Page 2 of 75

Another Example of Why Candidate Vetting Matters

As someone who was blessed to work on Parliament Hill for close to a decade, there are certain things that I have come to appreciate over time that I might not have otherwise. There are things that, back when I was a volunteer working campaigns before working on the Hill, that used to rub me the wrong way and that I thought should be changed. But when I came to work on the Hill, I came to get a whole new appreciation for their utility and importance.

One of those things comes back to how parties choose candidates and the process of vetting a candidate. This is one of those things that is a hobby horse for some and is something that will likely come up at both the NDP and Liberals conventions coming up over the next couple of weeks. Some believe that the central party shouldn’t have a say in who a local riding association elects to be their candidate or that a party has ulterior motives for vetting a candidate. Some say that this is a way to get their preferred candidates and such.

Those are arguments that can be persuasive to some, but they overlook a lot. Namely the fact that not all candidates are upfront or honest about their past, while others forget or overlook things, they have done in the past that could be problematic. Those things then come up, usually at the worst possible time, and hurt not only that candidate, but every other candidate running under that party banner. That’s a lot to be riding on such things, which is why it’s so important.

If you want a real world, current day example of why this is so important, you can look North to the territorial election that’s going on in Yukon right now. It’s a tight race and the sitting Liberal government there is trying to get re-elected. Any mistake or oversight at this point could really hurt their chances to winning. And just like clockwork, a clear vetting fail has now jumped up, which is putting outgoing Minister of Highways and Public Works, Minister of the Public Service Commission and MLA for Whitehorse West Richard Mostyn into a spotlight I’m sure they don’t want right now. A spotlight that brought forward this column from the Yukon News, and some disturbing commentary in it:

That piece by Mostyn was published back in July of 2010, and is still sitting out there on the Yukon News website as of my writing this. In this column, he compares “Big Oil” and “Big Native” (whatever the offensive Hell that’s supposed to mean), and basically pustulates through a series of offensive thoughts that while “society loves to challenge the motives and methods of “Big Oil””, it “doesn’t do a good job challenging “Big Native.”” Yeah, he actually wrote a whole piece on that. And not a century ago, but in 2010. Through out the piece Mostyn keeps alluding to Indigenous peoples exercising their Indigenous rights in their own territories as “the dontworryaboutit defence”, as if there is something wrong with these Indigenous peoples exercising their rights and culture. It doesn’t take a lot to see how this whole piece is offensive and worse.

So when it came time for someone like Mr. Mostyn to approach the Yukon Liberal Party to run for them in Whitehorse West, you’d think that this was something they’d want to know. You’d think that they’d want to know of they were associating with someone who expressed such views in public, in print. You’d think that those who were already sitting Yukon Liberal MLA’s or were looking to run for the Yukon Liberals would want to know this too, because who would want to be associated with such offensive words? Is it fair to those innocent other candidates to be facing what all those Yukon Liberal candidates will face in the days to come because this was overlooked? Heck, given that Mostyn sat in cabinet, you have to wonder how such views might have affected him in his duties as a Minister of the Crown.

The bigger point here is that this failure to properly vet this candidate has rightfully opened up a long series of important questions that the Yukon Liberals now have to answer for. In such a tight race, this is the kind of thing that could tip a seat (or more) one way or another and could mean the difference between being in government or not. With stakes that important, surely that would merit a simple, professional vetting, right? That’s something that the vast majority of riding associations simply don’t have the capacity to do, which is why a central party takes it on.

And that is where my mind has come around on this topic. As someone whose run or worked on too many campaigns, I’ve seen too many candidates and lost too much valuable campaign time having to speak to the actions or words of some random candidate from a no-hope riding instead of the issues that matter. I’ve seen too many chances at making real progress for Canadians who need it get sidelined because a good vet of a candidate didn’t get done. Doing that important bit of hard work up front will save a party, it’s candidates and the important issues that they care about most a world of problems later.

So when those suggest that central parties should have the power to vet candidates and that everything should rest with the riding association, I’ll happily present the latest example of what a failure to vet looks like. Today it’s Mr. Mostyn, tomorrow there will be another, and so on. Running for a party is not running on your own. As soon as you sign up with a party to run for, you have joined a team, for better or worse. And as soon as you do that, you have a responsibility to those on your team that you are seeking to run with. Some may not like that, but that’s the truth. And I don’t believe it’s fair to all those other members of the team to see their campaigns and the issues they care so deeply about get sidetracked because of the past actions or words of others. I feel safe in saying that a lot of the Yukon Liberal candidates are saying that to themselves today, as they wish in this moment their party had done a better job in vetting this one candidate in particular.

Talking the Third Wave of COVID-19 with Kristy Cameron

Yesterday I joined Kristy Cameron on CFRA’s “Ottawa Now” along with Lindsay Maskell & Jason Lietaer for the “Political Heat” panel. We talked about the latest on the third wave of COVID-19, the lack of action taken by the provinces to get this under control, the scenes of people out at malls and Ikea, governments seeming unwillingness to learn from the year of lessons that we have gotten, how political thinking is not helping matters and why it’s so important to get this right. You can listen starting at the 12:30 minute mark.

Talking the Third Wave of COVID-19 & Mark Carney on “The Arlene Bynon Show”

This morning I joined Arlene Bynon on “The Arlene Bynon Show” on Sirius XM’s Canada Talks 167, along with Lisa Kirbie. We discussed the Third Wave of COVID-19 hitting across Canada, how governments across the board have fallen short and fallen down on the job, the apparent refusal to listen from the lessons of the past, the continued repeating of the mistakes from the first two waves, why all Canadians should be expecting better, Mark Carney to speak at the virtual Liberal convention this month and what might this mean about his future in the political arena. You can listen to it all below.

A Year-Round Fools Speaks Again

It’s April Fools Day and in normal times it’s one of those days that I usually look forward to. The jokes and pranks and the social media hits and complete misses. They are all things that can bring a big smile to the face if done right, or leave us shaking our heads in disbelief if they miss the mark. It can be one of the lighter days on the calendar and when it goes right, can be a great pick me up coming out of the cold, long winter.

So naturally on this day or the night before the antennae go up and start to watch for these pranks to come. Volkswagen US pulled a cute prank of its own a few days ahead of the date, so of course in this year of COVID and everything else, it would make some sense that those antennas would need to go up sooner than later. But sometimes things come across your social media feed that leave you gob smacked at this time of year not because it’s a joke. No, sometimes it’s because the person is being totally serious in what they’re saying and, in the process, looks like a complete fool in the process. This year our prime example of this truest April Fool is delivered by Fox News out of the US and none other than host Tucker Carlson:

Normally I would rarely if ever link to a Fox News piece on this blog, but I made a clear exception in this case because of the absurdity of that clip. Remember, that video is coming from the host of a nightly show whose own network has said in court is full of crap. Back in the Fall, lawyers for Fox News actually argued this before a court, using the following argument:

“The “‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’ “

Source: NPR

Yes folks, Fox’s own lawyers admitted in court, while trying to defend Carlson against accusations of slander. And guess what folks? It worked! Yeah everyone, the jokes keep on coming here because here is what U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil wrote in her opinion on this:

“”Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes… Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as ‘exaggeration,’ ‘non-literal commentary,’ or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable.”

Source: NPR

In most normal places or at any real news network, if one of your lead hosts was so bad that “any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes”, his or her rear end would be gone. Period. Yet that’s not the case when it comes to Tucker Carlson. He just keeps going on bringing Americans “exaggerations” like that piece above from last night.

Of course, a serious journalist would have done some basic homework, like a Google search, to see what this was all about. No instead he breaks off the nob on the exaggeration calling the use of hotels to quarantine travelers returning to the country for three days “internment camps”. He expresses “shock” that this has been going on for a month and that no other American network has pointed this out, that the US State Department hasn’t said a peep, as if somehow their silence was a signal of something “bigger” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). He calls this all a “flagrant abuse of human rights”. He does this all with no apparent sarcasm or self-awareness, as he rages on with lies and inuendo, while describing the actions of Canada in enforcing public health measures as the end of the world. He even compared Justin Trudeau of former Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini.

It was all so over the top that if you mistook it for fake or for a piece of well written performance art, you couldn’t have been blamed for it. But folks, this idiot is serious, deadly serious. And millions of Americans watch him religiously every bloody night. That’s not a bug of the American system these days, oh no that’s a feature.

But again, to drive home this point, there is an actual, legit reason why other American networks, or the US State Department, haven’t beaten Carlson to this punch. That’s because Carlson is completely full of BS. Don’t believe me, ask his own networks lawyers. Also, some basic research shows just how much BS Carlson is really full of. If you took Carlson at his word, you’d think he’d be calling out all American companies that might have been involved in this. I mean look at the lists of approved hotels used for the quarantines: it’s filled with Sheratons, Hiltons, Marriotts, Holiday Inns and more American hotel chains. You’d think that if that if what Carlson said was really happening that they would want nothing to do with it.

But of course that’s not what’s happening here. What “internment camp” system in the history of the World has ever had an exemption list that would excuse people from attending them? That’s right, they wouldn’t. They surely wouldn’t post them and all the information about this on a public website where everyone on Earth could see it with a quick Google Search. When regimes abuse human rights and lock up people en masse in “internment camps”, there are no exemptions, no exceptions and no mercy. You know, like when the Trump administration separated families at the Mexican boarder and locked children in cages. But of course Carlson and his Fox News colleagues didn’t jump to that conclusion back then. Oh no, they cheered it on while some on their shows even called it like “summer camp”.

I could spend all day debunking this crap from Carlson on that crazy screed but let’s get back to the nub this story that highlights the problem. Carlson is full of crap, period, full stop. Did the quarantine hotel set up go off without a hitch? No. Were there problems, including some cases of sexual assault? Yes. Does the Trudeau government need to do a better job with this and fix the issues? Absolutely. But does any of that actually come within a million miles of rising to the example of “internment camps”? Hell to the no.

There are very serious historical connotations that come with using such terms, which is part of the reason why serious people just don’t throw those words around. That’s why when you see covidiots and anti-maskers throwing terms like that around, we rightfully ignore them. That’s why wen you see hyper-partisan mouthpieces like Carlson throwing around such comparison we treat them with such distain, or as Fox’s lawyer put it, “with an appropriate amount of skepticism”. They are not only trying to score the cheapest of political points against either politicians or ideological views they disagree with, but they are also doing so while denigrating those who have actually suffered under such policies. It’s among the most selfish and abhorrent behaviours in our current politics, and it needs to go away fast.

On this day when some people decide to act like a fool for a joke, there are others like Carlson who live their lives as a fool every day, 24/7, 365. They act like an idiot, preying on people who either want to believe the worst of the other or those they disagree with. I am no fan of Justin Trudeau and I would never vote for him, but to literally compare him to Benito Mussolini? Come on now, that’s not only an insane comparison, but that’s also an insult to the memories of those who died because of Mussolini and his reign of terror over Italy. Only a truly callous and selfish fool would utter such words on national television and think that’s alright.

Carlson isn’t just a fool one day of the year, this is just who he is. He has clearly embraced the lifestyle of a fool and should probably have a “Fool Life” tattoo somewhere on his privileged body. But the problem with this fool is that people listen to him. While Fox News’ lawyers might have been able to convince a judge that “reasonable viewers” wouldn’t take him at his words, the evidence shows otherwise. When you look at his following, including in the halls of the United States Capitol, that would show that either he has convinced a lot of “reasonable” people that he’s telling the truth or that he’s attracted a lot of “unreasonable” people. I’ll leave that for others to decide but if this idiotic episode reminds us of anything, it’s why we constantly have to pay attention to what’s happening with our erratic neighbours to our South. Because when their village idiot decides to act as he is, it can have an effect on us, even when we are trying to do something as simple as get people to follow basic public health measures in the middle of a global pandemic.

Talking the Latest on the COVID Vaccination Rollout with Kristy Cameron

Yesterday I joined Kristy Cameron on CFRA’s “Ottawa Now” along with Lindsay Maskell & Jason Lietaer for the “Political Heat” panel. We talked about the latest on the rollout of COVID-19 Vaccinations, the new rules on the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine, what should people think of the changing rules, the confusion created in Ontario by the lacking communications from the Ford Government, how Premier Ford made that communications worse with his flippant comments yesterday and more. You can listen starting at the 17:00 minute mark.

Talking the State of COVID Vaccinations on “The Arlene Bynon Show”

This morning I joined Arlene Bynon on “The Arlene Bynon Show” on Sirius XM’s Canada Talks 167, along with Lisa Kirbie. We discussed the state of COVID-19 Vaccinations across Canada, Ontario Premier Ford attacking the Federal government over vaccine deliveries while he has plenty sitting in the freezers, if we can expect more political attacks all around during the vaccination period and as we approach an election, what Thursdays Supreme Court ruling on the Carbon Tax might mean to the balance of federal and provincial powers and more. You can listen to it all below.

A Pox On All Their Houses

In the life of any Parliament, there are high points and low points of varying degrees. There are times when a party will take one position and then when they find themselves with the shoe on the other foot, the manage to pull a full 180 degree turn to take the completely opposite position. It’s a kind of hypocrisy that isn’t solely belonging to one party but when it crops up, it’s impossible to miss. We saw an example of it yesterday play out for an entire day inside the House of Commons.

But in order to properly highlight the hypocrisy that we saw in the House of Commons yesterday, we have to start with the moment of original sin. It was a scene that played out on June 2nd, 2010 in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and it was one of the lowest moments I personally witnessed during my time working on Parliament Hill:

Yep, so many of us remember this day when then-Harper Conservative Cabinet Minister John Baird went to this committee, in a complete attempt to disrupt and stop a committee from getting Conservative staffers to testify before them on matters of extreme importance of the time. Baird ranted, yelled and berated Yasmin Ratansi, who was chair of the committee at the time, listing off everything under the sun about “Ministerial Responsibility” and how ministers are the ones who are ultimately responsible for their staff. We then saw the Liberal members of the committee, led by then-MP Siobhan Coady, pointing out that they had to take this step because ministers were not appearing before the committee, were ducking their responsibilities and weren’t being accountable to Canadians.

It was all an ugly, ugly moment during that minority Parliament, the last one we had before this one. But beyond the heat and anger in this moment, both sides were not completely wrong in what they said. Baird wasn’t incorrect in saying that ministers are responsible for their staff because they are elected, and the staff aren’t. The buck should stop with the ministers, which is true. Does that mean that staffers can’t or shouldn’t ever be called? That I would dispute, because there are times when only the staffer in question can answer the questions that a committee may have. It should only happen in rare cases, like honestly that case in 2010 did require. And Coady was also right when it came to the steps the Opposition had to take because of Conservative obstruction in that minority government. At the time, the Conservatives were doing everything under the sun to try to stop committees from functioning properly and were trying to avoid hard questions and because they didn’t have the votes to control the committees, we saw stuff like that happen. That forced the Opposition to take steps like they did at that time, like calling for staffers to testify.

Was it normal? No. Was it ideal? No. But what is what right and what needed to happen? Yes. Well fast forward to yesterday, March 25, 2021 and you can quickly see why yesterday was not only a low point in this Parliament, but it was also amazing to see the full 180 of hypocrisy come full circle:

Yep, it all played out yesterday in the House and it didn’t even take the full first hour of debate on a Conservative Opposition Day Motion to call Liberal staffers to various committees to testify for those proverbial shoes to find the other feet. It happened almost with lightning speed that left the head spinning. We saw Conservative MP Michael Barrett stating a case that the Liberals were obfuscating committee work, doing what they could to undermine and stop the work of committees, all because they didn’t have the votes to stop the Opposition because this is a minority Parliament. We then saw Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen rising to quote none other than Stephen Harper in the most approving manner, playing the role of John Baird (who I have to admit looks so much like Gerretsen that it’s almost uncanny) claiming that it’s the role of ministers to answer questions and how dare the Opposition. Oh the vapours were strong with indignation on the government benches yesterday, just as they were in that fateful committee meeting back in 2010. The only consistency in this story is what the NDP members had to say, both in 2010 and in 2021:

Yep, if you listened to all of what Nathan Cullen had to say in 2010 and all of Charlie Angus’ interventions in the House yesterday the words may have been different, but the sentiment was eerily similar; Christ man, let’s get this work done and stop it with the theatrics. But instead we got a day full of theatrics, as the Conservatives and Liberals both seeming to revel in their new roles in this melodrama, one that never really needed to be repeated. And if what happened in 2010 was a real low point for that Parliament, some news coming out at the end of yesterday portended the possibility that in 2021, this government was looking to plumb whole new depths:

Yep, that headline really says it all. Liberal House Leader Pablo Rodriguez made it clear that his government would ignore this motion, which passed later yesterday, and instruct the staffers in question to tell the committees to go fly a kite. Not only is that advice legally dubious, especially given the whole episode that we saw play out with the Kielburger brothers just a couple weeks ago. They quickly learned that wasn’t an option, legally or politically, and they ended up before the committee for an appearance that did not end well for them. Political staffers have no more protection or ability to say no to a committee if they summon them to testify, and to have their bosses advise them to ignore such a thing is to put them in the same kind of jeopardy that the Kielburgers were staring down the barrel of before they backed down. The difference here is that most staffers can’t afford the legal advice that those two could. So we’ll see where that leads.

But in the meantime, yesterday was a low point in this Parliament and no one really comes out of it looking great. Sure the NDP and Bloc look better by comparison, but that’s mostly because they were just being basically decent Parliamentarians during it all. For the Liberals and the Conservatives though, it was hypocrisy of the highest order and the worst kind. And for the Liberals, they just had to take it a step further with that “order” to their staff. You can just imagine how the Liberal members of that standing committee in 2010 would have reacted if Stephen Harper had made a similar order and told the committees to go and pound sand. They would have been furious, and they would have been right to be so. But now that they are in government, well hey, you know, what’s good for the goose, right? It’s all so distasteful and quite the opposite of the “Sunny Ways” we were all promised back in 2015. I mean I guess we shouldn’t be surprised by it all, but yesterday really was bad. We months of real serious concerns around transparency and good government be treated with all the seriousness of an act in the centre ring of the Shrine Circus. Except this time it was the Red Teams turn to take centre stage. It’s days like those that make people cynical about our politics and make them feel that things can’t get any better. Or as Charlie Angus put it, “a pox on all of their houses” because after that performance yesterday, they surely earned it.

The Upholding of “Peace, Order and Good Government”

During the life of this current Parliament there have been a few things that have hung over the political players in Ottawa, awaiting resolution that would have a big impact on the direction of not only Canadian law, but invariably our political discourse. Even as the pandemic has raged on, these issues have been out there, hanging like the sword of Damocles over the political heads of federal and provincial leaders. Well today one of those swords finally came down, in what might be one of the most consequential Supreme Court of Canada decisions of this century so far. And folks, the result was interesting:

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled the federal Liberal carbon pricing regime is constitutional, with a solid 6-3 decision backing Ottawa’s case. For those that have followed the issue, this result felt relatively certain to come, but not guaranteed. The law passed by the Trudeau government was solid and it always felt like a waste of money by provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario that was much more about politics than actual jurisprudence. That’s because that’s what it was.

The justices made it clear the importance and historical nature of this legislation in their ruling. Chief Justice Wagner wrote that the federal government is completely within its rights and jurisdiction to impose minimum pricing standards because the threat of climate change is so great that it demands a coordinated national approach. Her pointed out that it’s constitutional for Ottawa to take the lead on this issue, as it crosses provincial boundaries. He went to pains to point out that climate change knows no boundaries, writing that “A failure to include one province in the scheme would jeopardize its success in the rest of Canada”. In a line that speaks directly to the importance of this moment, Wagner wrote something that really jumped out:

“Climate change is real. It is caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities, and it poses a grave threat to humanity’s future.”


You’d think that in 2021 it wouldn’t be so shocking to see such a simple, factual statement be made in such a decision, but after what we saw happen at the Conservative convention last weekend, maybe it shouldn’t be so surprising. Those are the stakes here, and Wagner made that clear. He made it clear that Canada could take the action it did under the “Peace, Order and Good Government” clause of the Constitution, upholding the legislation in the process. Wagner drove that home when it wrote that “this matter is critical to our response to an existential threat to human life … As a result, it passes the threshold test and warrants consideration as a possible matter of national concern”. Surely something that’s an existential threat to human life would be a threat to “Peace, Order and Good Government”, right?

When it comes to the political calculus of climate change, carbon pricing and environmental policy, this ruling is a game changer. For the Liberals, it’s an affirmation of their policy and approach. That affirmation carries over to the New Democrats and Greens, who also support similar polices and approaches. It’s clear that Ottawa is within its right to act as the government did here, and that question is now settled.

But for the O’Toole Conservatives and his provincial colleagues in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, this is a serious blow. The courts answered a question that really only existed because of attempts to fearmonger about federal legislation. While it wasn’t a certainty that the Supreme Court would rule this way, it was the most likely outcome of this case. Ever since these challenge cases were launched by these provinces and supported by the federal Conservatives, it was clear that there were motived less by legal issues and more by pure partisan interest. It was another waste of taxpayers’ dollars towards tilting at political windmills, only to end up exactly where they started.

These Conservative leaders were all banking on the courts undoing this legislation rather than having to do the hard work of coming up with an actual alternative to deal with the actual problem at hand. You know that matter which is an “existential threat to human life”, as the majority put it. The Conservative movement has spent the last 15 years fighting any attempt to tackle this issue with real action. In the process, they’ve fallen out of step with the vast majority of Canadians on this matter. They have fallen out of step with the majority of leaders in the natural resources sector and in the energy industry as well. On the weekend the Conservatives failed to pass a basic motion that not only stated the truth, but is exactly the kind of thing that energy sector CEO’s have been saying for a decade, which tells you just how far the Conservatives have fallen in this regard.

To borrow a line from a tweet by Bruce Anderson this morning, Conservatives have tried court challenges, advertising, war rooms, misleading stickers, mistruths about carbon pricing & rebates and still most Canadians think that carbon pricing is a necessary idea. They have done everything short of actually burying their heads in the sand of facing the truth and doing the hard work to come up with a solution of their own. As a result, this is where they find themselves today. The Conservative Party of Canada and many (but not all) of their provincial counterparts have become the equivalent of the Wile E. Coyote of Canadian political life. They have tried every trick in the book and every shortcut they could take to try to catch that darned Roadrunner, only to predictably fail. In trying to use the courts to do their work for them, it was like that Coyote calling on the Acme Corporation for their latest contraption to shortcut things. And as usually happens with those products from Acme, this one blew up in their face.

So after this latest episode, will the Conservatives actually learn their lesson? Will they ever propose a serious alternative to what the Liberals, New Democrats and others propose? Will they put in the time and effort that it will take to try to agree on one within their own ranks? Or will they turn again to the latest edition of the Acme catalogue looking for salvation? We’ll see what O’Toole and team will do but if they decide to do the same that they’ve done for the past decade, they’re in for a world of political pain. They should have learned before now that the flimsy umbrella the Coyote used to protect himself from falling Acme anvils never worked. The Supreme Court of Canada told them as much today. Now we’ll see if they get the true protection of a real plan on climate change, or if they’ll keep standing on that rocky cliff with that umbrella in hand, waiting for the next anvil of reality to drop out of the sky.

Talking the Latest on the Two Michaels & the Conservative Convention with Kristy Cameron

Yesterday I joined Kristy Cameron on CFRA’s “Ottawa Now” along with Lindsay Maskell & Jason Lietaer for the “Political Heat” panel. We talked about the latest on the case of the Two Michaels in China, the trial that took place yesterday for Michael Kovrig, what it means for Canada going forward, the report into the RCMP’s actions in the aftermath of the death of Colton Boushie, the need for actual action instead of words in ensuring that this never happens again, how none of what was revealed in this report was surprising to Indigenous peoples, the fallout of the virtual Conservative Convention and how the weekend didn’t help Erin O’Toole’s leadership. You can listen starting at the 19:30 minute mark.

Talking the Trial of the Two Michaels & Erin O’Toole’s Convention Weekend on “The Arlene Bynon Show”

This morning I joined Arlene Bynon on “The Arlene Bynon Show” on Sirius XM’s Canada Talks 167, along with Alise Mills. We discussed the trail of the Two Michaels in China, the support from allies on the ground, what this might mean for the future of Canada’s relationship with the country, the weekends Conservative convention, Erin O’Toole’s convention speech and what it all might mean. You can listen to it all below.