Welcome to Blueprints of Disruption, a podcast that would love to dismantle the status quo.

My name is Jess McLean. It's only been a hot minute since Prime Minister Mark Carney took

office, but he has wasted no time in pulling the liberals further to the right. Transformative

bills have been passed and a certain tone has been set. None of it is good. Luckily, I was

able to team up with Ashwin from the International Solidarity Podcast to get a much better handle

on what he accurately describes as a paradigm shift. Ashwin provides some much needed context

to the moves Carney's making both at home and abroad. We cover the legislation and commitments

made in the first 100-ish days of this liberal government in detail. We also talk a bit about

the resistance mounting and the roll of the left in the face of these changes.

If you're not already listening to the International Solidarity podcast, you are missing out. We've

cross-posted this episode over there. You'll see ways to find them linked in the show notes

of this episode, along with a ton of resources and ways you can support our work. It's a longer

than usual segment this week, so buckle up and let's just jump right into it. Okay. Hey, Jessa,

what are we talking about today? Well, you know, I think we're going to maybe spoil Carney's

honeymoon a little bit because Carney's been in office for 100 ish days and it's been

a reign of terror so far. And I think a lot of people aren't paying attention. No, that's

right. I mean, the wave that got Carney elected initially, right, was, you know, I mean, initially

the conservatives were poised to win in December. Yeah, elbows up. What happened to that? know,

the conservatives are poised to win. A lot of people on the liberal progressive side of

things, you know, were very worried about it. The fallout of Trudeau's leadership and

all this, Mark Carney came to lead the Liberal Party. And, you know, it was relieving for

a lot of people when he won instead of Pierre Poilier, you know, the prime ministership.

you know, we're in the midst of summer. Um, you know, according to the number of people

that respond to my emails and texts, like people are very busy and, you know, are maybe are

not paying as much attention. Uh, and I guess that's why we're here to sort of break things

down how, how, you know, this first bit of, of Carney's, um, government has been and much

like, you know, the first couple of days, weeks, and months of the Trump administration, where

a lot of things were happening, a lot of things are coming out. Um, It's the same in this

case in Canada with the federal government. It's not just the summer either, which is totally

valid. get it. I was at the beach this morning myself, but it's the fact that they're coming

fast and furious. That became relevant as we're doing our notes, right? We started our notes

maybe a week ago and we were just able to feed into them and it was so much. It's like, who

knows how much detail we can. get into when we go over the various bills that he's passed,

the promises he's made around military spending, his foreign policy or lack of it. You know,

like there is a lot that he's been doing and we've seen this style of politics before. You

know, I'm speaking from an Ontario perspective, but we can see it happening south of the border

where it's just one thing after another. And it's really hard for activists to stay

on top of all of the challenges, all of the ways that this is stepping back their work.

And it becomes overwhelming, especially when we talk about Bill 5 is one of the bills a

lot of people are really upset about. There's provincial counterparts there, right? So people

are trying to fight all of these battles on so many fronts and then yes, a lot of it

just gets lost in the shuffle because you have to prioritize something. But all of the things

that we're going to unpack are equally as troubling and luckily have sparked resistance just

as equally. There are people fighting back against all of the things. Bill two is on

the agenda today. I've already mentioned Bill five and NATO spending, Palestine, obviously,

but You know what bugs me the most? What is like how much I like I'm just a little itty

bitty show, but we talked so much beforehand about this happening because if you look back

at the leaders debate, Carney used a lot of language. I pulled up my notes here where,

you know, building a Canadian economy, one Canadian economy, not 13, like forget Indigenous economies.

He didn't even recognize them. In his land acknowledgement, right, it was a nation. Even

in his land acknowledgement for the throne speech, right, he talked about getting things done

at all costs or consultation but with a purpose. And, you know, there was no shortage of military

hoo-ha and nationalism dripping from everyone's campaign. So I'm frustrated with how surprised

some people are, but also thankful that they've fallen out of that really, that... that mania,

that Carney mania, they weren't just relieved Ashwin, they were like celebrating, right?

Like this was a victory of strategic voting. And now we have people openly acknowledging

that Carney might be the most right-wing prime minister we've ever had. Yeah. I mean, you

know, one thing that I wanted to say was I really think, and you know, maybe we'll know in retrospect,

but I think this is sort of one of those moments where there's a paradigm shift, right? It

happened, especially you can think of, you know, the neoliberal era in Canada, the Jean Chrétien

era where, you know, it was a liberal government, but a lot of spending cuts, public expenditure

cuts, winding down basically, you know, the welfare state. you think of Margaret Thatcher,

Ronald Reagan in the UK and the US. In the Canadian context, you can think even before

that between the Diefenbaker era into the Pearson era was sort of a shift from the sort of

British Commonwealth, small C conservatism to trying to build a Canadian national identity,

that kind of thing. I don't think it would be unreasonable to suggest that we might be

seeing a similar kind of shift taking place. And you mentioned how right-wing Carney is,

I think that's part of the shift, right? That, I mean, the center is moving, has been moving.

the right and it's clearly continuing to do so. I understand why folks might have been

relieved that Pierre Poilier was not elected prime minister and there's no conservative

government, but two things. a lot of these bills that we're going to talk about today

are passed with overwhelming support from the conservatives. And second, mean, if this was

a conservative government in place, sort of passing these bills Bill C5, Bill C2, one

would suspect there would be a lot more resistance to it. And just because it's a liberal government,

people are able to sort of pigeonhole it, take it a little easier. It's a liberal government.

They're not as scary. They're not as bad. mean, I think that's exactly what makes them just

as scary. So if we want, mean, just so we can get into these bills, Bill C5 and Bill C2.

Let's do it. I think we're going to start off with Bill 5. It's probably got the most to

talk about, there's a lot to talk about. 2 doesn't disappoint either. But there's a lot of resistance

stirring up for Bill 5. What did they call this? This is the, we were just talking about before

we were recording that I think they've got less Aurelian with the names. Like we're at

least told straight out with some of these titles exactly what they are, but this is the Free

Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act. Okay, that's a little bit vague, but it includes

the Building Canada Act. Actually, Jess, I should say the name of this bill is quite ridiculous

because it puts two bills together. So it's an act to enact the free trade, etc. That

first part of the bill and the Building Canada Act. Anyway, not that relevant, but it's a

stupid name. Yeah, so it hits out that one of his biggest promises and that got a lot

of traction because I don't think a little, I think few people understood what it meant

when he would eliminate inter-provincial trade barriers. Red tape is another name that has

given it to him, but that red tape is obviously more encompassing than provincial trade barriers.

This is going to give the government the ability to bypass environmental assessments. to pay

very little attention to First Nation consultations. Basically anything they deem a national interest,

red flag, red flag, is kind of free and clear. A minister can give it the green light when

another project maybe wouldn't have. And they've been really explicit. He's talking about pipelines,

ports. They include ports and whatever. I don't think anybody needs to ram through a

port, you know, like last minute, but we're talking about pipelines. And again, like he

made it clear that this was going to be his priority. And at the same time, you've got

provinces enacting very similar acts. In fact, First Nations folks, nine different First Nations

have launched a legal battle against Ontario's Bill 5. end. Canada's Bill C-5 and they passed

almost around the same time. It was very hard to keep up with them I thought I was mixing

them up and then I realized no these are almost two identical bills that completely spit in

the face of indigenous sovereignty amongst other things No, that's right. you know this

this part of Bill C-5 that you're talking about By you know sort of centralizing power in

the cabinet to bypass environmental regulations and indigenous self-determination or Indigenous

sovereignty. That is the second part of the bill, which is about building Canada. It's

called the Building Canada Act. like you're saying, Jessa, there have been comparable

bills across the province. So that's why I'm saying across the provinces, including Ontario,

like you mentioned, BC as well seems to have a similar kind of bill. I mean, this is sort

of like a coordinated effort. Maybe I wanted to contextualize this a bit. You know, since

it's so coordinated, you know, it's worth sort of peering back and sort of investigating where

that comes from. also, thoughts are getting a little scattered here, but it's also very

much related to, you know, what I was saying earlier about how this is sort of a moment

of paradigm shift, right? All these governments are looking to centralize power, erode sort

of democratic mechanisms of know, checks and balances, accountability, environmental assessments,

indigenous sovereignty. And, know, I think the root cause of this paradigm shift really is

the paradigm shift coming with the Trump administration, right? The tariff regime that Trump was bringing

forward. And, you know, this reaction on the part of, I might be going on for a bit here,

Jessa, I'm sorry, but the reaction on the part of, you know, Canadian federal government,

but Canadian governments more broadly, is really a move to do two things in my understanding.

To one, protect and bolster Canadian capital because it's Canadian capital or capital

based in Canada that's threatened by these tariffs. And two, capitulate as well to the

US. And by capitulating, you also protect Canadian capital. Whereas the working class and Indigenous

nations, they're not even sort of in the equation. They can get screwed. But really, mean, we

mentioned that this bill has two parts, This Bill C5. The first part is getting rid of

inter-provincial trade barriers, encouraging greater labour mobility across provinces in

Canada. That's the first part. And the second part we talked about quite a bit. overriding

environmental regulations and Indigenous sovereignty. mean, you can see these two things coming together

in the same bill basically as an attempt to find new frontiers by capital to extract profit.

If you're getting pushed on one side by the US, if you're getting squeezed on one side,

well, what do you have to do? You have to open things up. You have to rejig things so that

you can continue to extract, to exploit, reap profits, if not in the same way as before,

even greater. And so the frontiers here are the environment, Indigenous sovereignty, self-determination.

We can talk about the Arctic as well. Energy projects really seem to be at the center here.

We'll talk about a little more. Maybe one last thing I wanted to add on this was that when

we talk about Bill C-5 in particular, trying to centralize power in the cabinet to approve

projects deemed in the national interest, they're talking about the cabinet, But it's really

worth zooming in here. That's right, right? It's just one person. I mean, it's really worth

zooming in here to see how cabinet has functioned, especially throughout the Trudeau era, even

before that, especially through the Trudeau era. you know, let's see if that changes.

But things seem to suggest, right, when cabinet makes a decision, this is really, you know,

coming from the top down from the PMO, lot of power has been centralized in the prime

minister's office. And as the prime minister, his chief of staff, you know, a couple of other

policymakers and staffers, really a room of five-ish that can essentially deem this in

the national interest and thus deem it in the interest of cabinet for cabinet to then sort

of give the green light here. What happened to democracy? I mean, we talk about China

and Russia being authoritarian states. mean, what's going on here? Well, and it's not

like it's nefarious of the Liberals either. That's by design. That's how cabinets been

designed in our Canadian Parliament. Harper, we were famous on calling Harper a dictator

because it was always known that like every single policy that came from that government

just came from the PMO's office. And a lot of people don't know that. A lot of people,

you know, If you look at it on paper, it does look like it's a team meeting. know we know

backbenchers get no say, sometimes the same is true of cabinet ministers. Not all cabinet

ministers. Some of them clearly get input. Freeland is always in the mix making critical

decisions, but otherwise, yeah, it's very concentrated. And now it's concentrated in the hands of

a banker. a banker that has a long history of ties to the US and its military industrial

complex and the UK and some of the horrible reforms that went on there that benefited

the most wealthy. So watching people celebrate, yeah, the banker coming in as if that wasn't

a red flag in itself was something else. But I wanted to go back to something you said.

And the way you're helping to explain folks why these different frontiers are opening.

But I feel like you framed it almost from like, it's this economic necessity that I know you

don't agree with, but just hear me out for a second. Perhaps all these threats of tariffs,

although Trump has many, many reasons to behave this way that we could analyze, perhaps one

of them is to allow these governments. to make their own paradigm shifts, right? Like, because

it was immediately, as soon as the tariffs were suggested, BCNDP was one of the first to act.

And they're like, okay, we're gonna start pushing through pipelines that we previously were

in negotiations with indigenous people around and this and that. And I'm sorry, we've just

got to green light them right now. But when we looked at them more deeply, they involved

US investors. They involved a north to south pipeline. that could only go to Alaska. And

so it definitely wasn't kind of a insular thing. They were selling it as such as a protection

against Trump and his tariffs, but reality, it was facilitating US capital. I think like

Carney is not so much worried about these terrorists or Ford as they are looking at them, even if

it is a threat to the economy and they have to scramble as such. I think they see this

as opportunities to do things they've always wanted to do. Not like just in case a listener

thinks like, oh, well, they have to take from somewhere. What are we going to do? And it's

like, well, this is just this kind of green light that they've been given because we consolidated

around that too, right? The nationalism that we all bought up. When I say we, I don't mean

me. Okay, I don't mean Hashwin either. But just generally the Canadian public in that

election was like Canada first, Canada first. And like that's always so dangerous because

it leads to people rationalizing. Well, if it's in the national interest and I hate Trump and

I'm scared of China and Russia, then I'm sorry, Indigenous nations, you're just going to have

to get along or not. Right. So it sounds a bit conspiracy theory-esque, but I often think

that that's why we can't explain tariffs. Trump's tariffs, the way they go back and forth and

they're used as leverage when they're already capitulating to them, everything. When we

talk about Bill C-2, that's another capitulation to Trump. Maybe before we get to Bill C-2,

Jess, I maybe just wanted to build a little bit on what you're saying about whether this

is an economic necessity. And in the absolute sense, it's not an economic necessity. There

are other ways to organize an economy. in reaction to these Trump tariffs, right? In

a more people-centered way that benefits the working class and works toward decolonization,

ecological sustainability, et cetera, et cetera. I guess what I was trying to say was that

it's an economic necessity for capital. Capital wants to, as you're saying, they've had these

plans. This is an opportunity. If they want to continue Uh, not just making the same amount

of profits, right? But like I said, more, it's, more and more it's, it's, you know,

uh, uh, crossing new frontiers. Insatiable. That's right. It's, it's crossing new frontiers.

This is sort of what they have to do, what they want to do. Um, the other thing I'll say on

that about, you know, you know, an economy geared toward capital and the capitalist versus an

economy, um, geared toward the people, the working classes, and the dispossessed is

a lot of this language is about, we want to fast track infrastructure projects. want to

fast track, they talk about energy, but they talk about this more broadly as infrastructure

projects. And I think it's worth highlighting here as listeners might know, but that when

they talk about infrastructure, they're not talking about people-centered infrastructure.

I was in Toronto the other day, if anyone walks underneath the gardener... shouldn't.

Wear a hard hat if you do. Yeah, that's right. That infrastructure is eroding. It's horrible.

A side note here, I came back from China not too long ago, and the infrastructure there

is incredible. When we talk about highways, when we talk about public transit, this is

people-centered infrastructure that benefits labor, that benefits the working class. This

infrastructure that Carney talks about and the rest of the Canadian ruling class talks

about is not that. It's particularly energy infrastructure, oil and gas, fossil fuel energy,

which notably has high profit margins. So there's an incentive to going at it with old

energy, resisting transition to new energy because the profits are there. So when we talk

about pipelines, when we talk about, you mentioned ports, Jessa, ports are also important because

I was looking up in preparation for this, some of these proposed projects or projects

that are maybe on the table that some companies have in mind that either have been proposed

before or are still in the works. A lot of these ports are in the North, in the Arctic.

Well, at least one in particular is in the Arctic North in Nunavut. They want to continue to

develop the port of Churchill in Manitoba. these are not just ports for ports sake. These

are ports to quote, get product to market, right? This is how they wanna extract more fossil

fuel. you know, produce energy out of it and then, you know, find new markets and expand

abroad, continue to reap profit. So bottom line here is, you know, when they talk about infrastructure,

it's not people-centered infrastructure. I mean, in this country, we need, I could go on, but

we need high-speed rail. We need public transit. There are, you know, way too many cars. In

the meantime, it might be nice to even just have, you know, more electric cars, you know,

than gas guzzling cars. We can't even do that, you know, but anyway, but that's, That's

people-centered infrastructure. This is not that. No, and just to drive your point home,

the bill coming out of BC from the NDP, so that was a victory for progressives over there,

keep in mind. Back in May, they passed the Infrastructure Projects Act. So they're pretty

clear and they don't, this is energy-driven resource extraction. That's exactly what they're

talking about. and it gives ultimate authority, like you said, to a cabinet minister. And they

have to use different language. Here we have coming out of the provinces, it's not national

interest, it's provincially significant project. So once somebody thinks it's provincially significant,

always, always, they mean the economy. They don't mean the people in the province. Because

like Carney told you this in the throne speech over and over again, right? His number one

underlying priority was a strong Canadian economy. And we know a strong economy never means more

for the working class. Our economy is predicated on centralizing wealth and power over and

over again, increasingly. So BC went ahead and passed that. They were almost one of the first

ones to pass it. And immediately it sent ripples through the environmentalist groups and First

Nations that had been in negotiations with them that had been trying to work with this BC

NDP. very strong statements came out against it. Obviously, I'm not sure if there's any

legal work going on. I imagine there is. And, you know, they don't want to be outdone by

the liberals, the federal liberals either. It was a back to back bill. was 14 and 15. They

both do almost the same thing as Bill 5 does and Ontario again, yeah, they have their own

Bill 5 and it's all about removing barriers to development and grassy narrows and other

First Nations here in Ontario. You know, they've been protesting out on Queen's Park since this

bill was brought to second reading, at least it's going to be such a blowback for First

Nations groups, but also environmentalists. laws that it essentially does away with is

the Endangered Species Act. And I know like maybe you're thinking, oh, you know, some

really rare bird I've never heard of might not make it. You may not understand the depth

of that, what that act does for environmentalists. They're able to protect huge swaths of land

by proving it will be a detriment to just one species. So it's proven as quite an effective

tool to beat back. development where capital is just knocking on the door, knocking on the

door. that's just gone and done. People can't believe it. That legislation has been around

for so long. It's like almost one of those like the health act. just assume it's always going

to be there. Nobody would ever do away with something like that. that just gives credit

to Ashwin's theory there. This is all part of a massive paradigm shift. Do we have a name

for it? You know, you had labels for the other ones and I was thinking, don't know. want to

know. Let's hope it's the death throes of capitalism. I mean, that would be up to us. Yeah, we have

to name it first, right? No, I was going to that would be the death throes of capitalism.

That's up to the left to to, you know, act on and to push. That's I understand. Well, it's

not sustainable, though, either. Not that we can just sit back and wait for it to crash

and burn, but this isn't a sustainable way to do anything. they know it, but it's all

like live for the now, stockpile your wealth and those considerations. mean, our politicians

are notoriously bad of thinking long term, very short term vision. There's one challenge

that I read when I was... reading about the First Nations challenging both of those bills

and the idea of national interest. And although they're making like constitutional challenges,

like this is a threat to like very specific rights, they're also challenging the idea

that national interest doesn't include Indigenous self-determination, right? Because it's very

an arbitrary thing to say in someone's interest, in the nation's interest. Like we are in a...

homogenous group, what's good for one might not be good for the other. What's good for

the economy definitely doesn't mean it's good for me. What's good for settlers is might

not be good for indigenous people. So how we define that national interest should include,

you know, X, Y, and Z amongst other things like the protection of the environment should be

in national interest. Is it? Probably not when they're defining these projects, right? So

they want to ensure that First Nations self-determination is part of that discussion on what is in the

best national interest. And I would argue that they're right, right? As stewards of the land

for so long, but also if you were just talking about political stability, this isn't the way.

But I'm not here for political stability. So that's, you piss off more people, more people,

we've got more ready with nothing to lose. I get that, but. I just thought that was an interesting

way to then challenge that national interest or provincially significant. Are you going

to say it out loud that that definitely does not include indigenous rights? Be prepared

to say that out loud then because that's essentially what they're doing. Yeah, no, mean, bill two

is another one of these very concerning bills. You know, if a conservative government was

passing a bill to someone I had read in an article that this would be, you know, Stephen Harper's

dream to pass a bill like this, mean, whether that's true or not, Bill 2 is a very concerning

bill. It's called the Strong Borders Act, or at least it's colloquially called the Strong

Borders Act. Very Trumpian language there. I mean, that's enough to concern people. Well,

this one's kind of like a two-parter too, not officially. I imagine it is broken down into

chapters. We'll link. the actual bills so you don't have to take our word on any of this,

you can read it for yourself, but a lot of folks came out against it as a mass deportation bill.

It's an anti-migrant bill, I mean, I say they came out as rightfully so, factually so,

it is, but it also raises huge concerns over mass surveillance. So I guess like let's break

it down in that way. First, was one of Carney's first bills. And I think that's why it made

it so alarming because we were in the throes of watching the ICE raids, or we still are,

early days. But we knew it was coming and it was going to get ugly. And then here we are,

the Canadian bleeding heart liberals. And their first priority was to pass something that was

going to make it even harder for people to seek asylum coming through the United States. There's

a lot of things wrong with that bill, but just that alone should get you really riled up.

The fact that We should have done away with a third party, safe third party agreement

with the United States long ago. I've said it a million times on our show. Amnesty International

has been calling for that agreement to be fixed or scrapped for years, long before internment

camps for migrants. Okay. Like long before that we knew it was not safe, but now it's almost

nearly impossible to come through the United States and claim asylum in Canada. And I'm

here to shit on Carney, but this is a continuation of Trudeau's policies, right? That still today

see 3,000 people lose their status in Canada every single day right now. Right? And migrant

rights warned us that a million people would eventually lose their status in Canada because

of the changes the Liberals made, which means they've got to leave or they've got to stay

undocumented. And this feeds into that even more. So now the minister, again, consolidation

of power here in another department, the minister of immigration holds incredible power here,

not just on single cases, you how we appeal to them to do the right thing, to not deport

environmental activists, blah, blah, blah. And we can make it case by case. But now

they can make sweeping changes to immigration policies that would essentially mass deport

groups of people, say, from a certain country or with certain criteria. who knows what doors

that opened and that goes on the books for any government to use down the road as do all these

things, right? If you're like, oh, it's just the liberals using it. They're gonna use this

to build wind farms and just stop fentanyl from crossing the border. That's not true, but you

know, either way these are things that will now become Canadian, right? What it means to

be Canadian is to essentially turn migrants away. And. I feel so bad for migrant rights

groups because at the beginning of Trudeau's reign, he promised them status for all. He

promised that he would roll out that and he did for some groups, there were some gains

made and then there was just this shift. And it was step back, step back, scapegoating them

for housing, this, that and the other thing. And it's just been a completely different story

for migrants in Canada. And that's just part of that bill. Yeah, no, I mean, you're totally

right about this, Jessa. One thing I maybe wanted to pick up on was how this is sort of a continuation

of sort of the, you know, the tail end of Trudeau's time as prime minister, Trudeau's government,

you know, this noticeable kind of shift in the attitude toward migrants. mean, let's not forget,

I mean, during COVID, you know, when we needed migrant workers, we allowed international students

and others to you know, to work longer hours, right? So I mean, the, you know, the basis

of the Canadian economy, the fundamental sectors, think of food services, think of trucking,

you know, know, meatpacking, all this kind of stuff, industrial work. All of this is,

you know, done by migrant labor of one sort or another. I can't forget food production

as well, right? Agricultural goods, et cetera. You know, coming back to how this is sort of

a continuation of the Trudeau legacy. I would say it is, and it's also not, right? Because

on one side, it is sort of continuing the legacy of turning against migrants for a country that,

know, boasts its, you know, migration and multicultural credentials. But it's also, I would say,

different in the sense that this is really, you know, a reaction to, again, the Trump

regime. Whereas Trudeau's, right, was a You know, in the dying days of the Trudeau liberal

government where the liberals were polling very low and the conservatives were gaining ground

on questions of immigration. I mean, you saw this also on social media. A lot of the proliferation

of a lot more anti immigrant, you know, anti South Asian as well kind of sentiment. The

conservatives were capitalizing on this. You know, the liberals under Trudeau thought they

could undercut the conservatives, you know, by by repositioning. I'm sure there were economic

considerations as well that drove that policy forward. This is really a huge step backward,

backward, backward. mean, a huge step backward in terms of what I'm trying to say is that

it's a big step from Trudeau's immigration policy cracking down a lot harder. And I think

the move here really is to, again, capitulate to the US to protect to shield, know, quote

unquote Canadian interests to some extent, read, you know, Canadian capital, you know, to shield

them to some extent, you know, by capitulating. You've definitely got a point. Like it's definitely

hit a different speed and a different tone. And Carney set that tone. Like Trudeau did

it with a smiling face and did try to pretend it was solely about fentanyl. But we also have

to remember that Trump isn't the beginning of the anti-migrant. uh, you know, the detention,

the deportations either these were pressures the U S had been leaning on us probably for

some time. And it's not just led to us spending a lot of money at the border, which Trudeau,

uh, made sure that we were, we were promised to do on top of that, we're leasing us blackhawk

helicopters to do it. So we're just like, it's, they are very intertwined. You'll know this

when you cross the border. especially at an airport, right? We've got US customs here at

our airports and the way border services work together, which kind of ties into the rest

of this bill, is very tied with US, right? Like these agencies work very closely together

for years. So I love this. At the same time, he's trying to pretend that we've got to do

everything possible. strip everyone's rights to protect ourselves from the US. But at the

same time, when it comes to our border or the military spending, it's just like, we're good.

It's like there's no threat at all to do this, to have our border services intertwined like

that, and to give the US even more power to intrude on Canadian rights. Right? Like the

second part of this bill is its surveillance. And it gives enhanced powers to CCIS, to the

folks that check the mail when it comes across the border and telecom companies. To the

police as well. Yeah. Like it gives US companies the ability to make requests of service providers

here in Canada that essentially give them warrantless access to whose databases we're on and who

knows what else. Right. At this point in the bill, what the bill seems to be suggesting

is It's going to give Canadian law enforcement that power, at least at this point, as it

stands, it leaves the door open for data sharing and things like that with the U.S. So, you

know, at least at this point, it seems like that's not in the bill, in the bill, but it

leaves the door open. that's sort of the point. does leave the door open, but it also includes

protection for service providers should they provide more than what they were mandated to

do. So it's almost like they've told These service providers like, you give the cops whatever

they ask for, you give too much, we won't ever punish you for that. Because obviously they've

been in negotiation with these telecom companies, right? What they're capable of doing and whatnot.

So they'll hand over your whole file. The way that this is different from the Trudeau era

is that it is sort of reacting to the Trump regime in a way that it's trying to harmonize,

you know, because borders and immigration and so-called crime is such a big deal to In trade

negotiations, et cetera, this is something seen by the Carney government as something

to move on, to come to a better agreement, one of Canada's, I guess, negotiating chips.

But the move here is really to integrate or at least it seems to be to integrate our

sort of immigration law enforcement systems such that, you if the US was once talking

about annexing Canada, right, and, you know, taking over Canadian sovereignty, you know,

provisions for greater surveillance in this bill really sort of moves in that same direction,

at least in terms of information sovereignty, right, data sovereignty. It leaves the door

open for the US to effectively have some level of sovereignty over Canadian residents' data.

So much for elbows up, right? And standing up to the US. And securing our sovereignty.

That was a word thrown around a whole lot, even when they were giving land acknowledgments.

He's a complete contradiction, Kearney. Although... he did spell it out, the narratives he's using

to justify all of this, flip from one end to the other. There's no consistency, but there's

also not a lot of pushback going like, that's a thing when you allow a party to get a new

leader too. And then everyone tried so hard to get them elected. So there's gotta be this

kind of grace period that not only do they give new leaders just to see how it all shapes out,

like give them the benefit of the doubt, but it's also for their. saving face as well. Like

how fast can you then turn around and start complaining about the man you told your neighbors

to all go vote for? Right? So yeah, there's this deep, deep contradictions that just seem

so obvious to everybody who's paying attention. Um, but that's the key word, like who's paying

attention. Bill C2 did though mobilize a lot of people. I'm looking at a letter here signed

by acknowledging that 300 different organizations demanded a complete withdrawal of Bill C-2.

And it's a who's who of migrant rights, civil liberties groups, labor organizations. Obviously,

I can't read them all, but I'll link that letter from OpenMedia.org. it's incredible that

it was the very first bill, but probably the least amount of controversy over. I think

a lot of people are talking more about NATO and the promised military spending perhaps

than they are the actual bills that have been passed. And you kind of mentioned it earlier,

but it's hard when there's legislation like this and he's going to reign this way because

although, you know, seven seats is not a lot for the NDP and you do have the block there.

This is legislation that the majority of MPs will just be gleeful to pass and challenging

through the electoral system, think is going to be a bit of a lost cause for people under

Carney's reign. I mean, everything we've talked about requires a lot of spending. These infrastructure

projects and the surveillance and border security and we're going to get into military

spending, all of this is going to lead to massive austerity as well. I like that wasn't in our

summary of points to get to, but I think it's an important to note that even, you know,

your parliamentary budget officer has come out and said like, whoa, you're going to have

to have massive cuts to the public sector in order to accomplish this. And sure enough.

You know, Carney has issued orders that we saw Rob Ford give really go to every single department

except for the DND, right? Except for the military and say, cut 10 to 15 % of your budget. I don't

give a shit where you get it. I don't care what the social impact is. I don't care. Just you

cut that budget because we've got to spend on war and tax cuts, but a lot on war. think.

You safe to go into that one now? Yeah, no, I was going to say that. mean, that that transitions

quite well into, you know, this, you know, commitment made by Canada and all NATO members at the

recent NATO summit that happened last month at the end of June, where members committed

to military spending of five percent of GDP annually, you know, by 2035 in Canada's case.

So. I just to give it's it's yeah, it's insane. Just to give some context, right. The the

target, you know, for the past, you know, I think it's been several decades is to to

get to 2 % of GDP. All NATO members should be spending 2 % of their GDP on so-called defense.

Military spending is, you know, better better put. Canada has never attained that 2%. mostly

because previous governments have known that it would be suicide to do that. You'd have

to cut from elsewhere. And who knows what that might trigger in terms of public reaction,

that kind of thing. far, I I should say, even Stephen Harper's government is on the

record saying that's not possible. We're not going to be able to do that. So far, I mean,

think in recent years, it's been at about 1.4 something, 1.45 % of GDP, Canadian GDP is on

military spending. Trudeau was pushed on this, I forget how long it was ago, several years

ago, when he went to the White House to meet Trump to bring it up to 2%. Now they're talking

about 5 % and that would come to $150 billion. in military spending per year. That's what

that translates to. 5 % of GDP is $150 billion in military spending. Let's put that in context.

I think there was so much outcry about a couple of years ago about the Trudeau government purchasing

the Trans Mountain pipeline. I believe if I'm not wrong, I might be getting this wrong. The

price of the pipeline at that time was, I'm remembering it was either 4 billion or 7 billion.

Either way now today, I know that you know as as the costs have added up That pipeline

is sits at about 34 billion dollars. Okay, so that you know, that was outrageous change

now. Yeah, that's right I mean that was outrageous to people rightfully so back then I mean this

is we're talking about you know, like what this is for the three Three four more than

four times that amount 150 billion dollars per year. Anyway, I could go on but But yeah,

that's, that's insane. Well, I mean, we will let you go on. want to go back to that 2%.

Um, and the fact that we hadn't met those commitments. And obviously I'm going to work in a way to

shit on the NDP. I'm sorry if you don't allow swearing on your show. No, no, it's all good.

I do. But I had Yves Engler on and this was one of his sticking points. You know, the fact

that there's nobody even challenging that narrative at all. Although you say most people are under

the assumption or the knowledge that it's political suicide, no good for the economy, massive

austerity would be required. That's really not what the NDP said when Carney starts talking

about 5%. What did they say? They chastised the cons and the liberals for never making

the 2 % commitment for failing to meet previous commitments. doesn't even close to challenging

the concept of NATO. I don't know if we have time to unpack that. Maybe you do. Maybe you

could fire through like, forget like whether or not we could afford it. The whole concept

of NATO is a problem. But like, even if you shelf that, even if you shelf that, you have

the most progressive political option out there going, well, you should have spent two years

if you had to spend 2 % every year for the last 25 years, we wouldn't be at this shortfall.

And it's like, oh, good. Well, NATO would be really robust, but our social services would

be gone. That just doesn't even come out of them anymore. So that pissed me off. And I

thought it was worth noting because we talk about resistance to all of these things. And

none of it is coming out of the legislature, really. You talk about the bandermine, the

conservatives by... you we did this first, now you'll never be able to take credit for

it and Lord knows what your next campaign is going to ask for that we haven't given you

already. But at the same time, like we don't really have anybody challenging it on the other

side either. it, that, that, becomes troubling. And that 150 billion that Ashwin quoted per

year is not even close to the total. military spending Kearney has either promised or suggested

is a possibility. Right? So he is giving the US and I feel like with my kids if I say maybe

they know it's a yes because you don't say maybe and then say no I feel that's mean. It's like

I'm going to just tease you with it so my son will even be like oh I know that's a yes and

I'm like damn I buy myself some time. I buy myself some time and that's all that it is

so when Kearney says that his participation in the Golden Dome, which is a think of the

Iron Dome for Israel. If I have to explain that to you, you're on the wrong show. you know,

but for the US and again, we're talking about Arctic sovereignty as well. This is a big protection

from Russia and China, and it's going to cost billions upon billions. He says that's a possibility.

We might get into that. That means he is he's already committed to rearm Europe plan. And

then you have to, he spent six billion before he even had the election too, right? Before

he was our legitimate prime minister. I love feeding into those con points a little bit.

But he spent $6 billion on radar systems for the Arctic. So this man is just throwing money

at war, weapons, surveillance, radars, missiles. And that is your that's your liberals. I think

that's what's the most scary. Like people are like, oh, this can't be bad. It's the liberals.

But like, no, that's how bad Canadian politics has gotten. These are your liberals doing this.

I don't how can we imagine what would be worse from the cons? I really don't understand. Now

I'm scared. Like when the cons come in, do they feel like they've got to outdo this guy? I'm

sure. No. We'll build the Golden Dome ourselves, you know, make it in Canada. And then that'll

be At least the F-35s, that was Jagmeet's solution, The F-35s, no, we shouldn't be buying American

F-35s. We'll build our own. Yeah, no, I mean, you know, your point about, where do the

conservatives then go from here? I think that's sort of the point, right? The liberals are

sort of simultaneously, I mean, they're seizing on this moment to outdo their opposition, to

undercut them, right? I mean, they, you know, If the liberals become the conservatives

and still maintain the aesthetic signifiers of what it means to be a liberal, you take

away the conservatives ammunition, right? And they have less sort of political clout to run

on. In terms of the Golden Dome, mean, you know, how's the Iron Dome going for Israel?

Did it protect Israel against, you know, missile barrages from Iran? Last I checked,

he still had Israelis running into their bunkers, getting hit, all this kind of stuff. the

Golden Doh, I mean, there's too much to say there. It makes sense if you know who's there

to make money off it. no, exactly. The folks behind it are Peter Thiel and he's connected

to Carney. And I think we'll just have to have Ashley on to come and explain all of those

connections. But it's a banker making his banker buddies a lot of money. One note that I did

want to add that helps kind of make sense of some of these connections, like why are we

elbows up but then giving the US military money or the companies that make their weapons money?

Carney spent a lot of his time convincing Canadian pensions to heavily invest in the US weapons

manufacturing industry. so, yes, although that is good for the Canadian economy because our

pensions are well-funded, because they're war hawks and they're always at war. Obviously

we understand the problem with that, right? So again, a banker with banker's interests,

we don't know what he's invested in. Pierre always has me feeding into his lines like that,

but it's true, right? Like he has fiscal interests that aren't yours, that won't make sense, like,

or to your parents, like they're like, why would they do that? Like, why would they do that?

That can't be good for us. Like, no, but they don't act in your best interest, right? I

don't know, most people listening probably realize that, but I know you're talking to people that

were like, well, that just doesn't make any sense. You know, like why would Carney do that?

And there's lots of reasons. Yeah. mean, but yeah, the, whole golden dome thing. I mean,

you're so right. This is, think, I think this was, um, this was sort of pitched by Lockheed

Martin, uh, right. You know, the golden dome idea. mean, people talk about Indians and Nigerians

as being scammers, right. Known for scams, online scams, phone scams. The biggest scam

is Western civilization. have these people just, you know, it's making up things left, right

and center. It doesn't matter if you have the Atlantic Ocean on one side of your protected

continental island and the Pacific Ocean on the other side. You need a golden dome because

we need to make money off of it. Trust me, guys. Just trust me. It's crazy. It sounds cool,

right? Like people get sold on it. yeah, you build up that environment of fear too, where

we're constantly looking at each other sideways that feeds into folks thinking that's justified.

The whole Arctic threat though, they've been playing on that for quite some time, being

able to spend a lot of money up there, trying to protect it. Meanwhile, not even going into

discussions, legitimate discussions on indigenous sovereignty up there. That's always going

to be that contradiction, but that Russia red baiting China. constant threat, no matter

what, right, has us obviously looking in the wrong direction. Not to be a Putin stan, but

I mean, it just has us not looking at capital as the real threat. First and foremost, it's

always got to like, it's external. And that makes us come together as a family, as a nation,

yay, when there's an external threat, an other. And they just can't decide who that other

is, is the United States, sometimes, sometimes it's Russia, sometimes it's China. It's never

Israel. mean, so I mean, we've looked at, know, you know, how sort of insane of a plan this

is to get to 5 % of GDP on military spending. Let's maybe, you know, uncover a little bit

like why is this happening again, coming back to this thing about the paradigm shift, right?

You have, you know, NATO commitment spending 5 % on GDP, you know, Canada has to spend 5

% of GDP on military spending. have maybe the golden dome. I'd be surprised if it happens,

that you have Canada joining hands with Europe, signing strategic partnership agreements

in terms of defense, this kind of thing. What explains this? What is happening? You mentioned

Russia and China. mean, in Canada, that's used as the excuse to expand northward, to recolonize

the north, turn our military attention to the north. You know that as if Russia would ever

pose a threat to Canada and the United States, you know, these are not, you know, Russia

and China are non-military threats to the West. This is sort of a NATO talking point, right?

As if NATO is a defensive organization. That's the assumption in this, right? NATO is a defensive

organization. Russia and China are, you know, aggressors. You know, every as many have learned

during the genocide and Israel's behavior in the whole region, what is it? Every confession

isn't, no, every accusation is an admission or a confession, right? NATO here is the one

that's the offensive organization. It is not a defensive organization. If it was a defensive

organization, it would have disbanded when the Soviet Union, Collapsed. Okay. I mean, that's

now they're talking about forming an Asian NATO, you know, heading eastward to encircle

China anyway Russia Russia that's just a side note for now. Yeah, I mean, yeah, there would

be a lot to say on that but Russia and China are not military threats to to Canada and the

US and when we talk about military threats to Canada, we're largely, you know, that's

the question of threatening the US. mean, the US is, if Canada is attacked in any kind of

way, the US steps in. mean, no matter how much antagonism, you know, Carney and Trump pretend

to have against each other. But Russia and China, and especially China, are, you know,

economic threats to the West and to Canada. you know, so how should we see these sort

of increases in military spending, you know, this greater posture toward, you know, quote

unquote defense. It's because China and the global south are developing themselves, are

undergoing processes of economic development that pose a threat to the west, to the global

north. For centuries, the west has actively underdeveloped the rest of the world by extracting

resources, labor, and wealth from them. The west has only developed today. because it's

stole from the rest of the world and of course, indigenous peoples on this continent. Again,

coming back to the point about how Western civilization is really a scam. mean, they steal from you

and ask you why you're so poor, why you're underdeveloped. If you're indigenous, why are you so lazy?

Yeah, a lot to say there. But now that they're finally being challenged on the economic terrain,

China especially, on the part of the global south is really redirecting its wealth, not

outward toward the global north and to the west, but reinvesting that wealth into its own country

to pursue economic development. And if you look at any Chinese city, can see that this

is true. This threatens the west. if the west can't economically compete, which it won't,

right, because that involves cutting into their profits that involves potentially reinvesting

in research and development. They don't want to do that. Reinvesting in their people. heaven

forbid. They don't want to do that. What they're good at, what they've been good at is violence,

is military coercion. And it also so happens that the war economy is profitable. So naturally,

the easiest thing to do is to pour more money into the military, into so-called defense.

to be offensive and to act as, you know, to act to deter these powers. think in an article

that I was reading, it was exactly those words that Mark Carney had used at the NATO summit,

you know, in describing these spending increases that these increases in spending will act

as deterrence against so-called aggressors, Russia and China. So that's really what explains

this. Aggressors. I should maybe shout out the hyper-imperialism dossier that was put

out by the Tri-Continental Institute for Social Research. mean, this is really, they've looked

into this, they've looked into the numbers. know, a lot of this is their argument about

how when the West cannot compete economically with China, what do you turn to? You turn to

military solutions. And if you look at the history of the West, that's essentially what it is.

You lead with military coercion, with violent coercion. And then you economically subordinate

to the other. did that on this continent in North America. They have been doing that

around the world through colonialism, neocolonialism, et cetera. It's a scary thought to think like

that. That's what's motivating folks to spend, you know, our tax dollars on, especially when

we won't benefit from that competitive edge all that much. You know what I mean? And

all these solutions are always just an attack on somebody else's working class, right? Rather

than a lot of the solutions even that we suggested in response to the tariffs down South too,

we're just like damaging to workers down there and always lack this class analysis on it,

on what these bills mean and our reaction. like hearing you call China, I know you're

being facetious, obviously, the aggressor. While Trump talks about taking us over. And

I just wonder who that's selling with. Who is buying those lines? Like I'm appreciative

Ashwin's able to kind of explain why because there's people going like, why none of this

makes sense. Because I think they don't see Russia as an aggressor, not to them. I mean,

maybe to Ukraine, I can get people looking at that. But China... I think that's becoming

harder and harder for people to do, especially with the exposure that we can get now from

China and seeing how they live and what we've naturally been told. So it's easier to see

them as that economic threat as opposed to a military one. it's just, think, again, drives

home that point that Carney is really playing into US hegemony. U.S. capital needs. And

that goes the same with his foreign policy that we've seen him take in a very short time,

like three months, three plus months. He's been there and, you know, he's given us every

reason to believe he's going to be a war hawk himself or green light, any kind of military

intervention abroad. During the election, think Carney had, maybe not Carney himself, but the

liberals did a good job of trying to rebrand themselves on Palestine a little bit. They

had some MPs start to walk a little better of the line, still lacking, and they even

managed to get not endorsements, but some favor with folks for calling for a ceasefire. And

then when Carney was elected, Again, one of the first things he did besides Bill II was

sign a joint letter with Keir Starmer, of all people, the Prime Minister of the UK, and

Macron in France. It was a condemnation of Israel of sorts. mean, we could always write

a better one, right Ashwin? But it was a lot better than we had ever gotten from the Canadian

government. And it was with those two other global powers that had previously been so

horrible. on the point, like totally completely facilitating, including the use of military

jets. Like we all know that they're aiding in this genocide in more ways than one. So I've

heard that was like, you know, I talked to Alex Neve used to run Amnesty Canada and like human

rights activists in Palestinians, they saw that, oh, this is a much better position than we

ever got out of Trudeau. There's hope there. But then within three weeks, you know, they

watched them going into the G7 going, they going to say something? What are they going to say

about Palestine? Are they going to say something? Let's build on that letter." And they got

nothing. Crickets. But then it got worse. Like a week later, he sits down with Christiane

Amapour and he tells us that, yeah, yeah, he believes the Palestinians deserve their own

state as long as it's a Zionist one. And I think that was just like a real gut punch for people

who hadn't seen Carney for what he was at that point. And then it got worse. Like it

was Iran and Israel go back and forth and were like, surely, surely he's going to condemn

these attacks on Iranian infrastructure and leadership. And nope, just only condemned

Iran. then today, today he's asked or yesterday, July 16th, he's asked specifically about Israel

now bombing the hell out of Damascus, including shots right next to the presidential palace.

And he reiterates, asked Ashwin, what do you think he said? What do think he said? You know,

like which cookie cutter response did he come out with? And you were a little gracious Ashwin,

I'm outing you now. You're like, oh, it's going to be the, oh, I'm very concerned of the loss

of civilian life, but you know, something, something, something, not even that. It was like full

Zionist talking points. Israel has the right to defend itself. That was it. That's what

we're getting out of him. So I can't imagine a conservative PM being any worse on foreign

policy in this moment. Do you? I mean, I could get worse. have imaginations, but I think things

can in fact always get worse theoretically. But what I did want to come back to was the

whole thing about the Zionist Palestinian state or, you know, Karney calling for a Zionist

state of Palestine. I mean, think this is where it's important for folks to sort of understand

the strategy here and sort of the strategic desires of Global Affairs Canada, of the

Canadian government, of the PMO, right? When Karney signs a letter with the British government

and the French government, and calling for a ceasefire, these kinds of things, I think

it's important to not get disillusioned with the spirit of what those demands are. I

can see that those moves that might be perceived as more quote unquote positive can be totally

compatible with this statement of having a Zionist Palestinian state. idea of the two-state

solution in the first place, the implication was that the Palestinian state had to be a

Zionist state that would, you know, quote unquote, live in peace with Israel, et cetera, et

you know, affirm Israel's right to exist, et cetera, et cetera. But I mean, really the

move here is they're looking out for the strategic interest of Israel and the strategic interest

of the West and the connection between Israel and the West, right? You know, Let's have

some more aid in so that it doesn't get so bad for Israel so that public opinion doesn't turn

turn on Israel as much. know, the Zionist Palestinian state. Let's let's do that right now. I mean,

even I think there was talk in May of, you know, both the British and French governments

looking to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state diplomatically. Right. And I think Israel,

according to reports, you know, know, behind closed doors or really push back against that.

But I think the move there on the part of the British and French governments is, it's just

sort of preempt Israel and say, hey, you know, this is, it's either this or collapse. It's

either this or imminent collapse. And you sort of have to save yourself and you have to save

yourself for us as well. Right? Like this is, the question of Israel is not a question of

just Israel. It's a question of the collective West. coming back to, you know, the bottom

line here, when Carney talks about a ceasefire, when he talks about, you know, you know, we're

concerned about civilians in Gaza, when, you know, we need to let more aid in. And on

the other side of things, we need to have a Zionist Palestinian state. He's actually talking

about the same thing. These things are all needed in the view of the West collectively

so that Israel has, you know, know, legitimacy longer to survive. Yeah, legitimacy. Otherwise,

I mean, People have been doing some work on this, sort of tracking this, think of Shir

Hever, who's been on the electronic intifada, an Israeli political economist, looking at

how Israel, both economically and within the military apparatus itself, has been taking

hits. it's been attrition for them. So it's in the interest of the West to sort of keep

the buoyancy of Israel. If you know, even if it means a Palestinian state, which Israel,

especially under the current regime in Israel, would be completely opposed to. I read reports

this morning that Canada is almost openly working with UN members to thwart the establishment

of a Palestinian state. Because, you know, they'll tell us one thing and then do another

because right now a Palestinian state. wouldn't be defined as a Zionist state, right? Like

if they got to decide what their state looked like and had self-determination, chances are

it would not be a Zionist one. So yeah, that's a crafting that the West will have to do, right?

They're the only ones that can legitimately form new states, right, in the very specific

parameters they have set for them. Just like they did a hundred years ago with the British

mandate of Palestine and the formation of Israel, et cetera. And the foundation of Canada. People

often wonder why we're having such a bad take. It's an identity crisis for a lot of Canadians,

I think, who saw themselves as peacekeepers, right? They were still stuck on that imagery.

But you've helped explain, you know, just one of the angles, the foundation, really, but

monetary as well. Carney will look you in the face and say that we do have an arms embargo

with Israel. And meanwhile, the Maple reports that, well, actually, they're reporting on

a global affairs report. So this isn't like some independent investigation, like the government

also knows this is public information, but yet they'll still look at us and say, you know,

what do you want us to do? We cut off arms. Well, no Canadian companies just in 2024 alone

sold almost $20 million worth of weapons right to the IOF that we don't even know. how much

they sold to the United States with the explicit purpose of going directly to Israel. That's

a loophole that exists. We've talked about before, it's not ever going to be addressed by the

current government. They love that that loophole exists. But they did at least try to pretend

that they wouldn't put any permits through on Canadian companies and even that, they didn't

even bother stop. So, you we saw Carney confronted on the campaign and, you know, will you call

it a genocide? No, I won't call it a genocide. Will you stop selling arms to Israel? Oh,

we already did. And that that label of genocide that we refuse to give it as well, it just

speaks to our history, right? Like it helps explain like our history is very similar to

the establishment of Israel. And so every condemnation we make of them is an admission, right? Just

it works both ways that all these things that you know, from the apartheid conditions to

the ethnic cleansing, this is not anything that's unfamiliar. And in fact, still is the basis

of legitimacy for the Canadian government. so like geopolitical reasons, economic reasons,

and then just like domestic political reasons, or, you know, legitimacy reasons for for the

Canadian state itself. So We can understand from a financial perspective why they act like

they act, but when we've seen what we've seen, it's really hard to understand why, you know,

again, our bleeding heart liberals of Canada don't have a better position on this, but not

maybe when you unpack it. Hopefully the way that we're trying to unpack it for folks.

I do want to make note that because it really did piss me off and I could see caps locks

through my notes. So I got to just remind folks you've seen the videos, you've heard the noise.

$2.8 million worth of arms that I mentioned before were directly under the category of

aircraft and aerial drones. So Canadian companies are actively making the weapons that you see

the carnage unfold. And on top of that, right, we have a free trade agreement with Israel

still. Some people are like, what? And it's like, yeah, no, we still have. Forget sanctions.

We have a free trade agreement with Israel and that's something Carney won't address either.

So I Wanted to talk a little bit about the emergency conference on Palestine Are we good

to move to that? Yeah. Okay, Yeah, I wanted to talk about this because it's you know, not

been getting as much attention but in July 15th and 16th this year, which is yesterday and

the day before as of time of recording, an emergency conference on Palestine took place

in Bogota, Colombia, which basically convened the Hague group. This was organized by

what's known as the Hague group. This is a group of a number of countries, largely, almost

exclusively from the global south, just to name some. That includes Bolivia, Cuba, Colombia,

Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, St. Vincent and the Grenadines,

South Africa and others. I listed all of them because I think it's also important to sort

of to get a sense of who these countries are. Like, why are they there in the first place?

You can see a country like Malaysia has, you know, obviously a Muslim country, but throughout

this genocide, they've been, you know, the population has been extremely vocal on, you know, on

the issue of Palestine, you know, Malaysian government has been vocal on international

and diplomatic platforms about this. If I'm not wrong, I think a number of Western multinational

food brands like KFC, McDonald's, Starbucks may not be those ones exactly, in that kind

had to pull out of Malaysia or we're losing great amount of money because of boycotts

there. So that's just one example. can think of Cuba as having their own politics. They

bring to the question of Palestine, but This was an emergency conference on Palestine to

sort of end the impunity that Israel has been having to carry out this genocide in Gaza,

but also wreaking havoc across the region, being an aggressor and to uphold international

law. these countries, the Hague group, they've come out with six measures. concrete measures

that are going to be adopted by each of these countries in their own domestic legal and administrative

systems. I mean, and, you know, I'll go into what these six measures are. I would say, you

know, there are several reasons why we should pay attention to this one, because these six

measures are things that those of us on the left here in Canada can, you know, can pay

attention to and globally can pay attention to, to echo these demands to our governments,

right? This is happening on a diplomatic level. There are real countries in this real world

that have convened this real conference. It is possible. It is possible. And it is the

task of the left in that case to echo this, particularly because I've looked at Canadian

media, the CBC, CTV, Global, all of these. None of them have reported on this emergency

conference. And again, that sort of just speaks to how Western media more broadly has been

to say the least complicit in this genocide, right? And, you know, has the effect of sort

of obscuring measures that are being taken globally, right? To put an end to this and

to hold Israel and the US, particularly Israel to account for this. So yeah, I mean, this

is a model for us. I'll just go into some of the six measures. I think it's important to

read it out. So I will. One, these have been adopted and sorry, I should say, by the way,

They have extended this call to other countries to join as well. They've given the deadline

of 20th September this year. So, you know, around two months for other countries to join

in and to adopt this program as well. Another reason this is so significant is because, you

know, these are global South countries, right? These are small countries. Think of Namibia,

right? Again, the politics of Namibia coming to the table, they, I think it was last year,

you know, stood up to the Germans saying, you know, How dare you have anything to say about

the question of antisemitism or genocide when you are the ones that have committed the

genocide in Namibia erstwhile, German Southwest Africa, I believe, against the Nama and Herero

people, Millions of people killed by the Germans in that genocide. So that's the sort of attitude

that the Namibian government and the Namibian political class brings to a conference like

this. So this is a historic conference of the Gold South. Okay, I will now read the six measures

after long delay. One, to prevent the provision or transfer of arms, ammunition, military fuel,

related military equipment and dual use items to Israel. Two, prevent the transit docking

and servicing of vessels at any port, if applicable, within our territorial jurisdiction. Three,

prevent the carriage of arms, munitions, military fuel. related military equipment and dual use

items to Israel on vessels bearing our flag. Four, commence an urgent review of all public

contracts in order to prevent public institutions and public funds where applicable from supporting

Israel's illegal occupation of the Palestinian territory. Five, comply with our obligations

to ensure accountability for the most serious crimes under international law through robust,

impartial, and independent investigations and prosecutions at national or international levels.

Six, support universal jurisdiction mandates as and where applicable in our legal constitutional

frameworks and judiciaries to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future

crimes in the occupied Palestine territory. This is ultimately a legal approach, right?

An approach to international law that's being taken by diplomats from states from the global

south. This is not revolution. This is not going to stop the genocide tomorrow. Nonetheless,

this will go down in history as a step taken in favor of humanity at the global international

law level when many have abdicated their responsibility. There are also questions of power. How is

the global South going to stand up to these imperialists? right, conducting a genocide.

And how will they be punished? That's right. Yeah, exactly. That's right. And so even more,

you know, historic that these global south countries are coming together at a diplomatic

level level to to bring this forward. I just want to make note. You can go back and look

at the show notes and see we'll link this letter and these measures so you can reread them or

you can rewind and listen again. you know, measures one through three all talk about basically

preventing arms and goods going to Israel and although absolutely at a government level

this is their responsibility but it can be done without their help. Labour could do one

through three all by themselves. All by themselves. You wouldn't even need one non-unionized person

if you could just and port workers are notorious. It's not that unions aren't. Oakland is a

great example. They have been able to prevent or delay ships there through action. in Spain,

port workers have refused to load cargo going to Israel without the government having to

pass anything. you know, when we're talking about our approaches and the responsibilities

of the Canadian left, yes, we can go to Carney and ask him to do the right thing. But I think

we've given you ample evidence that he's not going to. Right. So like Some of these can

be accomplished through direct action and labor organizing. Another note, number five talks

about complying with our obligations of international law, even like on a domestic level. And people

are taking steps to again, make that happen kind of without the government's help. The

Maple has published a website that documents anybody living in Canada that has essentially

bragged about going over and being a part of the genocide, being part of the IOF. Ideally,

this database will be used down the road to persecute these folks. We do have it under

our laws, the ability to do that. I'm not for the law and order approach. However, you know,

people are taking steps to kind of do this on their own because they've lost hope in the

Canadian government doing some of these. then and then some of them, you absolutely need

the state's help or where it falls completely under their jurisdiction. One of the comments

I saw Most people are very excited by this letter. Like it's, shocking to see this many

countries take these measures. you know, one day, uh, we wish they had done it months ago.

There's always something like that could be better. But one of the comments that I thought

was somewhat justified, especially when we talk about the billions of dollars that Canada

will be spending on military, it would have nice to see a commitment to physically stopping

the genocide. Because we talk about like, let's say NATO is a defensive group. It's not right.

But if they are, why aren't they doing anything? Right. We know why we've unpacked it, why

it's not like actually a puzzle. But the idea that collectively across the globe, we spend

an unfathomable amount of money on weapons, preparing soldiers for this, that and the

other thing. And even doing military interventions when our economy can benefit from it. We have

no problem sending soldiers somewhere else and even defying international law and orders,

right? But even in this circumstances, all of this money that will be taken from the social

safety and not one of it will be put to protecting the people of Gaza or actually upholding international

law. I think so that is the biggest proof you need to like, will NATO do good things with

that money? No, they will not. They could have and they never did. They've had ample opportunity,

these states included. mean, I see Libya on there. I don't think they have a functioning

government at the moment. People might wonder why Yemen's not on there because Yemen's government

doesn't actually support Palestine. It's the Houthi rebels that do. Some of these nations

have other resources other than the more passive kind of actions that they are proposing, right?

It's like we will... not help them anymore, right? We won't make, we'll make sure weapons

don't get there. We'll make sure any criminals that do it, you know, only the last one talks

about preventing, but it's kind of reliant on universal, like international law and the global

community doing it first. And that's just not happening. So, um, I'm not a tanky. I don't

know. People might call me that or an Excel, but you know, at some point you have to wonder

like, why, why do you spend all that money then if it's not to stop a genocide? I the whole

premise of the UN was predicated and created on the fact that never again, right? Never

let a genocide happen again. So I don't understand how Canadians could greenlight this kind of

spending knowing when we had a chance to do the right thing, we did it. Yeah, we kind

of got sidetracked. It's not all about Carney, right? Like, although we can demonize and

that's the danger of leadership cults too, right? Like this episode will be labeled Carney who

might even use his imagery on the cover art, who knows, right? The idea that it's just

like him and his mission or Trump and his mission. That's not very helpful. I use that language

sometimes because it helps tell the story. the representatives, the representatives, people

kind of look at you funny when you say capital with a capital C, right? They're like, oh,

you're one of those, those commies. They everything's all business is bad. know, but that is the

reality, right? Like these are the plans that. predated both of those folks. know, at least

is going to face our ire. He is the representative of all of this. So I don't discourage people

from trying to hold them accountable and, you know, stopping Carney in his tracks if you

could. However, I think maybe using your energy towards enacting some of these measures,

whether you're talking about Palestine or you're talking about Indigenous sovereignty. I think

you're going to have to think a little bit out of the box to make sure that pipelines don't

go through land that it's not supposed to go through. I don't think a petition is going

to cut it. that note, Jess, I was thinking if we're thinking of closing out, I have a

question for you. Uh-oh. No, I just want to ask you, what do you think is sort of the through

line then, you know, between all of these things that we've discussed today? We discussed Bill

C5, Bill C2, you know, just, you know, to recap that's, you know, plowing through energy infrastructure

projects, cracking down at the border, enhancing surveillance, spending on military, continuing

to support the Israeli regime. What's the through line here? And then what are the tasks then?

What does our discussion today reveal about the tasks of the left in Canada at this juncture

where I argue there's a paradigm shift. Like, what are the tasks? are our tasks? think like

part of that paradigm shift that you talked about, we haven't used the word yet, is fascism.

I think capitalism, like, as I said, is not sustainable, and it's going through stages.

And we joked, but it is essentially the death throats of capitalism where they have been

forced to take all of their masks off. But unfortunately, that's also freed them up to do some really

shocking moves, right, that I think they wouldn't have gotten away with, say, eight years ago.

And it's a time to, you know, secure the states, its monopoly on the use of violence, those

that military spending, that border spending, that RCMP spending. It's not just for external

purposes either. Although we didn't talk about it, Carney was really eager to enact a federal

bubble law. And so I think the powers that be understand that there is discontent growing

amongst the masses and they're going to have to take steps to be a more strong armed version

of capitalism. And that will of course require mounting a defense against the people. So

they're doing it legally. That's the consolidation of power allows for that to happen a lot faster

and without recourse. or oversight. so it's also normalizing that, like normalize it against

migrants, normalize it at the border where we're all afraid, normalize it in foreign policy

where we don't really understand. And again, there's really bad actors out there that they

can kind of justify it with. But all of that will then be also applied to us when we

can't take that austerity that's coming, that hypercapitalism that's coming. The Fraser

Institute tries to, we kind of left that in our notes, but one of their concerns about

Bill 5 was that it does consolidate power in the cabinet, but how do we know they will take

capital's interests? You know, how do we know we should be central? Like they're saying it

out loud and clear that fine, you can consolidate power, but it should be with us. And Carney

believes that to be true. We know from the folks he hangs around with, with uh just what he

shared with us that he absolutely believes in scapegoating as a means to secure power

and and all the the other things um that go along with eventual fascism you know you you

most people will picture you know hitler as that figure but let's replace like that madman

figure with just like that more of a mr burns vibe right like it's it's Because you can't

really understand Hitler because it was so awful and it was just like, you know, the way that

we've learned that story. It's just, seems unfathomable. Same with the genocide in Gaza. Like if you

just try to understand it like that. But if you understand it as just like the consolidation

of wealth and the richer wanting to get richer, you can understand that. Right. I think people

get that and we're getting there, right? They can't possibly get away with what they're getting

away with anymore. And so we're coming up with this. Yeah, I don't know what the label will

be, but it's like strong arm capitalism. Like we've gone through vampire capitalism already,

but now it's, mean, when you get stronger capitalism, you really do by definition of almost have

fascism. Yes. very important point about how, you know, as this goes on, as the sort of decay

continues, they're going to have to, I mean, this is not the sixties anymore. You don't

have a post-war boom, you know, where you can give little treats here and there to the working

class in the global north and the west to buy them off. Wealth is being concentrated further

and further upward to the elites, to the 1%. There's less to go around for the working

class, for everyone else, migrants, indigenous nations. So naturally, what do you have to

resort to? You have to resort to more violence and the stability of the regime, the Canadian

regime, the American regime, all these regimes in the West is increasingly, as you're saying,

Jessa, going to be upheld through violence. see that violence and centralization, we see

that with Bill C-2, greater surveillance. This is important. It's not violence directly,

but it's part of that process of coercion. you know, to increase your leverage and

violence, you need to have something on them. And that's where, you know, data collection

and surveillance comes in, et cetera, et cetera. So that's one through line that I really appreciated.

The other thing I maybe want to highlight is, you know, this whole time we're talking about

indigenous nations and indigenous sovereignty. You know, when we talked about NATO, we were

talking about the imperialist sort of offensive against the rest of the world. under development

of the rest of the world and sort of now reacting to the global south trying to develop itself.

There's a direct connection, I should say, between Canada's need to continue to dispossess

Indigenous nations within the borders that Canada claims, including with this Bill C-5 trying

to override environmental regulations, override Indigenous sovereignty. trying to mine more

for critical minerals, all this kind of stuff on Indigenous land that's going to pollute

their land, pollute harm ecosystems. There's a connection between all of that on the harms

that Canadian capital causes to Indigenous nations. And then on the other hand, to the offensive

imperialist campaign that Canada and the rest of the West takes against the rest of the world.

I mean, after all, right? the connection between what you can call the third world or the

global south and indigenous nations quote unquote within Canada or at least within the borders

that Canada claims. This is a connection that goes back since the beginning of colonialism.

They expanded to the rest of the world, to the global south, they expanded to North America

and some of the other settler colonies, genocided the populations, et cetera. This contradiction,

this dynamic, this relationship between Indigenous nations here and the underdevelopment imposed

on the rest of the global south, that continues to be something that as capital looks for more

frontiers, they're going to push against those two frontiers as well. That's something I wanted

to highlight. The other thing I wanted to highlight, at least in terms of the tasks for the left

is, well, if this is a paradigm shift, it's not going to come without ruffling some feathers,

right? You know, Canada is a project that needs to be held together. This has always been the

case. I mean, as the Bloc Québécois leader said recently that Canada is an artificial

country with very little meaning held together by not so much something along those lines,

very good quote. you know, it might offend some people that Canada is not quote unquote

a real country. mean, but An important way to think about it is that it is a project,

right? It's a project that needs to be held together. It has always been so. States craft,

right? That's right. That's right. know, this is not the nation state model that, you know,

evolved in Europe where, you know, the French people of France get a French nation and a

French state and the English, etc. That doesn't quite apply to Canada or the United States.

So it needs to be held together. And, you know, they've Even if you go back, recently learned

that Engels, think Frederick Engels had visited North America at around the 1900s or just before

that. he wrote something where it was like, surely Canada is going to eventually be absorbed

into the United States, which I found hilarious. mean, but that just shows how long that contradiction

between Canada and the US has been and how Canada has sort of been trying to resist. you

know, factionalizing and break up and to hold these things together. Quebec, now you have

Alberta. Do we not think this move by the Carney government to bolster sort of energy capital

in particular or oil and gas capital in particular has nothing to do with, you know, the rising

sort of sovereignist sentiment in Alberta. This is an attempt to hold things together,

right? So I think this is a very useful way to view things because it also shows where

things can be pushed, right? Where left movements and others in coalition can push, right?

Do we think that greater energy and infrastructure projects getting quote unquote product to market

is not going to ruffle feathers in Quebec? There's a long talk of the energy east pipeline that

would send some kind of fossil fuel, I forget what it was, from Alberta, from the West.

through Quebec and to, you know, out east to the Atlantic, you know, to export to new

markets. Quebec was heavily opposed to that and it never happened. You know, this is,

you know, so, and of course on the part of indigenous nations, it's, you know, great

to see that there are already nine First Nations in Ontario, or, you know, that are asking

for, you know, these new bills, especially particularly Bill C-5 and Bill 5 at the provincial

level to be declared unconstitutional. This is something that's going to continue. And

the task of the left, at least in my humble view, is to get on board with this, to identify

the shifts that are taking place and to respond to them. View Canada as a project that is not

this absolute thing. It is contingent. It is contingent on being held together by different

forces and those forces can be disrupted, as Jessi would say. Well, because some people

listening might think, know, pragmatically speaking, holding the country together is a good thing.

Right. Like, I feel like that's another episode altogether on why, why that shouldn't, why

states craft is a bad thing. Why nation building, for the most part, is detrimental to the

working class. But some people don't see it that way, right? Still, right? Like that is

important to the economy, for our sovereignty. If we all start infighting, we'll lose ourselves

to the United States. But when you look at it, absolutely it's going to ruffle feathers.

I think it's a cost balance sheet for them, right? What feathers can they handle? What

can they legislate away? What protests can they just subdue? I think that the purpose of the

left now or the task of the left, one of them, is to back Indigenous sovereignty, be there

for land offenders, make sure these legal challenges are highlighted and supported, but also like

support land back, support Indigenous sovereignty. We have almost lost at the electoral level.

there's really no strong voice there or strong motion that's going to happen. Like no politician

will save us from the resource extraction that's going to be mobilized. And we can't just leave

it to land defenders as we always do, who are protecting our waterways and our land, right?

And the land we all depend on. So support Indigenous movements. that's not already part of your

organizing, all you Marxist groups out there, if you're not addressing land backer Indigenous

sovereignty, you are missing a massive tool in the chest of preventing capital from doing

whatever they want to do. And the other thing is to diversify your tactics. You already

hearing me over and over encouraging you to spend less energy in the electoral sphere.

Everyone has a different role to play and some will take more risks than others. And like

that's not for judgment. Everyone's in a different position to play that different role. And that's

okay. There's lots of mutual aid behind the barricades. You know what I mean? Like it's

not just about being violent or, you know, physically standing up to the iron fist of fascism, but

for some it will be. And I think you have to, those who that is uncomfortable with. folks

who are preaching nonviolence, you know, no matter what, that can be your strategy. I get

that. And like, we can have an argument about the effectiveness of that and that that's

fine. But, you know, you're going to have to leave space for the anarchists. I think we

need to grow a little bit more in what our ideas of the right way to resist. There's going

to be a lot of people resisting in different ways and like not to condemn anybody to understand

that. no matter what stage we go through, whether it's like hyper-capitalism completely unchecked

or revolution, both will be very difficult. Neither of them are going to be good times.

I hate to say that, right? But that's why we build up the networks of mutual aid and

support at the same time that we fight the resistance so that we can kind of like... carry each other

through that really difficult period. And at the same time, all of those networks we're

creating, they will be like the birthplaces of something new, right? Because we've learned

how to do it better and cooperate on more effective levels and take care of one another outside

of the capitalist system and all of that. So, you know, it's a mix of getting ready for the

ugly, both physically, like materially and mentally. And that could be hard because it already feels

like shit. A lot of people are already in a dark place, we're witnessing a genocide, we're

broke, politics suck, COVID exists, and we're overwhelmed. So the idea of pushing it to a

point where it might get worse before it gets better is really hard for people to grasp.

But either way, it's going to get more difficult, right? It's just like where you're going to

choose to put your energy and your support. I think this was a helpful discussion. I think

not only did we highlight some of the things that people might be missing about what Carney's

doing, but we offered alternatives as well. It's not like we're saying that the threat

of Trump's tariffs don't exist or all these other situations don't exist for Carney to

be able to respond to, but we're telling you he is responding in all the wrong ways, ways

that build up our so-called enemies. placate, not just to Trump, right, we've put a name

and a face to it, but to capital in general. And again, I'm at a loss as to explain why

anybody can possibly be surprised why Carney would do that other than maybe they fell for

his biography. I think if anybody read the book, it was like drinking the Kool-Aid. I mean,

I think now maybe they stepped away and people can look back and see this and going, Oh,

you know, we kind of stepped in it and I mean, to be fair, they didn't really have any other

choice. It's not like I'm blaming people for choosing Carney over Pierre Poliev. Like,

no, no, no, don't. I'm not cheering for conservatives, but it really bothered just how gleeful everybody

was about it. And I just wanted to steal a little bit of that joy that you might have

had that we didn't win that election. There's still a lot of work to do and we really can't

wait to do it. Nice. think as you would say, Jessa. That's a wrap on Blueprints of Disruption

and the International Solidarity Pod. So reach out to us and let us know what or who

we should be amplifying. So until next time, keep disrupting.