Topping off a disastrous first few months in office, even a healthy does of Dani Dollars couldn't wash down the stink that was the Alberta UCP's Bill 1: the Sovereignty Act. But as the feds remain "prudently" silent, who is going to step up to the defend a now seriously threatened federation? Now that provinces are regularly experimenting with the notwithstanding clause to expand their powers, is it time to re-evaluate Canada's federal constitution before our wayward premiers unilaterally dismantle it? This week on the pod, your hosts debate whether its time to ditch federalism altogether and move towards a unitary state. They also use the Freedom Convoy and the recently concluded inquiry into the Trudeau government's invocation of the Emergencies Act to clear it as a case study in how federalism can go horribly wrong, not just prolonging a crisis but potentially making it existential. 

By now, Canada has become so used to being pushed around by Big Brother America it almost seems second nature, but since the sowing of the legacy of Norman Bethune and Trudeau senior being amongst the first of Western leaders to recognize the PRC, we've been less accustomed to the bullying antics of the Middle Kingdom. But, as Napoleon once warned, China is a sleeping dragon whose awakening cannot be taken lightly, leading many to worry that the recent embargoes of Canadian agricultural products, kidnapping of Canadian citizens and the public dressing down of the Canadian prime minister are just the first of much worse to come. But how much should Canadians really be worrying about China's more aggressive handling of their bilateral relationship, and how much of our reaction is triggered by a deadly combination of anti-Asian violence and American nationalism? Does Canada have all that much to fear in its interactions with China, and does the Chinese leadership have a point in demanding more respect on the world stage? Your intrepid podcast hosts return from a long hiatus to discuss!

Where are the progressives? With inflation running rampant and workers' rights actively trampled on by provincial powers, how is it that the leftist forces seemingly best able to quarterback a floundering national team are choosing instead to flee the field? Driveling neolibs, having long-since outstayed their youthful idealism and/or vitality, are still clinging to the reins of western left-of-centre parties, with socialists, anarchists and other leftist activists lacking the resources or discipline necessary to overtake established politicians themselves.  What will it take to get progressives off twitter and back into the game? How will the most famously disunified group find ideological clarity as it sells itself to a skeptical public? Is the existential crisis of Pierre Poilievre or a full-on anti-labour assault by Doug Ford enough to light a fire under a dormant NDP? Your hosts discuss. 

This week, Loblaws announced it was freezing food prices for three months, cleverly managing to ignore the previous two years of skyrocketing produce costs (and record profits). Following a distressing pattern of similar behaviour, however, ranging from the fixing of bread prices to a temporary bump up and then retrenchment of Loblaws' staff's "hero pay", Canadians can hardly expect different from their grocery oligopolies by now. Unfortunately, with the cost of living crisis in full swing, it's behaviour that will soon be bringing malnutrition and widespread hunger to what was once the Great White North. Does government have a role to play in ensuring no one in this country goes hungry? Your hosts discuss, not ignoring for a second the absurdity that such a question need to be debated in this day and age at all.

Last week, RCMP announced it was investigating rape threats made against Ana Poilievre, the high-profile wife of the newly elected Conservative leader by Jeremy Mackenzie (of extremist right, Dialogon fame). Unfortunately for the unhappy couple, photos have also emerged of Mr. Poilievre shaking Mackenzie's hand at a rally, literally inviting the man into the Conservative Party tent (though PP still claims he knows nothing about the far-right leader's violent past or hateful views).  Though no one shares blame for these threats besides Mackenzie himself, it's hard to see it as anything but the natural culmination of a dangerous strategy employed by Pierre Poilievre to both endear himself to the far-right and to use his wife as a shield against anti-vaxx and other conspiracy theorists who constantly flocked to Poilievre's events. This, of course, should beg the question: if Pierre Poilievre is willing to put his wife in such terrible danger, what is he willing to do to me?

The episode title speaks for itself. Three hundred and thirty years since the Glorious Revolution and the establishment of constitutional monarchy in Britain, now is the best and most obvious time to end this antiquated and costly institution. When the best argument to keep something is merely that it's difficult to do away with, a healthy, well balanced, mentally sane person would realize they're in a relationship of convenience at best or miserable co-dependence at worst with their lordship.  This week, Liam and Jacob articulate just how "British North America" can finally sever itself from this house of inbred, genocidal maniacs without resorting to the proud Canadian tradition of throwing our hands up in the air cursing, "it's too hard to reopen the constitution!" It isn't, and we must do it, if not for the sake of democracy than at the very least to spite the pitiful tantrum-tyranny of Charles III.

While the world focusses its attention on the crowning of King Charles III, the CPC held another coronation this Saturday for who is now its unquestionable supreme leader: Pierre Poilievre. Liam and Jacob watched the results announcement live and experimented with a streaming broadcast of their quick-takes and on-demand reaction. In the beginning of this special episode, they were joined also by Chris Curtis of the Rover, an independent Quebecois journalist reminiscing about the time he was nearly killed by Charest's SQ goons during Quebec's student uprising.  While it was a regrettable night for Canadian democracy, your hosts thoroughly enjoyed their first foray into the live-steaming space, and we hope regular listeners will be intrigued by the natural ebbs and flow of this unedited conversation as well.

While the verbal assault against Chrystia Freeland by a large, angered Albertan known to his friends as "Moose" this week dominated political headlines and was called out by the Minister of Public Safety as a "threat to democracy", Danielle Smith's plans for the Sovereignty Act, a constitutional crisis that very well could out Canadian democracy under real strain went mostly ignored. This week on the pod, your hosts discuss how the progressives can effectively respond to these anti-democratic challenges without falling to the level of moral denouncements and high-horse finger-waving. 

Ever since our episode on religious schooling, listeners have been hankering for a round 2, and now Speech from the Throne is finally obliging! Longtime friend and fan of the show, a mystery man known online only as "Gabe", has been brought to the show to debate Jacob once again on the issue of publicly funded religious schooling ... only this time, it's personal. After twelve haunting years of Jewish formal education before university, Gabe is on a mission to ensure no other child will ever suffer as he did. Who will reign in this verbal clash of iconoclasts? Will the Kenney model of pluralism find new fertile ground or will Jacob be forced from the field, schooled on schooling? Only the listeners can decide.  

Journalism has always had its risks, and after Rachel Gilmore this week unveiled a coordinated harassment and terror campaign directed towards herself and other female (as well as BIPOC) journalists only to receive crickets from police in response, it seems the field is not getting any safer. But was a mass-market model that generated as much profit from journalism as possible while relying on taxes from said profits to fund police who protect those reporters always something of a fantasy to begin with?  Does the older subscription model, where journalists are embedded in a political movement and the followers of said movement protect the reporters whom share their perspectives, offer more economic and personal security than the "unbiased" mass media of the past? If the cultural war is already being fought, can journalists only defend themselves by choosing a side? Your hosts discuss.