing a kind of populism on criminal justice to be anti -evidence, anti -following the evidence to, whether it's actually improving public safety, helping people who are suffering from substance use addictions, following the evidence, saving lives in that case. Certainly not helping follow the evidence of what police chiefs have called for even. But it is weaponizing people's fears and it's playing on a certain populism that I think is a little bit worrying.

On the other hand, we have at times failed to channel, and I'll use telecommunications as a fairly obvious example, but we see it in, when we think of our country as a country of oligopolies, you talk about a consumer agenda, a competition agenda, I think we have in fits and starts moved down that path, but we've failed to truly embrace an agenda that would channel that populism to the most that we can, in terms of the collective good. And it can be a challenge sometimes on the tax front especially, because the benefits of the spending from those capital gains dollars are gonna benefit far more people than the tax is impacting, of course, but the level of outrage in the media is outsized because of the ability for certain people to communicate, whether it's the Canadian Medical Association or tech entrepreneurs. But we've done a fair job at times channeling that populism to make some tax changes, whether it was the middle class tax cut when we first got elected and the taxing the 1% a little bit more. It does increasingly become a challenge. There's non -spending populist measures that are easier to channel. 

On the spending side, part of the challenge, raising revenue, reducing revenue, reducing spending, I should say, in other places, but you take a tax cut as an example, or a tax expenditure, or a new benefit. 

If the middle class doesn't feel it, and if the bulk of Canadian society doesn't feel it, it's, like, take the disability benefit or the dental care benefit that we're in the midst of rolling out in two parts, a lot of families are not gonna feel that, and it becomes a lot easier to roll it back. So one of the successes of the Canada Child Benefit is it is felt by so many people that it's an impossible policy to get rid of. And I'm glad you were part of plucking it out of the Caledon Institute at the time. Now most of the folks at Maytree, but you plucked it out of there and Sherri Torjman and Ken Battle, and you guys made it a reality. 

That was successful populist politics, channeling a sense of fairness, and a sense of income inequality and frustration at it to say we're going to do something really important that is in the interest of the collective good. It's tough when it's, Pierre Poilievre’s, promise of a broad -based tax cut. That's sort of a populist measure. He's not told us how he's going to pay for it, he has not told us what it looks like. It's going to be very expensive if it's going to be a broad -based tax cut of any significance. 

And it does get harder, at least on the tax expenditure side, and or, the benefits side, to do one of these big programs to touch so many people in a meaningful way that people feel it and that you have successfully managed the politics of it. And so if you want to go from channeling populism in a collective good kind of way, in an important way to preserve democracy and democratic institutions, it's tough to navigate that in a way that it's truly good. You might do it, but is it going to be felt by people in a way that translates into their voting intentions?

Matthew: Yeah, I mean, there's a lot there. I do think we need some significant tax reform. You know, I look forward to engaging with, you know, more specifics, if the Conservatives are making specific proposals because, I mean, the Liberal government tried to deal with the question of individuals as corporations incorporating themselves, and there have been some capital gains tax changes now. But there's a lot of change going on in the economy. mean, one of the StatsCan interesting tidbits. If you look at, you know, changes in income over the last 10 or 15 years across cohorts, like the rich, the top cohorts are not earning a lot more income now than they did 10 or 15 years ago. But that's because so much of their income, in quotation marks, is no longer income, right? They're hiding that income in corporations or in other mechanisms and schemes which are perfectly legal. But you certainly have, at the top end of the income distribution, a lot more people who are earning “income” that doesn't count as income and isn't taxed properly. So I think that there are a whole bunch of things that we should be looking at in the tax system. 

But I would also say to your question about the government being able to deliver a big program. If there is a good big program to deliver, a party will make a case and they might be able to win that case. And sometimes it takes 30 years. And many of us have talked about early childhood education for a very long time. And eventually a policy window opens up and the right constellation of factors comes up. 

But I'm always hesitant to conflate, you know, bigger government with more equitable, good results on the ground for people. To me, the reality is, you know, the federal public service has been growing a lot. I haven't looked into the data, I'm sure a lot of that is valuable. Some of it may be less valuable. But the reality is that just growing the federal public service doesn't translate into impact and results and outcome on the ground in communities.

My experience is just an observation, is that the federal public service is far more removed from the day -to -day delivery and understanding of what's going on in communities than provincial or municipal governments would be. And while provincial and municipal governments are usually interested in trying to solve problems, the federal public service is usually more interested in managing processes, delivering programs, but whether those programs have an impact or are achieving their results, those things are less important. And for me, a policy person, for you, a politician, I'm sure every day you think about how can a government initiative help solve a problem for a person. That's how we think about the politics and government in policy.

Whereas I think for federal public service, that is very, very abstract. Obviously, individuals care about that, but the system doesn't try and solve problems. The system tries to manage risk, manage process, create process and deliver programs, whether they're effective or not. And so, yeah, I do worry that if you're growing the federal public service or increasing tax revenues, some of those may be useful or not in particular cases, you know, more money in Ottawa, you know, can just get absorbed into the ground around Tunney's pasture, like summer rain. Like it just disappears into the ecosystem of Ottawa-Gatineau without ever being felt in Red Deer or The Beaches or Halifax.

Nate: It's interesting though, it's interesting pulling the two threads together of capacity and delivery in the civil service and effectiveness, and the effectiveness certainly when you're pointing to outcomes rather than just spending. But it's also interesting to pull both threads, that and also the conversation on wealth concentration, and then to pull them both towards that democratic resilience and that question of trust.

There are many different ways you go about building trust and engendering trust among citizens in your democratic institutions. And one is they feel like there's fairness being delivered and they feel the benefits of growth and they feel the benefits of, that the benefits are shared in some more fair way. And that's really a question around policies and taxes and benefit programs. And my concern there is just, how do we make sure they're felt by people in a real way? Because sometimes there can be this huge expenditure, but if it's not felt by people, it's not gonna be a lasting policy. 

But you're exactly right, that there's trust in a completely different way. That if someone might feel the benefit from the childcare program, and that's a check mark for the government, and then they go to get their passport renewed and it's another disaster, and they see an influx of temporary residents, especially international students, that are causing major challenges in an acute way on housing in their small or large community, things start, the Canada is broken narrative, that sort of populist narrative that is trying to tap into a frustration with things, starts to be more successful and starts to break some of that trust.

Matthew: Yeah, trust is the foundation of democracy. Convention is the foundation of democracy and that's trust in all kinds of ways. That's trust in institution, that's trust in opponents, that's trust in your fellow citizens, that's trust that the rules are fair, that if you're following the rules or working hard, you have a chance to succeed. And there are lots of people right now, mostly our geopolitical enemies, who are working hard to undermine trust. 

All of this discussion takes place, as we know, against a backdrop of geopolitical conflict, where liberal democratic systems are being challenged by Russia, by China, by others. And the decline of trust or the polarization, there are a lot of reasons why that has happened, but part of why it has happened is that people want it to happen because it is there in their interests. Some are just financial charlatans and want to make money exploiting polarization. Some are, you know, active tech firms that are perfectly happy to make billions of dollars driving hate and attention and polarization and anger, but some of it is also geopolitical rivals that really like the idea that Canadians seem to be fighting with each other more, or that British or Australians or Americans are more divided and don't trust one another. 

So that trust is being targeted and we all have to think of ourselves as, I think national security actors in some way, that we have to be conscious that what we see is often produced by our enemies who are looking to undermine our society. And it's obviously easy to say that, but I was just reading an article about Finland and because of where they are, they are highly attuned to the fact that each and every one of them are national security actors, that each of them is being targeted all of the time by Russian disinformation. 

The Link Between Government and the Public Service

Nate: Yeah, and digital literacy is part of their education system in a much more serious way, it's quite interesting. We could go down a whole rabbit hole on digital literacy and disinformation. To return, though, because of your experience, and you were in the provincial civil service, you played a very senior role in the federal civil service. 

Part of trust in governments, whatever political stripe, is the ability of the civil service to deliver what citizens need in an efficient and timely way. And on the positive side of the ledger, in my experience, you've got a civil service that really rose to the challenge of the pandemic in not a perfect way, but a multitude of important ways and delivering programs and really breaking out of old habits to get some new programs up and running in a very, very fast way.

You though, came in in 2016 and there was a real focus on results. And I'm a big baseball nerd, I like Moneyball, I think it's very important that we measure results and we measure the right results and we push, you know, we bring in accountability to the exercise. And it's exactly what you're talking about. It's like, well, are we measuring spending or are we measuring results? Because we damn well better be measuring results.

When you reflect on that experience though of measuring results, and a bit of a culture change that you were attempting to bring, do you see lasting change in that regard? Was it successful change? How much more change is required for the civil service to deliver what we need them to deliver?

Matthew: I mean, as you say, it is really important to be focused on clear outcomes, to be measuring those, to be able to adjust if you're not achieving those outcomes, to stop reporting how much we're spending on something if it's not delivering results. 

And that is something we’ve talked about every day for years, let's stop doing press releases that talk about how much money we're spending on something and talk about what it's actually doing to people. And every day the press releases would come out referring to how much money is being spent. Because the culture of referring to how much money we're spending is deeply, deeply embedded. 

So, you know, I think your focus on the pandemic is really interesting. And I talk about this a lot, publicly. The reason the government was effective during the pandemic was because they didn't follow ordinary public service processes. They didn't follow ordinary governance processes. And I try not to be very critical of the public service because almost everyone I have ever worked with in the public service is hardworking, is smart, is trying to do the right thing for the public, is thinking hard about these things, but I also believe that the system and structure in which they work is not very conducive to delivering positive outcomes or addressing big problems. 

The system is a problem and so, during the pandemic, regardless of what you think about, like vaccine mandates or shutdowns or all of the CERB stuff or all of the benefits, and you can critique too much, too little, too whatever, but they were able to do it. And they were able to do it very effectively and they were able to adjust. I'm sure you remember and I'm sure people remember early on, in terms of like wage subsidy, the finance minister went out with a proposal and like two days later they changed the proposal because it wasn't enough. It clearly wasn't enough.

Nate: Yeah, we had caucus calls every day and where we were feeding information from the ground up into ministers' offices and it was a very frenetic time for sure, but you felt like the input you were providing, the feedback you were providing was being sort of collected across the country and then acted on.

Matthew: Correct, because you were trying to solve a problem. And the, the, the government, the political leadership, but more importantly, the public service said, Yeah, we've got to throw away our processes. We're not doing a six month cabinet process, and then a one year Treasury Board submission, where every line of the 300 page Treasury Board submission is dissected by three policy analysts and goes back to the Ministry and it takes like a month to go over one line and I'm not really exaggerating. There is a recognition that these processes were not effective for the challenge at the moment. 

And like you can't govern like COVID all the time, obviously, but when you think about the things that made it successful, the ability to adjust, like oh, okay, this isn't working. Let's change it in a week. We don't have to do a new cabinet submission or change the legislation or get an exemption at Treasury Board. We found out it's not working. A week later, we change it. The ability for caucus and communities to engage. I mean, the strongest one of my strongest criticisms of how Ottawa works, and it's a cliché, is the Ottawa bubble. But you can be talking in a room about what's going on in a community and really believe that, yeah, the infrastructure project that we're funding for the community centre, yeah, that's going great. And then you go to Regina and the people there say, no, we're not building a community centre at all. We've still got 12 contribution agreements to sign and everything's terrible. So during pandemic, you were feeding in, in real time, to what's going on. You were willing to partner.

Government was much more willing to partner with not -for -profits in real time saying, at food banks and homeless shelters and community centres, okay, let's sign something quickly and you're delivering benefits. So there were so many, and horizontal, and this connects to your main point, that people knew what they were trying to achieve. Having a really clear goal. We need to keep people's income at a certain level so they can pay the bills. And that could be Indigenous services, could be ISED, that could be Finance, that could be ESDC. All the ministries have had similar goals and those goals were clear from the centre. 

Whereas, you know, in normal processes, you know, our Natural Resources Canada, Environment Canada could be disagreeing on something and they could be in working level meetings for a year, wordsmithing a deck, because they don't agree on what they're trying to achieve. And if you don't agree on what you're trying to achieve, a bunch of directors general working on a deck is not going to get you to an outcome. 

And that was what we were trying to do in the federal public service with the results and delivery unit, which was to focus on a small number of issues, and really bring all ministries together who had a hand in it, say, can we achieve certain kinds of outcomes? And I would say that on some one -offs, like cannabis legalization and rollout, like that was very effectively delivered. People have criticisms, but that, I mean, I don't think the government gets enough credit for how quickly and effectively we did this enormous transformation that had a thousand policy issues that no one had thought of before.

Nate: If anything, the criticism that I would have on that front, and I would have a few obviously on the rollout, as more of a cannabis consumer than most of my colleagues, my criticism actually is second level, which is the review and the ability to act on challenges in the system, has been an utter disaster. Whereas the initial rollout, to your point, was efficient. And it didn't get everything right initially, but it was incredibly efficient, it was timely, got the thing done, and then let's figure out what went wrong and let's act on it, but then that second order step didn't take place in an effective or efficient way.

Matthew: Because I remember going to those meetings every week with Health Canada, Public Safety, ICED, Indigenous Services, Intergovernmental. I mean, there were huge issues that were unanticipated because we're focused on it. Much like the pandemic, everyone was in the same room, political staff and civil servants trying to solve problems and achieve common goals. And that just doesn't usually take place and then everyone goes away and it, you know, entropies into, you know, the ordinary system and the ordinary process. 

And yeah, I think if we wanted to do better, we could, but it requires lots of work to, like you think about all the processes, procurement, digital services, IT, access to information, HR, performance management, translation services, all these systems that are the responsibility of the public service, not the politicians that the public service has built, are not very good. And it takes enormous effort to fix it.

And I understand why if you're the head of the Treasury Board or the head of the Clerk of the Privy Council, you've got a hundred more important things to do. But the leadership of the public service has to choose that they are going to devote time and effort to fixing the processes that aren't working very well. 

Nate: It's interesting the issues that the civil service is solely responsible for. could be a liberal government, it could be a conservative government. Both governments have presided over procurement problems. Both governments have presided over, Phoenix as an example, they both presided over the disaster of Phoenix in different ways. And there's no politics to this, there's no partisan politics to this. There's no minister that's going, we, we created this and this was part of our policy agenda. No, this is a civil service driven initiative and has been a tire fire. When you were first appointed, there was criticism from some quarters that it was too political, that you'd been involved, as you say, in writing the platform and this is not how the civil service is supposed to be run. I gotta tell you, from my perspective, the inability for the civil service to be as responsive as it needs to be to political considerations and to political challenges and political pressures, I think is a flaw as much as it is a feature. 

And I don't want JD Vance to come in and fire all the mid -level civil servants, but I do think having some of your civil service, whether it's yourself, I've got a, BC actually has more of a political civil service than Ottawa does, having some understanding of the political pressures to ensure that the programs are going to be responsive to real needs, to make sure that they're responsive to adjusting as necessary, but also just to ensure that, we have to understand we operate in a political environment and these things are either benefits or liabilities, depending upon how we roll them out and we should maybe think about the politics as we go about delivering public programs.

Matthew: Yeah, I'd say at least three things. One, just because you have had some political engagement doesn't mean that you can't be a nonpartisan public servant. That to me is an obvious statement of fact that people go through different professional roles in their life. And we have lots of people right now who are former ministers and former politicians and former party people who are off working in the private sector or the not -for -profit sector who are their jobs in entirely non -partisan ways and that we can't imagine that that can happen is, you know, like it's a problem. 

It's obviously possible to go from being a communications person in a minister's office to going to be a journalist and being a fair and impartial and nonpartisan journalist, like you can do both things. Second, I always did find there was a little bit of hypocrisy in the criticism of me as having some connection with the Liberals. I worked for three clerks while I was there. Two of them were former Conservative staffers. 

So, I did find it a bit ironic that we seem to be okay with former Conservative staffers, members of the Conservative party who were deputy ministers and then clerks. And I did policy work for platform development. But I think you're right to highlight something that many people would not be aware of, which is that in Ottawa, the public service is very nonpartisan, it's very professional. I respect that enormously and I think that needs to be protected. But your point is accurate in that in most provinces there is more comfort with a little bit more fluidity and a little bit more cross -pollination and a little bit more dialogue across public service and in political government. And I think that serves, I think that serves government well, I think that serves the public well. 

Nate: Yeah, I think so long as there's an understanding that these are tensions at which at either extreme it's a problem and you and you have to make sure that you find the appropriate balance. And I would point to the same tension as between centralization and efficiency because I I loathe excessive centralization. I actually undermines, at an extreme, efficiency because decisions get bottlenecked in the PMO and we've seen that I've seen that and I'm sure it's happened before my time. 

And yet at the same time if you have truly inefficient ministers who are dropping the ball or their DMs or their departments are dropping the ball on a particular thing, you do need accountability and that accountability does have to come from PCO or PMO or someone at the centre and ostensibly the role that you were playing with with results, to say let's focus on results and let's maintain an accountability on results to these mandate letters. And there is, again, you don't want to be excessively centralized, but if you're too decentralized, you lack that accountability. And so you got to find some balance between those two tensions.

Matthew: I mean, I think over the last 10 years, there has been real progress on a lot of really important things for the country. And, you know, there's a lot more work to do, but I think progress around Indigenous issues, access to economic growth and wealth in Indigenous communities, self -government, infrastructure. There's been real progress there and I think it's, we don't talk enough in the media about the progress that's been made. I think we do a disservice to Indigenous communities. 

But the tensions in government around Indigenous services, Crown Indigenous relations, ESDC, ISED, Fisheries, Finance. You can't make progress on big things without the PMO there to butt heads. You just can't. 

And I find, you know, the critique about, this government's so centralized, well, it's the same critique that the same people have been making for 40 years about every government, with kind of no evidence. Like 40 years ago they were writing, oh that's gotten so centralized in Trudeau, it's gotten so centralized in Brian Mulroney. So I don't know what the evidence for that is, but if you do not have a strong Prime Minister's office and strong Privy Council office to ensure that progress is made, there will be working level meetings on big files forever.

Reflections on Achieving Effective Government Delivery

Nate: Can I use two examples? One's positive, one's frustrating, in my own office. And then it's the broader question of how you deliver smart government, competent government, and what lessons sort of you've learned. But you mentioned indigenous issues, and I actually think we've obviously broken the promise a couple different times around lifting all reserve, boil watery advisories on reserve. And that's a broken promise, and we should acknowledge that, and I think one builds trust when we acknowledge that we haven't set out entirely to do what we set out to do. 

But I think simultaneously we should be articulating the results and to say it's not just about money spent, it's about the fact that 83% of advisories have been lifted. That there are 30 still remaining in 28 communities, 10% of the work's been, you know, 10%, so 80% lifted.

In a further 10%, the work's been done, but the lift is just pending. Then you've got 4% where the project to address the advisory is under construction, 2% the project to address the advisory is in the design phase, and only 1% where the feasibility study is still being conducted. And so there's been a massive amount of progress, and the results are actually, I think, critically important, and they're even better when you consider that the total long -term advisories that have been lifted are actually more than the long -term advisories that were even in place when we took office in 2015, and a ton of short -term advisories, well over 150 I think now, have been lifted to prevent them from becoming long -term. And so I can articulate results, and I think with that very clear task ahead of us, the mission was clear.

The parameters were clear and the money was there, away the government went, and again, imperfect success, but massive progress on a file that other governments had let just sit by the wayside and just fester and become just an embarrassment for our country. On the flip side, and this is very small and I see it in my office, is how we measure things really matters. So in that case, okay, we know what we're measuring, so we're successful, at least to a large degree. 

Canada Summer Jobs, and you mentioned ESDC, the goal there is jobs, okay? So then you get these absolutely bizarre bean counting scenarios where two 8 -week jobs are more important to the civil service than one 16 -week job, even though on all other considerations, obviously one 16 -week job is better for the individual, better for the organization on training and consistency and everything else and a better relationship obviously will develop over that time. And it's not always the case, but almost always the case it will be. It is going to benefit the individual student better, or young person, better if they've got the 16 week gig. And so we've just bean counted wrong. And this happens all the time. 

And so when you look at, I've run on smart, fair, honest government or competent, compassionate government with integrity. These are the three values that I think have to be in government at all times. I want smart representation, fair representation, honest representation. Those are the three things that matter to me. That's what I want. And on the question of competence, and this is trust, it goes back to this question of trust, but if you're gonna deliver competent government, it rests on the civil service being able to deliver things and counting, measuring the right things. And so, what is your, will you reflect on your experience there? You were there for four or so years, four four plus years.

What needs to change? What needs to happen? What's your advice? If you're sitting down with a room full of DMs today and they're saying, hey Matthew, how do we make sure we have smarter, more competent government? What needs to change? What's your advice?

Matthew: So I would say to the clerk and the secretary of the Treasury Board that this has to be a priority, that the culture, and more importantly the processes structures of decision making in the federal public service have to change and they're not going to change without leadership from the very top and it will take work. 

And I get that, you know, there's a complex world out there, and no one really wants to dig in on this. I think that as you say, we are not very good at figuring out what to measure or how to count consistently. And this is art and science. It's a discipline. 

Figuring out from my perspective, you start with what are we trying to achieve? What problem are we trying to solve? And I have been in so many processes where people start, but okay, what are we going to count and what measures are we going to? No no, first figure out what the problem is that you're trying to solve. And then you can develop more sophisticated and accurate measurement strategy. You need to know what you're going to do if you're not achieving those results. 

And the boil water advisories is a great example, as you say, it did not hit the targets, but the public service responsible for this understood much better what was going on and developed much deeper relationships and communication with affected communities. And they kind of were given license to engage with communities. 

And that is another thing that we've talked about, but that I would give strong advice to, which is,

in order to understand whether you're having a positive impact, you have to be engaged with the communities that are being affected. And the instinct in Ottawa is towards secrecy. We'll produce a document, we'll share it very confidentially, we'll put secret on the top, we'll have meetings to talk about, and we'll consult internally and we'll manage a process internally. And then at some point we'll come out, yes, maybe we'll have a discussion paper or something, but in general we will come out with the decision that we have arrived at mostly through secretive internal processes and dialogue. And that is not how you are going to get the most effective policies or programs. 

And so my advice would be you have to be much more tolerant of risk, which has a whole bunch of problems with the media environment, but you have to be much capable and competent and prepared to engage with communities and engage with stakeholders. People talk about consultations all the time, but the ability to really go into communities and understand what's going on in those communities and talk to the people delivering programs, that doesn't happen. It doesn't happen nearly as much. And it's through that deep community level understanding that you develop an understanding of what to measure and how to count and what's most appropriate. 

Because no person in employment services would say two 8 -week jobs is better than one 16 -week job. And it's only from a lack of engagement and showing what you're going to do and letting people challenge it and say, oh, okay, no, we'll change it. It's only through that process that you can get the right measures. And so that would be my advice, which is to be more open, transparent, engaging, go into communities, know what's going on.

Nate: Well, I appreciate that and embracing a culture of risk taking rather than risk aversion and encouraging a level of entrepreneurialism in the civil service. I'll leave you this. Tom McElroy is a constituent of mine. He's one of the co-inventors of the UV index. He used to be, he worked for Environment Canada. And he'll talk about in the 1980s, there was this real sense of, there's this willingness to be creative and to have a sense of public imagination.

And he will blame the Harper years, but he will point to that as it just sucked that level of creativity and public imagination and push people who wanted to think outside the box just out of the system entirely, such that he left and he, he finished his career as a professor at York. 

But we need to restore that level of, yeah, we're not gonna succeed at everything, but we're gonna be much more nimble and try different things and we're going to be much more innovative in how we deliver for Canadians Because those are big themes, but it all comes back to trust. Whether it's wealth concentration, whether it is the ability to deliver for people on the things that they need as a civil service and as a government, but it all comes back to trust, which is central to maintaining our democracies. Matthew, thanks for the time. I've kept you longer than I promised you, so I appreciate your time. I appreciate all the work you've done and are doing, and I look forward to staying in touch.

Matthew: Thank you for having me, Nate.

Outro

Nate: Thanks for joining me on this episode of Uncommons. Thanks to Matthew for the time. I appreciate you sticking through over an hour of a wonky conversation, for sure.

I think it’s really interesting though, and it’s certainly work that I hope to continue as long as I’m in politics, is just to focus on this core question of wealth inequality. And I do think, as I said in the interview, I do think we miss the boat on the capital gains tax by not situating it in a broader context, in an international context, of how do we address excessive accumulation of wealth? And if we care about wealth inequality, and not everyone does, but if we do care about wealth inequality and the pernicious negative side effects that we see from excessive concentration of wealth, then we should care about different ways of tackling it. We should follow the evidence on the best ways to tackle this challenge. And as Matthew said, there are lots of different ways, lots of different policy solutions to approach that challenge.

As always, stop what you’re doing right now, if you like what we’re doing, stop what you’re doing and leave a positive review on your platform of choice. It does help us to reach a bigger audience. If you have suggestions for guests in the future, topics you want me to tackle, you can email me info@beynate.ca You can find me on most channels, all channels, and otherwise, until next time.

Before politics, Dr. Philpott practiced family medicine for over 25 years, including important development work in Niger. She was elected in 2015 and served in cabinet in a number of roles, including in Health and Indigenous Services. She was a member of the Liberal caucus until the SNC-Lavalin affair, after which she ran as an independent candidate in the 2019 election.

Nate and Dr. Philpott discuss her book 'Health for All' and the need for improved access to primary care in Canada, a better focus on the social determinants of health, and why we should treat substance use as a health issue in the midst of a devastating public health crisis. 

They also discuss her time in politics, including her reflections on how she left, and whether she would be interested in returning to political life. 

Watch the full podcast here:

Mo has led the city’s efforts to develop an alternative community safety response model that is now rolling out across Toronto.

While conservatives seem intent on fighting a renewed war on drugs and pursuing fear-based policies, the evidence continues to point to a public health approach for people in crisis, in collaboration with community partners.

Watch this podcast live at Beach United Church:

In the interest of full transparency, Nate invited Arnold on the podcast to talk about C-270. However, Arnold had introduced a petition to protect the preborn in early May, and has a history of advocacy against abortion. So Nate also asked him questions about his social conservatism, and only after a half hour conversation about his legislative work on pornography. Arnold emailed Nate to say he felt ambushed and that he would not have come on the podcast.

We’re posting the whole thing, unedited, and you be the judge.