Colbert was fun. This interview was great. I have always wondered how a conversation between you and Justin might go. My guess is that the PM honestly enjoys frank and open debate on issues of great importance with people who are not afraid of his power. The Liberal caucus and the HofC will be much diminished without you there Nate. Good work!
Yes this unbelievable and certainly not accurate or true. Where did you find this misinformation? From the start of Trudeau government to only 2021, not including the the last couple years of irresponsible spending deficits, Trudeau liberals have spent $659.1 billion where all other PM(s) in Canadian history have spent $634.4 billion that includes his his beloved father! This is a source of table 2020 from 2021 budget. Hard to believe but true!
Stop spending, stop wasting, stop talking period. This government has grown its body and shrank Canadians savings. We are overtaxed and overwellmed financially. STOP fighting Climate Change Canada is doing a good job and accounts for less then 2% make a plan to work with China to reduce. Lower taxes now and balance the budget. No talk make it happen.
Really a Liberal MP interviewing the Liberal Leader each drinking their Liberal Kool-Aid, and in Denial of the future, Liberal Party of Canada Is Toast. Trudeau should be jailed.
And values? Deliberately, and endlessly espousing, through the entire election...that 2015 would be the last under FPTP. When his expressed purpose was really to trick the mass of voters looking for PR into voting for a lie.
Every thing that is wrong with politics the world over was highlighted here - in a sane world Nate would be the PM and Justin would be a hardworking back bench MP.
Well, it's hard to take this seriously. First of all, to present this as a way to talk to people that want to listen. Maybe. But the PM has been ducking a lot of opportunities. For example, I would much rather have him appear with a Paul Wells or Althia Raj, rather than a fellow MP. He says he's geared up for a fight, but isn't willing to go talk to them?
As for the "as long as we can have a reasonable conversation and disagree", I think evidence to the contrary is what happened with Jody Wilson Raybould and Jane Philpott.
My last point would be that you've had 9 years, so the whole, we need to address climate change. In all fairness, you've failed to demonstrate the value of the carbon price.
Thanks Nate, I did watch the video and it does a good job of explaining the carbon price, and the rebate, although even there, I think most people don't connect the rebate to the price on carbon. Personally, I do agree with using pricing to incentivize behaviour, so I agree with the carbon price as policy, and also agree with concepts like congestion pricing, paying a bag fee, and so on. For someone who is very price sensitive (my wife calls me just cheap), they work well for me.
Certainly, I see the frustration (and I share it) that for most of those who oppose the carbon price as a way to fight climate change, there is not an alternative that is advanced, other than "technology". It doesn't come across to me as a serious plan, but more of a hope.
I do wonder that in the end, as the US (with the incentive driven IRA), China and Europe move towards less carbon intensive energy, Canada will get pulled along. We will certainly have lost the opportunity (including economic opportunities) to be leaders in this space.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comment. I hope you are running in the next election, whenever that comes.
Amazed how many Cdns still remember - "2015 will be the last FPTP election". Maybe it was because we heard it over and over and over again. I still have the 347 page all party report if JT would like to read it. Which it appears he has not. Or if he read it he obviously didn't get it. Not possible to have proportionality and include geography?? The last Liberal convention MPs voted vs even setting up a citizen's committee to study PR. Assume that was an edict from above. Thanks for always supporting PR yourself Nate. When you're PM we'll get it done.
This was an illuminating conversation with the right mix of challenging questions and opportunities for the PM to deliver his message. Many who have “tuned out” the PM will consider tuning him back in if they hear this.
I wish there was longer geeking out on electoral reform. I've been an advocate for decades -- in the 1990's I was interested in MMP, but that started to change in the early 2000’s. During the 2007 Ontario Referendum when I actually listened to the "no" side and met people who hated FPTP as much as I did but recognized there were more than two classes of systems and many different criteria for success.
I'm a huge advocate of ranked ballots for any question that has more than two possible options -- that means I oppose MMP as much as I oppose FPTP, as they are effectively the same Single-X "winner take all" flawed thinking.
The same with the term "Make Every Vote Count" which to me means ranked ballots, whether in single member districts, multi-member districts, at-large, or other related systems. To me the term excludes single-X type questions on the ballot, and rejects the notion of "party popular vote" which presumes incorrectly that the only demographic trait of candidates that should be allowed to matter is temporary party affiliation.
Ballots that presume party affiliation is the only thing that can matter are incapable of making my vote count any better than a FPTP ballot.
Fair Vote Canada likes to claim they own the phrase “Make Every Vote Count”, and that anyone who uses the term has the same biases they do, but that is simply not the case.
I was a member of FVC in their early years when I thought they were trying to move Canada past the flaws of FPTP, but I now see them as political opposition only trying to make the divisiveness and hyper-partisanship of Canadian politics worse. They like to "fact check" other people and organisations, but they badly need to be fact checked themselves.
Not surprising, FVC has started to use this in their campaigns against forward-facing electoral reform and the Liberal parties (Liberal party of Ontario also focused on Ranked Choice Voting).
It would have been helpful if you specifically asked Trudeau about STV (ranked ballots in multi-member districts). FVC likes to claim that this option was off the table, but it was FVC and others narrowly focused on Party Popular Vote that took this off the table.
Those narrowly focused on numbers that come out of the Gallagher index are like a driver who looks at an odometer and refuses to look out the window to determine what direction they are going. It is one number, and it is not a number that helps to determine if a voting system is "fair" or if it will "Make Every Vote Count".
Or, we could say what FVC promotes is like saying "Ax the Tax" and dismissing the very existence of people like me who receive far more from the rebate than I pay in a carbon tax. In fact, like Michael Chong (Who I agree with on electoral reform and the carbon tax shift), the problem has been that the carbon tax hasn't been increasing fast enough.
Until other criteria for success other than proximity to the false notion of Party Popular Vote are considered, electoral reform will (Likely? Hopefully?) remain blocked in Canada.
Wrote this back in 2021: Let's work to fix parliamentary flaws which block holding a Premier or Prime Minister accountable.
For Pocket Casts users, could you consider adding the URL to the YouTube video in the description? I believe you've added the embed like on Substack, but it doesn't appear on the mobile app.
Also, Pocket Casts has been supporting video podcasts for some time (e.g., WAN Show from LTT), so maybe the episode could have been posted as a video directly. And lastly, it would be nice to have the transcript there too! Thank you!
This is a great interview. PMJT definitely cares and wants the best for our country. This is a must watch for Canadians.
Colbert was fun. This interview was great. I have always wondered how a conversation between you and Justin might go. My guess is that the PM honestly enjoys frank and open debate on issues of great importance with people who are not afraid of his power. The Liberal caucus and the HofC will be much diminished without you there Nate. Good work!
Thanks Gary. Glad you enjoyed it.
Nate (and PMJT) that was fabulous. Messaging was fantastic and clear.
Thanks!
Yes this unbelievable and certainly not accurate or true. Where did you find this misinformation? From the start of Trudeau government to only 2021, not including the the last couple years of irresponsible spending deficits, Trudeau liberals have spent $659.1 billion where all other PM(s) in Canadian history have spent $634.4 billion that includes his his beloved father! This is a source of table 2020 from 2021 budget. Hard to believe but true!
Stop spending, stop wasting, stop talking period. This government has grown its body and shrank Canadians savings. We are overtaxed and overwellmed financially. STOP fighting Climate Change Canada is doing a good job and accounts for less then 2% make a plan to work with China to reduce. Lower taxes now and balance the budget. No talk make it happen.
Why does Trudeau always seem so amped up?
Why does Trudeau always look like such an amped-up, effeminate drama queen?
Really a Liberal MP interviewing the Liberal Leader each drinking their Liberal Kool-Aid, and in Denial of the future, Liberal Party of Canada Is Toast. Trudeau should be jailed.
It was worth it to learn that Trudeau wants to be judged on his “values” not his track record 🤣🤣.
Thats what I would say too if I had his “track record”!
Canadians are sick of him. Please make it stop.
And values? Deliberately, and endlessly espousing, through the entire election...that 2015 would be the last under FPTP. When his expressed purpose was really to trick the mass of voters looking for PR into voting for a lie.
Every thing that is wrong with politics the world over was highlighted here - in a sane world Nate would be the PM and Justin would be a hardworking back bench MP.
Well, it's hard to take this seriously. First of all, to present this as a way to talk to people that want to listen. Maybe. But the PM has been ducking a lot of opportunities. For example, I would much rather have him appear with a Paul Wells or Althia Raj, rather than a fellow MP. He says he's geared up for a fight, but isn't willing to go talk to them?
As for the "as long as we can have a reasonable conversation and disagree", I think evidence to the contrary is what happened with Jody Wilson Raybould and Jane Philpott.
My last point would be that you've had 9 years, so the whole, we need to address climate change. In all fairness, you've failed to demonstrate the value of the carbon price.
Check this out on carbon pricing: https://www.uncommons.ca/p/trying-something-new
There's a lot of value to it, even if it's been poorly defended at times.
Thanks Nate, I did watch the video and it does a good job of explaining the carbon price, and the rebate, although even there, I think most people don't connect the rebate to the price on carbon. Personally, I do agree with using pricing to incentivize behaviour, so I agree with the carbon price as policy, and also agree with concepts like congestion pricing, paying a bag fee, and so on. For someone who is very price sensitive (my wife calls me just cheap), they work well for me.
Certainly, I see the frustration (and I share it) that for most of those who oppose the carbon price as a way to fight climate change, there is not an alternative that is advanced, other than "technology". It doesn't come across to me as a serious plan, but more of a hope.
I do wonder that in the end, as the US (with the incentive driven IRA), China and Europe move towards less carbon intensive energy, Canada will get pulled along. We will certainly have lost the opportunity (including economic opportunities) to be leaders in this space.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comment. I hope you are running in the next election, whenever that comes.
Amazed how many Cdns still remember - "2015 will be the last FPTP election". Maybe it was because we heard it over and over and over again. I still have the 347 page all party report if JT would like to read it. Which it appears he has not. Or if he read it he obviously didn't get it. Not possible to have proportionality and include geography?? The last Liberal convention MPs voted vs even setting up a citizen's committee to study PR. Assume that was an edict from above. Thanks for always supporting PR yourself Nate. When you're PM we'll get it done.
This was an illuminating conversation with the right mix of challenging questions and opportunities for the PM to deliver his message. Many who have “tuned out” the PM will consider tuning him back in if they hear this.
Certainly no one from FairVote. The duplicity staggering.
Thanks for Nate Erskine -Smith for the discussion with the PM Justin Trudeau.
+ Berris Reid
I wish there was longer geeking out on electoral reform. I've been an advocate for decades -- in the 1990's I was interested in MMP, but that started to change in the early 2000’s. During the 2007 Ontario Referendum when I actually listened to the "no" side and met people who hated FPTP as much as I did but recognized there were more than two classes of systems and many different criteria for success.
I'm a huge advocate of ranked ballots for any question that has more than two possible options -- that means I oppose MMP as much as I oppose FPTP, as they are effectively the same Single-X "winner take all" flawed thinking.
The same with the term "Make Every Vote Count" which to me means ranked ballots, whether in single member districts, multi-member districts, at-large, or other related systems. To me the term excludes single-X type questions on the ballot, and rejects the notion of "party popular vote" which presumes incorrectly that the only demographic trait of candidates that should be allowed to matter is temporary party affiliation.
Ballots that presume party affiliation is the only thing that can matter are incapable of making my vote count any better than a FPTP ballot.
Fair Vote Canada likes to claim they own the phrase “Make Every Vote Count”, and that anyone who uses the term has the same biases they do, but that is simply not the case.
I was a member of FVC in their early years when I thought they were trying to move Canada past the flaws of FPTP, but I now see them as political opposition only trying to make the divisiveness and hyper-partisanship of Canadian politics worse. They like to "fact check" other people and organisations, but they badly need to be fact checked themselves.
Not surprising, FVC has started to use this in their campaigns against forward-facing electoral reform and the Liberal parties (Liberal party of Ontario also focused on Ranked Choice Voting).
It would have been helpful if you specifically asked Trudeau about STV (ranked ballots in multi-member districts). FVC likes to claim that this option was off the table, but it was FVC and others narrowly focused on Party Popular Vote that took this off the table.
Those narrowly focused on numbers that come out of the Gallagher index are like a driver who looks at an odometer and refuses to look out the window to determine what direction they are going. It is one number, and it is not a number that helps to determine if a voting system is "fair" or if it will "Make Every Vote Count".
Or, we could say what FVC promotes is like saying "Ax the Tax" and dismissing the very existence of people like me who receive far more from the rebate than I pay in a carbon tax. In fact, like Michael Chong (Who I agree with on electoral reform and the carbon tax shift), the problem has been that the carbon tax hasn't been increasing fast enough.
Until other criteria for success other than proximity to the false notion of Party Popular Vote are considered, electoral reform will (Likely? Hopefully?) remain blocked in Canada.
Wrote this back in 2021: Let's work to fix parliamentary flaws which block holding a Premier or Prime Minister accountable.
https://mcormond.blogspot.com/2021/01/lets-work-to-fix-parliamentary-flaws.html
Thank you for the interview Nate!
For Pocket Casts users, could you consider adding the URL to the YouTube video in the description? I believe you've added the embed like on Substack, but it doesn't appear on the mobile app.
Also, Pocket Casts has been supporting video podcasts for some time (e.g., WAN Show from LTT), so maybe the episode could have been posted as a video directly. And lastly, it would be nice to have the transcript there too! Thank you!