Inside Policy Talks

Macdonald-Laurier Institute
  • 0.0 (0)
  • POLITICS
  • UPDATED WEEKLY

Inside Policy Talks is the premier video podcast of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Ottawa's most influential public policy think tank. The Macdonald-Laurier Institute exists to make bad public policy unacceptable in our nations capital.

  1. APR 30

    Erica Komisar: Healthy family life requires tradeoffs

    Our culture tells parents that “you can do it all” – but that's “a very dangerous narrative” and “a narcissistic trope,” says social worker and parenting coach Erica Komisar. Is it time for our culture to grapple with a hard truth: life requires setting priorities and making trade-offs between items like career and family, rather than trying to have it all at once? Modern societies invest a great deal of resources into children. But often it comes in the form of trends like helicopter parenting, bulldozer parenting, or intensive parenting. Are these short bursts of anxious, structured engagement what children really need? Or do we use these to paper over the gaps our modern culture has left in traditional family and social structures? Our economies and social norms prize autonomy, flexibility, and paid work. Meanwhile, many parents feel more stretched and isolated than ever, and the social networks they inhabit feel thin. To discuss these challenges, Komisar joins Inside Policy Talks. Komisar is a clinical social worker trained in psychology, and an author whose work argues that the first years of childhood are foundational for attachment, mental health, and later resilience. On the podcast, she tells Peter Copeland, deputy director of domestic policy at MLI, that “it's a narcissistic trope that you can do it all, that you don't have to take anything off the plate, that you don't have to sacrifice anything, that you can have everything and do everything all at the same time.” She says that messaging sets up internal conflict for parents, especially mothers, when they face choices around whether to stay home with their toddlers or return to work. She says deep down many mothers would rather stay home, and the pressure to return to a career sets up internal conflicts leading to health problems or even resentment towards the child. For example, she points to the growing trend of women posting online that they regret becoming mothers. “When you reject your own children and mothering, we know that we've taken a turn in society,” says Komisar.

    1 hr

  2. APR 23

    Keldon Bester: How to address the demand for online gambling

    Sports betting, online gambling, and now prediction markets are becoming harder to avoid. What was once confined to casinos or occasional wagers is now built into our phones, advertised on sports broadcasts, and increasingly our wider digital economy. This raises bigger questions about the impact of markets. Should markets always follow demand, even when it involves a social harm, letting choice prevail and government coffers swell with the proceeds? Or should we look to the total economic and social impact – like indebtedness, bankruptcy, addiction and mental illness – for a sense of how to approach issues like the demand for gambling? In Ontario, research has found a sharp rise in gambling-related helpline contacts among young men since the province expanded private online gambling, and reporting has also pointed to a major rise in gambling-linked insolvencies. In the United States, new research has linked legalized online sports betting to worsening consumer financial outcomes, including lower credit scores and higher rates of delinquency and bankruptcy. To discuss this growing problem, Keldon Bester joins Inside Policy Talks. Bester is the executive director of the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project and a fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation. He’s one of Canada’s leading voices on monopoly power, competition, and the broader question of how markets should be structured to serve the common good. On the podcast, he tells Peter Copeland, deputy director of domestic policy at MLI, that the onslaught of marketing geared towards promoting online gambling comes on the heels of society having spent more than a decade figuring out: “how can I make someone spend as much time on their phone as possible?” He says introducing gambling into the mix makes that an even more dangerous experiment. “The fact that every 10 minutes you get a notification that says, ‘Hey, place a free micro bet on the outcome of the Jays game might in isolation be fine, but in sort of aggregate [might] be something we don't want to become a much bigger part of our economy,” says Bester.

    59 min

  3. APR 16

    Melanie Phillips: The West can’t wrap its head around Islam

    “The whole of the West views Islam … through a Western cultural prism,” and that’s a problem, says British author and commentator Melanie Phillips. With terrorism, extremism, and antisemitism surging throughout the West, people are looking for answers. They’re trying to understand why our leaders and institutions are failing to stand up to this threat. Phillips, one of the clearest voices sounding the alarm about these issues, joins Inside Policy Talks to share her assessment of the problem. As a journalist, Phillips has championed traditional values in the culture war for more than three decades. She is the author of numerous books, including her 2006 best-seller Londonistan, about the British establishment's capitulation to Islamist aggression. Her latest book, Fighting the Hate: A Handbook for Jews Under Siege, was released earlier this year. On the podcast, she tells Casey Babb, director of The Promised Land at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, that the West’s “ignorance” of Islam is one of the key factors leading to the extremist threat going unchecked. “They think (Islam) is a private matter between the individual and the Almighty,” says Phillips. “I'm sure that is part of the religion of Islam, but Islam is also a political project. … If you're a pious Muslim, you have a religious duty to Islamize the non-Islamic world.” “The West can't get their heads around that at all.” She says Western governments must show leadership by standing up for their own cultures. “I don't think it's coincidence that governments that have gone down this bad road of not defending their culture properly have descended into – certainly, as far as Britain is concerned – a mire of absolute incompetence,” says Phillips. “They can no longer keep the show on the road.”

    58 min

  4. APR 9

    Yuan Yi Zhu, Xavier Foccroulle Ménard and François Côté: The Supreme Court's judicial activism is a threat to Parliamentary sovereignty

    Last month, a major constitutional showdown took place before the Supreme Court of Canada. Over four days of hearings, the court heard from a record number of interveners in quite possibly the biggest and most consequential case since the Charter was adopted in 1982. In the wake of these hearings, the justices will now deliberate on Hak v Quebec. It's a case that addresses the scope of rights and their limits, whether the Notwithstanding Clause is subject to any restrictions beyond proper application, and the balance of power between courts and legislatures. Many are tempted to view this case through the lens of the law that's at issue: Quebec's controversial Bill 21, and whether it is right or wrong. But the stakes are far greater. This case is really a question of who decides what the law means, how it is interpreted, and ultimately changed. However the court rules, the decision will shape Canadian politics for years to come. At MLI, this is central to our Judicial Foundations Project, where we examine how courts, legislatures, and constitutional principles interact in Canada’s parliamentary democracy. These cases raise fundamental questions about whether that balance is being maintained, or fundamentally altered. To discuss the Supreme Court hearings and what's at stake in the outcome, three leading experts join Inside Policy Talks. Yuan Yi Zhu is a professor of International Law at Leiden University whose work focuses on constitutionalism, public law, and the limits of judicial power. He is a member of MLI’s Judicial Foundations Project. Xavier Foccroulle Ménard is a lawyer with Stikeman Elliott, and a legal scholar specializing in constitutional law, rights adjudication, and the theory of the Charter. And François Côté is a lawyer with Droits Collectifs Québec, an organization which is directly involved in the case as an intervener. On the podcast, they discuss with Peter Copeland, deputy director of domestic policy at MLI, the key factors at play in this case and how they connect to Canada's growing culture of judicial activism.

    1h 36m

  5. MAR 27

    Brendan Case: We need better metrics for human flourishing

    As Canada continues its decade-long slide in the UN’s global happiness rankings, there’s growing questions about whether policymakers are even using the right metrics to measure the indicators of living a good life. Across the developed world, there’s a similar, troubling pattern. The 2026 UN World Happiness Report, released earlier this month, suggests pronounced declines, particularly in Anglosphere countries. That includes Canada, which dropped to 25th spot in the rankings, while the United States sits at 23rd. These findings come despite a general rise in material prosperity. While the UN survey moves beyond looking strictly at GDP, some organizations are calling for an even broader view. To discuss this, Brendan Case, associate director for research at Harvard’s Human Flourishing Program, joins Inside Policy Talks. Case has been closely involved in shaping Harvard’s Global Flourish Study, a major international effort to better understand well-being across countries, cultures, and life stages. The study seeks to move beyond narrow economic measures of happiness. On the podcast, he tells Peter Copeland, deputy director of domestic policy at MLI, that GDP is “an extremely coarse measure” even when it comes to looking at material wealth, and falls far short on capturing other kinds of well-being. He says the UN survey also has its limits. “I think that they have genuinely helped in moving the conversation beyond just a narrow fixation on ‘how can we generate more income?’” says Case. However, his team has been engaged in a “friendly debate” with the UN report’s editors on the best alternative mechanisms. Case notes that the UN metrics ultimately come down to respondents giving a subjective assessment of how satisfied they are with their lives, while the Harvard study looks at a several concrete measures, like health, as determinants of respondents’ well-being.

    1h 8m

  6. MAR 19

    David Wand: Race should not trump merit at Canada’s universities

    Across the country, law and medical schools have adopted identity-based admissions criteria in the name of equity. But very little data has been available on how those policies work. New research from MLI is changing that. In a new paper on DEI and admissions in Canadian law and medical schools, researcher David Wand requested admissions data from 18 law schools and 14 medical schools. Only six law schools and eight medical schools agreed to share their data. Wand then compared applicants’ standardized test scores – such as the LSAT and MCAT – against actual admissions outcomes. To discuss his findings, Wand joins Inside Policy Talks. On the podcast, he tells Peter Copeland, deputy director of domestic policy at MLI, that race is a key factor in the admissions process, raising, he argues, serious questions about meritocracy. Based on these findings, he argues there is a better way forward and calls on provincial governments to ban race from the admissions process. “The ultimate goal here is to ban it and follow the lead of other multiracial democratic countries that also are concerned about historical disadvantages experienced by certain racial groups,” says Wand. He points to Scandinavian countries as an alternative model, noting that they do not consider race in admissions but instead support disadvantaged students earlier in the process through programs aimed at improving academic performance.

    53 min

  7. MAR 12

    Nadav Eyal: For the Islamic regime, survival is victory

    As the second week of war in Iran continues, there’s growing questions about whether regime change is possible, and what the end game looks like. The United States and Israel have taken out the long-time leader of Iran’s Islamic regime, Ali Khamenei. But with his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, now installed as the new supreme leader, the regime appears to have dug in for a long fight to retain power. Are the ongoing aerial strikes enough to permanently hobble the Iranian regime, and are Iran’s people ready to bring about a new government? Can the United States be counted on for continued military support if that’s what it takes to topple the regime? And, as Canada debates its own position on the war, what should Canadians understand about the risks posed by the regime – not only to the Middle East, but to global security more broadly? To share his on-the-ground knowledge of the Middle East, Israeli-based journalist and political commentator Nadav Eyal joins Inside Policy Talks. Eyal is a regular contributor to Call Me Back with Dan Senor and Amit Segal. On the podcast, he tells Casey Babb, director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s The Promised Land project, that one of the challenges when it comes to bringing about regime change is that many Westerners have become averse to longer processes because of the fast-moving news cycle. However, as a core part of its survival strategy, Iran’s Islamic regime was structured to withstand prolonged conflict because it always expected this type of war with the United States and Israel. “This was their prophecy all along,” says Eyal. “They built their country, their polity, around the idea of resistance, and now they are trying to resist.”

    44 min

  8. MAR 5

    Rob Huebert: Unpacking Canada’s position on the war in Iran

    In the wake of the United States and Israel’s military actions against the Islamic regime in Iran, nations around the world rushed to stake out their positions on the strikes. While some voices condemned the attacks as a violation of international law, Canada issued a statement that drew some measure of surprise across the political spectrum — overhead of it being more supportive of the military actions than many anticipated. A statement released by the Prime Minister’s Office on the morning of February 28 in the hours following the initial attacks, declared that: “The Islamic Republic of Iran is the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East, has one of the world’s worst human rights records, and must never be allowed to obtain or develop nuclear weapons.” It went on to say that: “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.” However, in Prime Minister Mark Carney’s more recent comments on March 3, he added that Canada takes this position with “regret” on the grounds that the conflict is “another example of the failure of the international order,” seeming to temper his initial support. So, how should Canadians interpret the words of their prime minister, and how might his statements land south of the border? Is Carney’s initial support a reversal of the worldview he outlined in his high-profile Davos speech earlier this year — or, in fact, a logical extension of it? How long is Canada’s supportive posture likely to hold in the wake of domestic pressures or further global events? Are we already starting to see that shift occur in subsequent remarks from the government? To unpack this, political scientist Rob Huebert joins Inside Policy Talks. Huebert is the director of the University of Calgary’s Centre for Military, Security, and Strategic Studies, and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. On the podcast, he tells Ian Campbell, digital editor at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, that he sees Carney’s initial statement on the events in Iran as being aligned with the positions he expressed in Davos.

    49 min
See All (125)

About

Inside Policy Talks is the premier video podcast of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Ottawa's most influential public policy think tank. The Macdonald-Laurier Institute exists to make bad public policy unacceptable in our nations capital.

Information

  • Creator
    Macdonald-Laurier Institute
  • Years Active
    2024 - 2026
  • Episodes
    125
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © 2023 Macdonald-Laurier Institute
  • Show Website
    Inside Policy Talks

You Might Also Like