Tara Henley: 15 Ways to Fix the CBC Before It’s Too Late

The CBC is in crisis—can it be saved? Journalist Tara Henley joins Aaron Pete to break down 15 ways to fix the CBC before it’s too late. They expose media bias, lost public trust, government influence, and why so many Canadians are calling to defund the CBC. 

Send us a text

Support the show

www.biggerthanmepodcast.com

Episode Transcript

Aaron Pete (00:00):
Welcome back to another episode of the Bigger
Than Me podcast.
Here is your host, aaron Peet.
It has been a wild time fornews in Canada.
I'm speaking with a journalistwho has consistently fought for
nuance, different perspectivesand open discussions.
We explore the wild newsstories of the past year,
failures of the mainstream mediaand how we could reform the CBC

(00:24):
.
My guest today is Tara Henley.
Tara, it is an honor to haveyou back on the show.
To start off, I want to gothrough some things that have
happened since the last time youwere on the show.
Joe Biden dropped out of the USelection.
Donald Trump was almostassassinated twice.
Elon Musk endorsed Trump.
Donald Trump was almostassassinated twice.

(00:44):
Elon Musk endorsed Trump.
Kamala Harris stepped into therace.
Donald Trump won the USelection.
Chrystia Freeland resigned fromcabinet and as finance minister
.
The day before the falleconomic update, justin Trudeau
stated he has an intent toresign.
Pierre Poliev has risen in thepolls significantly.
Mark Carney and ChrystiaFreeland have entered the

(01:05):
liberal leadership race andTrump is threatening 25% tariffs
.
How do you digest all of thisnews?

Tara Henley (01:13):
Well, it's good to be with you.
I always love coming on yourshow and it's such a pleasure to
get to watch your star rise.
I'm so happy for your recentsuccesses.
I laughed when you're readingout that list, not because any
of those developments are funnyNone of them are but because
you're right, the news cycle hasbeen insane.
This is something that I textwith journalists about all the

(01:36):
time.
Like a lot of us are notsleeping, we're lucky if we're
eating.
Like a lot of us are workingseven days a week.
Sometimes, aaron, I'll start anarticle at like six in the
morning and by noon the entirecontext for the article has
shifted to the point where it'snot publishable.
It's really something right now, and it's important to juggle

(01:59):
the sort of global developments,particularly in the United
States, which impact us so much,with the fact that our own
government is in crisis rightnow and that so many files in
this country are in shambles,and so it's yeah, it's quite the
juggling act, as I'm sure youknow and are also trying to
figure out.
What do you cover from day today, when you could do something

(02:22):
every single day and never getcaught up?

Aaron Pete (02:24):
That was one of my big questions as Canadians.
Like for journalists, I can'timagine how hard it is.
But for Canadians, how are theysupposed to differentiate
between sensational storiesversus kind of key things?
Like for me, it felt like theChrystia Freeland resignation
really bubbled over, like it.
It hit the zeitgeist, it hitgeneral canadians and we went

(02:48):
what is going in all going on inottawa, like something's
happened here, and so how do wehelp canadians kind of stay
informed in a good way that thatdoesn't push too much content
on them?

Tara Henley (03:00):
I think it's a really big question and it's one
frankly, I don't have an answerfor yet.
I hear hear from a lot ofCanadians.
I try to talk to a lot ofpeople informally everywhere I
go, as well as getting emailsfrom the public and direct
messages and tweets and all ofthe normal channels.
I think people are veryoverwhelmed right now, and I

(03:21):
think, first of all, we cannever forget to say that we are
in a cost of living crisis, andthat is really the foundational
problem for most people that Iknow right now is that rent is
extremely high, you know,mortgages are high, food is high
, everything is difficult tomake ends meet right now, and so

(03:42):
I think that's people's primaryconcern, and as it should be.
I mean that that's scary stufffor a lot of us, right?
So, um, I think that's thefirst thing, and then the second
thing is how do you deal withthese rolling waves in terms of
the new cycle, and unfortunately, a lot of people I know are
checking out because it's justtoo much, and you know, if

(04:03):
you're already dealing withfinancial pressures in your life
, you, you are really strugglingto keep your spirits up and um,
and in this country, as I said,with so many files collapsing,
a lot of people are saying Ijust can't take all the bad news
right now, and so we asjournalists, I think, have a
uphill battle on that front.

(04:23):
Um, just to connect with peopleto hear their concerns I think
listening sometimes is thebiggest part of the job but then
also to try to connect thesebigger issues that are happening
in Ottawa with the materialconditions on the ground.

Aaron Pete (04:41):
I want to get to your piece how to Save the CBC,
because I think that's a reallyinteresting article that pulls
out a lot of kind of importantdiscussions we're having what
does it mean to be a Canadianand how do we kind of understand
Canadian culture?
But before we get there, I dowant to kind of go through a
postmortem on some stories andget your feedback.
I find you to be very fair andI I hear a lot of stories and so

(05:05):
much has changed since 2020.
I just kind of want to try andget your perspective on some of
these issues.
So, going back March 24th 2020,the CBC wrote as a headline no,
the new coronavirus wasn'tcreated in a lab.
Scientists say that's acomplete 180 from January 26,

(05:25):
2025.
Cbc, in association with theAssociated Press, writes CIA
believes COVID most likelyoriginated from a lab, but has
low confidence in its ownfindings.
And so to me, during 2020, ifyou said it came from a lab, you
were a conspiracy theorist.
We were removing that fromFacebook.

(05:46):
That was very controversial.
Sometimes people were callingyou a racist if you believed
that because you were pushingthat narrative, how do we digest
that as Canadians?
Because I think it's justregardless of COVID, it's
jarring to have the narrativeshift to that extent.

Tara Henley (06:03):
Yeah, I'm really glad that you brought that one
up in particular.
It's a really important one.
When I speak to the public andwe talk about lost public trust
because you probably know, Iworked on that 2024 Massey essay
on the state of the media allabout lost public trust and I'm
now writing a book on that andwhen you talk to the public,

(06:24):
this particular story reallyrankles.
People really are upset aboutthis story in particular and, as
you say, it's partly becausethere was a suggestion with this
story that you were a bigot ifyou were asking questions about
it or that you were a conspiracytheorist, which is a terrible

(06:47):
aspersion, right.
So I think the public is stillvery upset about this one.
And actually there is aCanadian journalist who did very
early work on this ElaineDyer-Thwyer.
I'm sorry, elaine, if I'mmessing up your last name, I
don't have it right in front ofme, but I read her wonderful
book and she came on the podcastto talk about it, and this is

(07:07):
going back a couple of years nowthat she was one of the early
journalists investigativejournalists on this story and
pointing to the arc of the storyand the fact that those who
were calling it a conspiracytheory actually had vested
financial and professionalinterests in covering up this

(07:28):
story as we're, as we're alllearning now.
So Canada was actually veryearly on this, but the Canadian
mainstream media was notparticularly early on this, and
I think that it's important forthere to be a post-mortem about
these big stories that matter somuch to people.
Another one would be the truckerprotests and the use of the

(07:50):
Emergencies Act.
These are things I hear fromthe public all the time, and I
think even this one is aparticularly funny one, but I'll
mention it anyways is that thechief medical officer of health
for the country came out at onepoint and said that if you are
single and you are going this isduring the height of the

(08:10):
pandemic and you are going tohave intercourse, you should
wear a mask.
We were mocked the world overfor that comment Last time I
checked.
That story is still up on manyof the mainstream media's sites
without any context, without anyquestions on that.
Um, you know so that it was avery bold thing to say and um, I

(08:33):
think a lot of these storiesreally stick with people and
that it would be healthy for ourcountry and also in the United
States as to revisit some ofthis coverage, and I don't know
that the media will do that, butwhat I hear from the public.
Most recently, I've been doing aseries interviewing subscribers
across the country and one ofthe subscribers to my sub stack

(08:54):
said look like if the media cameout on these big stories,
particularly pandemic stories,and just said we got it wrong,
we got it wrong, here's why andwe're gonna do better in the
future that she would definitelygive them a pass.
I think people are moregenerous as well than the public
discourse necessarily reveals,but they do want some closure on

(09:17):
these big stories.
So I'm really glad you broughtthat up.

Aaron Pete (09:21):
There's a few more.
I want to go through reallyquickly that out.
There's a few more I want to gothrough really quickly.
Cbc in July 17th 2021.
Headline yes, vaccines curbCOVID-19 transmission, but
that's not enough to protectthose without a shot.
Then CBC July 17th 2022, you'lllikely catch COVID again and
again.
Will each round feel milder?
The switch from vaccines willprotect you, um, that they'll

(09:45):
protect everybody.
That if you're not vaccinated,you don't care about other
people to.
Even if you have a vaccine, youlikely won't be able to prevent
transmission.
Anthony fauci's gone on um,like cnn and other news channels
, and said I'm vaccinated fourtimes and I just caught covid
the the movement.
On that issue, I think you canargue more of a scientific like

(10:06):
we didn't know at the earlystages, but we were told that
they did know.
They didn't come across asunsure when they were first
reporting those stories, mm-hmm.

Tara Henley (10:16):
Yes, and just to go back for one moment to the
Elaine Dewar book on the originsof the COVID pandemic, I should
mention too that when I was atCBC in the last year that I was
there, I did cover that book atCBC.
There's always exceptions,which I think we have to be
really clear about.

(10:36):
With all of the mainstreamnarratives, there's always going
to be exceptions that getthrough, and I think it's really
important just to state thatbecause it's not uniform, but we
still have to pay attention tothe dominant narrative and the
dominant coverage.
In terms of the vaccines, thisis a really difficult story for
our country because and again, Isaid this while I was still at

(10:57):
the CBC that it was alreadyclear when I was there that the
vaccines, for whatever theirbenefits, were not stopping
transmission and infection.
And you could see this Like ifin the newsroom I would look
every day at the hospitalizationreports and they were recording
how many people were vaccinatedand how many people weren't.

(11:19):
So it was very clear, dynamicalready and that it just was not
getting enough attention.
And then, in addition, themyocarditis.
There was early research fromOntario Public Health on this,
with the Dalai Lama Center at Uof T, which studies disease, and
there was early research onthis.

(11:40):
And again, this did get on theairwaves.
I believe we did a story at sixo'clock in the morning on this.
So these things did get throughin small dribs and drabs, but
the average listener or viewerprobably wasn't aware of them
because the dominant narrativewas so strong.
And my point about the vaccineswas that if we know that it

(12:00):
doesn't stop transmission andinfection, if we know there's
even a small chance ofmyocarditis, that people should
be able to make their owndecisions about this and should
not be forced, on threat oflosing your livelihood, to get
these vaccines.
And that was a very difficultthing to say a couple of years
ago, and I have heard from tonsof Canadians who lost big time

(12:27):
on this, who lost jobs, who lostlivelihoods, who lost contact
with family members.
This was a hugely divisiveissue in this country and it did
not need to be.
We could have had an openpublic conversation about this.
We could have given people allthe information that they needed
to make their own decisions onthis.
We were already very, veryhighly vaccinated country and

(12:51):
unfortunately, our primeminister in particular chose to
use very divisive language overaround this and it has a real
human cost, and I'm stillhearing from people on this
issue because it impacted theirlives so hugely.
And I think we in the media havea duty to go back and look at
those stories again andunderstand where we went wrong.

(13:13):
And I have a lot of compassionfor the media too.
A lot of us were working allday, every day.
It was some of the hardest workwe've ever had to do.
We were ourselves frightened.
We were not in the newsroom.
We were ourselves frightened.
We were not in the newsroom, wewere at home, we were isolated.
A lot of us don't have ascience background.
I include myself in that,covering this story day after
day after day.

(13:33):
Like I, have compassion for ustoo, but we have to find a way
as a country to reconcile thesebig stories, and ignoring it is
not making them go away.

Aaron Pete (13:48):
The overlap I find with these stories and why I
want to get your thoughts on itis because I feel like we need
some sort of connection betweenhow individual journalists
approach the story and whetheror not they were proven right.
It's kind of like when I seethese discussions take place,
there's a bit of like well,nobody knew and so it's
complicated, but if you got itright like to me you deserve a
little bit more push up in termsof your notoriety and the

(14:12):
respect people have on your name.
Like we have to give creditwhere credit's due, to those
individuals who actually got thestory right when it wasn't easy
to do so.
And I just recently interviewedMaxine Bernier and one of the
pieces I did give him credit onwas just hey, you stood up at a
time.
It's incredibly difficult towhether we agree on our politics

(14:33):
, whether or not we see eye toeye on every issue.
That's besides the point.
You did something that was noteasy to do at the height of when
it wasn't easy to do it, and soyou deserve some credit and
some kudos for being willing tostand up to a mob, because
that's the hardest part.
It's so easy to kind of fall inline and all of these stories
kind of show me that if you werekind of had suspicions or fears

(14:55):
about the vaccine or where theorigins were, that was unpopular
to do.
But if you were willing to dothat like we have to give it was
you were probably called names,insulted, judged, mocked and
like.
Now we're looking back and weneed to give those people who
are willing to stand up a bitmore credit than the people who
chose not to.
And those people who chose notto need to reflect and figure

(15:17):
out how they can do better inthe future.

Tara Henley (15:21):
I'll have to see that interview.
I haven't seen it yet for sure,and you know I'd probably have
some differences with MaximeBernier on issues, but I think
that he was right that it neededto be a public conversation in
this country.
I think there was nothing tolose by having this conversation
openly.
We're all adults, you know.
I just don't see why wecouldn't have done that.

(15:42):
So I think that's the chief,chief point that I want to make
is open discussion and dialogueand debate.
That's what we need more of inthis country and that's what
we're pulling back from is thatatmosphere where you couldn't
discuss these things and whenthe costs for people who
insisted on discussing them wereso high.

Aaron Pete (16:00):
We're so high.
The last one I want to touch on, that I'm sure you've seen, was
on July 3rd Biden sharp asattack.
White House defends Bidenmental acuity sharp as ever,
according to the Rolling Stonesreporting.
This was said by CNN, msnbc andNancy Pelosi.

(16:20):
A little under a few weekslater, july 21st, he drops out
of the race after a horribledebate performance and to me
that one's just a reflection ofhow strong those narratives can
become and how pushing a storygoes beyond just the facts and
becomes about kind ofmisinforming people and often

(16:41):
mainstream media accusesindependent media of
misinformation anddisinformation and
malinformation and all thesewords.
But you look at some of thesestories and you go well, wait,
who was right in the end onquestioning Biden's performance
and mental acuity at that time?

Tara Henley (17:00):
Yeah, that's a really big story and I'm
actually going to cover thatstory in my book because I think
that's a really pivotal one forAmericans.
That's what I hear a lot fromAmericans about massive lost
trust is that story inparticular.
That story is interestingbecause the independent press in
the United States is muchstronger than the independent
press in Canada and so therewere two parallel tracks and

(17:23):
coverage happening at the verysame time.
There was what was beingreported in the independent
press and the opinion pieces andthen what was happening in the
mainstream press, and it'sunfortunately converged at that
moment of the debate whereAmerican citizens were able to
see for themselves theunfortunate decline that Biden
was going through, and it wasquite a rude awakening for so

(17:48):
many people in the public.
I think part of the problem isthat you know in this country
for sure, and also in the UnitedStates to some extent, that
there's just two conversationshappening all the time.
There's the conversations thatare happening informally.
You know around dinner tablesat the dog park, you know in
coffee shops, where people arespeaking relatively freely

(18:10):
certainly not as freely as weused to but are saying their
opinions and trying to makesense of these big stories, and
then there's the mainstreamconversations, and the gap
between those two is just it'stoo big to be sustainable.
It's just too big to besustainable.
We have to allow more voices,more perspectives, more opinions
into the mainstream.
It's just not healthy for usotherwise.

(18:31):
I think.
Another story I would bring up,if you'll humor me for a moment,
that I've been thinking about alot lately is the conversation
in this country around genderissues or around trans issues.
This is something you reallycannot talk about in the
mainstream at all.
It was a sleeper issue in theAmerican election and then
became a very big issue, aswe've seen in recent weeks that

(18:54):
I personally had talked tohardcore Democrats, feminist
Democrats who voted for Trumpover this issue, and I've been
hearing rumblings like that inCanada for a long time Parents
very concerned, People very muchwanting to honor trans rights
but having real qualms about,for example, elementary and high

(19:14):
school kids sharing the samewashrooms.
There's all kinds of issues tonavigate, with that Menstruation
being one of them, If you'llexcuse me for getting into
detail there, but these are bigissues again and this is
something we're ignoring andit's going to bubble up and I
wish we could just have frank,compassionate conversations.
I have really big faith in theCanadian public that we are

(19:37):
capable of that, that we can berespectful to all sides.
It just doesn't seem to behappening right now and it's to
our detriment.

Aaron Pete (19:50):
I agree and I think it's a call on stronger
leadership, because this is oneof the reflections I had with Mr
Bernier was the gap I seebetween a lot of the general
public on issues like this is asense of compassion, that if you
come at the topics like transor other issues, if you're not
compassionate the other one thatI think of is Indian

(20:11):
residential school mass gravesis if you come at it with a lack
of compassion, you almost youcan't win that argument, because
Canadians want to becompassionate.
That's the position.
So when I look at how DanielSmith approached trying to
legislate and address the topicof trans people, it was very

(20:34):
different than what we had seenfrom other conservatives who
were more jarring in theirrhetoric.
Premier Daniel Smith made itabout health issues and making
sure you have proper health careand, I think, just the
reframing, the ability to havecompassion and respect for
people who are going throughthat.
Because that's where you loseme as someone who is interested

(20:58):
in what you have to say, ifyou're not at least trying to
have an honest conversationthat's not trying to bully
people or take away rights or dosomething disrespectful to
individuals.
I can't imagine what that wouldbe like, and so if you don't
come at it from that perspective, which is often how
conservatives approach thosetypes of topics, if you don't
bring that compassion, I thinkyou lose a lot of people and

(21:18):
there's a desire to address theissue, but in a compassionate
and thoughtful way.

Tara Henley (21:22):
I think you're very right.
I hear this from Canadians allthe time on the contentious
issues that the vast majority ofpeople want to be respectful of
their fellow citizens and likelook, trans people are Canadian
citizens, they are our fellowcitizens.
We want the absolute best forthem.
We want full rights under thelaw.
We want people to be able tolive in dignity and respect.

(21:44):
There are areas where there'sclashes of rights that we're
gonna have to negotiate women'ssports, prisons, you know,
washrooms.
These are contentious issues butagain, if we could have open
conversations about them, wewould be able to do that in a
calm and rational and respectfulway, as opposed to stifling all

(22:06):
those conversations, whichmakes people very angry and then
, when the debate finallyhappens, it's not the kind of
debate that we would like to see.
So I think we have to go backto understanding.
There's a lot of perspectiveson these issues across the
country.
People are not evil or immoralfor having different
perspectives on this.
They're tricky issues.

(22:27):
They're morally fraught.
We have to learn to negotiatethose conversations in public,
which is hard to do thoseconversations in public, which
is hard to do.

Aaron Pete (22:38):
I couldn't agree more.
Let's talk about your articlehow to Save the CBC.
I think initially for somepeople in the political sphere
that's going to be a jarringidea is saving the CBC.
But I'm hoping, very briefly,you can take us back to your
work in the CBC, somereflections you had when you
were working there.
What does the CBC look likewhen it's at its best from your
perspective?

Tara Henley (22:59):
Yeah.
So you know that I love the CBC.
I said that on your firstpodcast that we ever did
together.
Part of the reason why I wentpublic with my criticisms was
because I felt like nobody elsewas going to say the things that
needed to be said and that wewere going to lose the CBC if we
didn't have a frankconversation.
I still feel that way and thislast weekend I was invited to

(23:22):
speak at Digital Media on theCrossroads, a big industry
conference in Toronto, and Itook the opportunity there to
make the case for saving the CBC, for not defunding the CBC, and
I felt I was uniquelypositioned to make that case
because I have been so critical,but also because, as you can

(23:42):
imagine, after my resignationletter went viral, I heard from
thousands of Canadians on thisissue and I've had so many
conversations and I felt like Ihad a decent handle on what the
actual criticisms were.
So and that's what I wanted totalk about I don't think the CBC
has been or is currently doinga very good job of addressing

(24:06):
those criticisms.
So McGill's Center forTechnology recently did a survey
.
It showed that 78% of Canadianswould like the CBC to continue.
We hear that stat all the timein the media right now.
The second part of that sentenceis if it addresses its major
criticisms and it doesn't getrepeated, and that's a shame
because it is a conversationthat has to happen.

(24:28):
I would say there are fourmajor criticisms that I counter
all the time.
One is bias.
Two is mistakes, particularlyin pandemic coverage,
particularly in that 2021-22 erathat you and I have just been
talking about.
The CBC's own records showduring that period, the
ombudsman has reported a 60%increase in complaints during

(24:50):
that time.
We can't gloss over thesethings.
We're going to have to dealwith them.
It's going to be painful.
And then there's the complaintfrom within the media as a whole
that the CBC is using its $1.4billion advantage to compete
against struggling media andstartups like yourself and like
me.
And the fourth is an abuse ofthe Taxpayers Trust.

(25:14):
I know you had the CanadianTaxpayers Federation on in the
past.
You're, I'm sure, familiar withall the arguments there, but
the executive salaries are quitehigh.
The VTs are making almost$500,000 a year.
We know last year from Freedomof Information requests, the CBC
paid out more than $18 millionin bonuses.
These are things that are verydifficult for the taxpayer to

(25:38):
accept and there has to be aconversation about that as well.
Even when you look at thenumbers from the Canadian
Taxpayers Federation since 2015,there has been something like
231% increase in CBC staffmaking over $100,000 a year.
Again, we are in a cost ofliving crisis.

(25:59):
People across the country arehaving difficulty buying food
that does not sit well.
So those are the big criticisms.
My piece sets out 15 ideas, anyone of which would signal real
change.
I'm not under any illusionsthat the CBC is going to do
these things.
I just wanted to demonstratewhat it might look like to have

(26:19):
real change and why I wanted todo that is to come back to your
question, which is what is apositive vision of the CBC?
And right now, leadership hastaken the approach of blaming
external factors for its low TVnumbers, for its declining

(26:41):
public relevance, for the angerfrom the public, and it has
pointed the finger at thingslike big tech, misinformation,
that kind of thing.
It's not a winning strategy.
It's not going to convincepeople, particularly people that
I hear from, who feel a senseof betrayal from the public

(27:03):
broadcaster.
It's a very emotional topic andI was reminded of that again
this weekend.
People feel personally betrayed, and the reason they feel
betrayed is a good reason.
It's because they love theinstitution.
So that brings me back to yourquestion about what can it be?
What could it be?
What has it been in the past?
It has a unique ability, whenit's functioning properly, to

(27:27):
forge national identity, tocreate social cohesion.
We have a ton of immigrantscoming to our country.
How do they acclimatize to newsand politics and culture?
Who's letting them know whatthey've joined, what this
country is about?
You know, how are weunderstanding what we have in

(27:48):
common across the country?
Another one of my subscribersthat I interviewed said you know
, how do we create somethingthat someone who grew up in
downtown Toronto, who is an ITperson, has something in common
with someone in Saskatchewan whois at the farmer's market every
week?
That takes work and it takesdeep personal storytelling.

(28:15):
And the CBC used to andsometimes is because there's
lots of great people there, very, very good at that.
That's what I grew up on.
I grew up on listening to CBCradio.
Cbc radio is the reason Ibecame a journalist Sitting in a
car listening to an interview Idon't know if it was Studs

(28:36):
Terkel, because I've never beenable to find that interview
again talking about.
Why did you become a journalist?
And he said because I lovepeople, I love hearing people's
stories.
I want to know why, what itfeels like to live a different
life.
I want to know what that personfeels like.
I want to know what the personand this is again a very old
interview with the persondemonstrating against the

(28:59):
Vietnam war why?
What do they feel like?
What are their experiences?
What have they lost?
What are they thinking through?
What is a civil rightsprotester?
What is their story?
Where do they come from?
What are they thinking about?
I want to know what it feelslike to be someone else, and I
think CBC used to give us that.
It used to give us.
What are our fellow countrymengoing through?

(29:21):
What's important to them?
What is life in small townNewfoundland like?
What is life in Manitoba like?
You know?
What does it mean to live inthose places and experience what
you're experiencing?
I want to hear more of that.
I want to hear less identitypolitics.
I want to hear more of that.
And I'm not saying identitypolitics should go away.

(29:41):
That's part of the pie, butlet's not have it be the whole
pie.
It's really turning people off,and then the other side of that
as well is accurate reporting,accurate news, so that we have a
common set of shared facts inthis country that we can debate
and discuss.
We really need that.
Another thing is current affairsprogramming.
So many of the morning radioshows across the country still

(30:03):
do a great job of this, ofreally discussing and debating
the key issues in communitiesacross the country and giving
people a sense of what'sactually happening all around
them.
What are the big issues?
What's happening at City Hall?
What festival is on right now?
What does it mean to thecommunity?
All of those kinds of questionsand, again, the discussing and

(30:24):
debating from a range ofdifferent perspectives.
We're losing so much of thepublic debate right now and it's
sad because the coverage getsreally tedious and again, that
gap between the public and theprivate is too big.
We want to hear what peoplethink.
We need to know if we're goingto be governed correctly, first
of all.
But we also just don't?

(30:46):
We have curiosity about otherpeople in this country, Don't?
We want to know what they think, how they feel.
I mean, yeah, a bit of a rantthere, you got me going I love
that there's a few pieces there.

Aaron Pete (30:57):
The first is the debate part.
That's what I've heard the mostpositive feedback on having
candace melcom on and we wedisagree on on a lot of issues
but being willing to hear herand her, hear me and go through
that.
Like the comment section wasjust filled with like why can't
this be on TV?
Like why can't we havediscussions like this where it's

(31:20):
respectful?
I'm not accusing her of being ahorrible, evil person, she's
not accusing me of the same.
We're trying to understandthese issues and that was
supposed to be an hour interviewand it turned into like a two
hour and 20 minute interviewbecause we were trying to go
through things and understandeach other and I really want to
see more debates sincere, good,well-intentioned, fair debates

(31:41):
where it's an exchange of ideasfrom different political or
philosophical perspectives.
The second piece that I reallyloved, that you dove into deeply
, is Canadian culture One.
I think that's a huge topicright now because of Trump's
tariffs and Trump's threats ofbecoming the 51st state.
But I just interviewed EricPeterson.
If you know him from Corner Gas, he was also in Street Legal

(32:05):
and that was his prime thesis ofour interview was talking about
how to him what Corner Gas waswas a perfect mirroring of the
rural experience and it wasbased in Saskatchewan but it
worked for somebody who lives inPrince George in BC or in some
little community in Nova ScotiaLike it works for everybody

(32:27):
because you do have thesecommunity members and it wasn't
American based, it was Canadianexperiences being reshared to
everybody involved and that washis passion and his life passion
was to make sure Canadians holdon to that distinct culture.
And I talked to him about likethe reason I've interviewed
Brent Budd and Nancy Robertsonand Fred Iwanek like is because

(32:48):
that's all I have left as aCanadian of like what I believe
still represents the Canadianexperience.
It's not like we have showslike that that are really really
popular, that we kind of getour Canadian content and get an
understanding of, and it gets soeasily mocked when you talk
about CanCon or Canadian Conlike.
When you say those things,people go whatever, who cares?

(33:09):
But those moments really giveyou a sense of national pride,
they give you a connection toyour fellow countrymen and a
desire to want to build uponthat legacy.
I think in a lot of ways andthat's one of the pieces I
really loved that you brought upin this is that's also a piece

(33:30):
of the pie that we can'tunderestimate.
And I just listened to BrettWeinstein on Joe Rogan and he
talked about what's going onwith Doge and trying to address
all of the waste in the USgovernment.
But one of his biggest pointswas we're going to go too far
and we really have to be careful.
It's easy to want to burn itall down.

(33:50):
That's the easy position.
The hard position is to saywe're going to pull this, we're
going to pull this.
We need to be mindful of that,we want to protect this.
That's going to be hard whenthere's a desire to bulldoze
everything and start fromscratch because there has been
mismanagement in the past and Ireally loved that you did the
same thing of going okay.
It's very easy right now to saydefund the CBC.

(34:11):
I've interviewed many peoplewho take that position.
It's a very easy position rightnow to take, after everything
you've been through, aftereverything you've seen, to still
defend and have built up thatcredibility of being critical of
the CBC.
To still defend the CBC and saythere are pieces here we should
salvage.
There's information here,there's an approach here that

(34:33):
has worked over the past hundredyears that we shouldn't gloss
over.
I find that really admirable.

Tara Henley (34:40):
Oh, thank you so much.
I think, as you say, it's veryeasy to destroy things.
It's very hard to build them upright, which is why the CBC is
in such a difficult positionright now.
Because how do you?
It's a very complex, there's alot of money involved, there's a

(35:02):
lot of different parts of theCBC on.
You know, the CBC,unfortunately, is trying to be
too many things to too manypeople.
It's very complicated, but thebottom line idea, I think, is
that this is an 88, 89-year-oldinstitution, that it has an
incredible, incredible archives.

(35:24):
Like I don't know why the CBCis not taking advantage more of
the archives right now, becauseso many people I speak to have
such nostalgia for differentparts.
I mean, you and I, both evenwe're different generations, we
both have different parts of usthat feel that nostalgia for the
CBC at its best.
Most people I speak to acrossthe country, even those in the

(35:46):
defund camp, still feel thatnostalgia for the parts that
really work well.
And so how do you conserve areally important institution?
How do you do that?
It's really hard to thinkthrough, but I think it's really
important and I do think thearchives are a key that could be

(36:07):
used right now immediately totap into that like bring back
Peter Zosky's interviews rightnow.
Let's hear how Canadians talkedthrough these issues in decades
past.
You know there's decades anddecades of our culture sitting
there, sitting there waiting tobe tapped, and I don't want to

(36:28):
see all of that history andculture disappear either.
I'm really worried about that,particularly in a time, as we've
talked about, with really highimmigration.
It's going to be important forus to have a shared set of ideas
about what the country is thatpeople can join.
Otherwise, why are they cominghere?
If they come here and all theyget is a cost of living crisis

(36:52):
and no housing, what are weoffering?
What are we offering them?
We have to do better foreverybody.
But again, it's very complicatedand it's difficult to think
through, and I guess my pointfrom the weekend is just that we
have to find our way throughand it's going to be,
unfortunately, radical changewithin the organization or else
we're going to just lose it,because the going on the path

(37:15):
that it's going on right now,which is to sort of ignore the
problems and blame outsideforces and speak in platitudes,
that is institutional suicideright now.
And the alternative is makingreally radical changes to the
organization, which is not goingto be popular or fun.
It will be extremely painful,and so they're in a real bind,

(37:40):
and Marie-Philippe Bouchard,who's just inherited all of this
, is herself in a real bind, andI hope that she's able to see
her way through this, becauseit's important to all Canadians.

Aaron Pete (37:52):
I love that.
The piece about being able togo through the archives I really
like because one I'll confess,I don't know our Canadian prime
ministers very well or what theydid, or what they did badly or
what they did well, that is notan area I know a lot about, but
I've been able to watch, Ibelieve, watch, I believe,

(38:18):
robert F Kennedy and RichardNixon debate on issues and it's
a very old debate, but the waythey talked, the mannerisms,
their respect for each other Imean I saw videos of that
juxtaposition with Trump andKamala Harris and it was stark.
I feel like the degrading ofour public discourse, the
dropping of the bar and you seethe same with, I think, a lot of

(38:39):
criticisms of Prime MinisterJustin Trudeau is it is all
platitudes, it is all words.
It sounds nice, but the meatand potatoes of what they're
saying didn't deliver, andthere's such a vast distance
from that that people just wantsomebody who's going to do
deliver, and there's such a vastdistance from that that people
just want somebody who's goingto do something, and I think
that's dangerous.
We're seeing that around theworld.
To do something, people.

(39:00):
It's not like people reallypushed up against their plan and
double-checked it andcourse-corrected.
That's one of my chiefcriticisms of Pierre Polyev is I
don't feel like we're gettingenough good, fair interviews
with him where people are askingin-depth questions on what your
plan is.
How are you going to get there?
What does that look like?
Have you thought about this?

(39:20):
Have you considered this In away that's not disrespectful,
that doesn't accuse him of beinga horrible person, but make
sure that you understand whathis positions and make sure that
he understands what hispositions are, because it freaks
me out how much polling he doesbefore he kind of confirms a
position.
I want somebody who has aphilosophical base on which
they're operating that doesn'tjust follow polls, and I think

(39:43):
that's a really important piece.

Tara Henley (39:45):
Maybe he'll come and talk to you, Aaron.

Aaron Pete (39:48):
That would be legendary.
How much do you think the CBC'scurrent challenges are external
because of, like social media,big tech, political pressure,
versus internal, their ownmismanagement?

Tara Henley (40:01):
I think their own mismanagement is making it
impossible to deal with theexternal factors, and I think
there's just across the board.
There's quite a lot of issuesin every area that would need to
get addressed to make themstronger internally and to be
able to weather the storm thateveryone in the media is going
through right now.
And I mean it's everything fromI don't know if you know about

(40:24):
their precarious labor issues.
This is something that mattersto me a lot because I was in
that position.
I was either on contract orworking without contracts, so
you don't know when your nextshift is coming, and I worked
like that for many years, as domany, many people in the
corporation.
I think they something likethey employ about 2000 workers
every day in this country thatare not permanent full-time

(40:46):
staff.
That creates a real problembecause it's a two-tiered
working environment and it'sterrible for morale environment
and it's terrible for morale.
Everybody knows it's terriblefor morale, but it's also
terrible for editorial freedom.
You know, unless you're crazylike me, you're not going to go
into meetings and really arguewith people about stories if you

(41:07):
don't know when your next shiftis coming from.
You know, if you don't knowpast two weeks, if you're
employed.
It's just.
It's a terrible formula forjournalism and that has to
change.
Their hiring practices, I think,also have to change.
I mean the fact that they're socentralized.
Two thirds of the workforce isin Toronto or Montreal.
That's just not the reality ofthe rest of the country.

(41:28):
The hiring practices are veryat least they were when I was
there divisive.
You know, for example, for thecontracts that I got, you would
have to sit in a board withother editorial leaders and you
would need to answer scriptedquestions, and it doesn't matter
if you've worked on the showthat you're applying to get a

(41:49):
contract on already informally,for a year and a half.
It doesn't matter howexperienced you are, it doesn't
matter what your resume says.
What matters is that you winthat board, and the questions
can be quite divisive, and a lotof them are about a specific
approach to diversity andinclusion that is not
necessarily shared widely.
That can sometimes becontroversial.

(42:11):
We're seeing huge discussionsabout this approach in the
United States right now, and soit can come across as political
litmus tests, and I think weneed to not do that right now.
I think we need as many peopleas possible in the conversation.
Also, I've argued that we shouldget rid of degree requirements.
You know, you do not need acollege degree to be a

(42:33):
journalist.
You just don't.
A lot of the people I workedwith coming up did not have
college degrees and some of themdid not have high school
diplomas.
Like it.
It's not rocket science.
You need training, for sure,but you do not need a degree.
And if we actually want to havesome economic diversity, if we
want working class journalistswho bring a whole different

(42:54):
perspective, getting rid ofdegree requirements would really
widen the talent pool and itwould also combat the perception
that we in the media are elitesand living separate lives from
the rest of Canadians, ignorantto what matters to them, to what
matters to them.
So there's a million thingsthat could be done, but none of

(43:15):
them are easy and none of themare, um, you know, going to be
popular with some factions.
All of it's going to be anupheaval, but the question is,
do you have that painfulupheaval now or do you have the
upheaval of Canadians losingthis institution?
Um, so I guess that's why I'mreally pushing for actual change

(43:35):
and I don't know, I don't knowwhat will happen.

Aaron Pete (43:41):
May I ask?
You mentioned 15 possiblereforms for the CBC.
Would you mind walking usthrough those reforms?
Sure, sure yeah.

Tara Henley (43:49):
So the first one is refocus the national public
broadcaster on the areas thatthere is no good business case
for and that the privateindustry is unlikely to serve.
This is things like local newsor investigative reporting.
Investigative reporting ishugely expensive to do,
especially if you're doingcorporate accountability and
government accountability.

(44:10):
It's tricky, it can belitigious.
You need institutional weightto do that.
Substacks like mine are notgoing to solve those problems.
We don't have the businessmodel for it and we desperately
need those areas covered.
Two decentralize.
So instead of having everybodyin Toronto and Montreal, having
everybody in Toronto andMontreal build small nimble news

(44:34):
hubs across the country.
This can be done.
I've just done it with my ownsun stack.
It's it happened.
You know mine is a very uh,shoestring budget.
It's mostly just me, sometimeswith other help from other
journalists and certainly withguest posts sometimes, but for
the most part it's me on ashoestring, creating a small
tiny hub myself.
There's no reason why a biginstitution like the CBC can't

(44:59):
do that across the country anddo it in places where there's
news deserts.
Get out of commercialadvertising.
It's not right for a nationalpublic broadcaster to be both a
commercial competitor and alsothe national public broadcaster.
It really should be picking alane and I think it should get

(45:19):
out of commercial advertising,because it cripples.
What we need most right now isdigital innovation and new
startups.
That's what we most need, butthey can't.
We can't compete with a massiveorganization with a giant
annual federal budget.
Four I think it should get outof entertainment programming,
which is not to say it shouldn'tget completely out of

(45:39):
entertainment.
I think there's ways of workingin entertainment all through
current affairs, radio and otherplaces, but in terms of
producing a lot of TV shows andthings that cannot compete with
American TV shows, I think assad as I am to say it, because I
like that aspect of our culturerepresented.
If you're going to be brutalright now and make the cuts that

(46:00):
you need to make, I think thatthat would be one area to do it.
Five abolish executive bonuses.
These bonuses are so unpopularand the rage about them cuts
across political parties.
It's just canadians reallydon't like them, um, so that
needs to go.
Uh, can I ask a quick?

(46:21):
Can I ask?

Aaron Pete (46:21):
a quick question on that one, please do.
Where do you have to be in yourown mind to know how horribly
unpopular they are to thenproceed?
I just think if you were tothrow me in there right now, my
mindset would be to come, sitdown, look into a screen and go.
We, the CBC, have failed youhistorically, like over the past

(46:47):
10 years.
Let's say we know you'redisappointed in us.
I will not take a bonus untilwe write this ship.
You can trust in us that we aregoing to to pivot and once we
regain your trust, once we seethat number start to rise again,
then yes, I may look to seek abudget or um, to seek more
financial support or a financialreward for my work.

(47:09):
Once we start to regain yourpublic trust.
Canada, like, how does somebodysit there and then, like she's
getting criticized in inparliament?
People are calling her out forhow much money she was receiving
in her bonuses to do it again,to know that there's a political
firestorm about, about this, tostill take it?

(47:31):
I just it makes me worriedabout our leadership.
That like we don't have aleadership class that cares
about what Canadians think.
It makes me feel like thatperson doesn't have integrity,
because to adjust in a momentlike that would be rewarded by
Canadians, not like looked downupon.
It just makes me worried aboutthe leadership class in our
country right now.

Tara Henley (47:52):
I agree, Absolutely I agree, and it reminds me of
when Adrienne Arsenaultquestioned Catherine Tate about
this on air and AdrienneArsenault to her, much to her
credit pushed quite hard on that.
And then, more recently,Marie-Philippe Bouchard was on
the Current with Matt Gallowayand, also to his credit, he
pushed really hard on this issue.
This issue is a very centralissue and it's not getting

(48:14):
addressed.
Catherine Tate could havewhatever legal issues are
involved, contractualobligations, all the rest with
the rest of her staff, whichneed to be phased out.
She could herself, as you say,come to the Canadian public and
said look, at the very least,I'm not accepting mine.
I'm not taking that money.

(48:34):
I understand how everyone is soupset about it.
We need some time to figure outhow to deal with it going
forward, but I will not takemine.
I agree with you that that isthe leadership position most
people want to see.
Again, marie-philippe Bouchard,on the current, declined to do
that as well as recently as aweek or two ago, and that is
really disappointing.

(48:55):
Again, I have a lot of empathyfor the position she's in right
now.
She's got a lot of balls in theair, but that is a real
no-brainer.
Just don't take the bonus.
It's so, it's easy.

Aaron Pete (49:06):
Do you think it's like a financial, like I can't
afford it, Like why?
Why?

Tara Henley (49:17):
I don't know.
I really really don't know.
I really really don't know.
I mean, again, we have thisproblem of it acting as a
commercial broadcaster.
Executives can make a lot moregoing to privates in the states
than they would make in canada,but but we're not a commercial
broadcaster, we are a publicnational broadcaster.
That is a different thing andwe shouldn't be trying to
compete with wages in the sameway as we shouldn't try to be
compete in other areas.

(49:37):
It just doesn't make sense andI feel that anger myself,
because I also know how hard therank and file at the CBC works
and you know, I know, I know howhard they work day in and day
out.
And to think that someone youknow many levels above you is
making $500,000 a year while youare scrambling to do two

(49:57):
stories a day, every day, andfiling on multiple platforms and
dealing with hostility from thepublic, like it's an enraging,
enraging proposition, sorry,continue, oh, no, yeah.
The next point six issignificantly reduce management
roles.
It's a very top, heavyorganization and again there's

(50:18):
all these VPs making $500,000 ayear.
Those are non-news roles.
I think they could pare down alot.
They could pare down in HR,they could pare down in DEI.
They have more than surpassedtheir targets for diverse hiring
.
I think originally it was 50%of all new hires.
I would have to check and,listeners, please fact check me
on this, because I didn't lookthis up beforehand, but I think

(50:40):
it's something like 78% of newhires were diverse.
It was some very, very largenumber.
They're doing great on thatarea.
All these DEI bureaucrats havebeen probably made obsolete by
that fantastic work, so samewith all their communication
staff.
They have a lot ofcommunication staff.
If you're not trying to be acommercial broadcaster, maybe

(51:02):
you don't need that many layersof communications.
Seven stop the precarious labor.
We've talked about that already.
Eight train the next generationof journalists, and my
colleague Jen Gerson at the Linehas a wonderful piece called
the Conservative Case for theCBC in which she goes into this
in detail.
The CBC could see itself as alibrary for journalism, as

(51:26):
opposed to a competition to theprivate market here, and could
start doing things like openingup its podcast studios after
hours for people like you and meto use.
It could bring back, you know,beloved veteran journalists to
offer workshops, training thenext generation of journalists,
giving that mentorship to thenew startups and news deserts.

(51:48):
There's so many ways that theycould start participating in the
community and using thatinstitutional weight and all the
resources that they have,including equipment, to support
the media ecosphere.

Aaron Pete (51:58):
Really quickly on that one.
I just want to say A I reallyappreciate you for that, because
you've supported me withstarting to learn the basics of
journalism.
I don't have a background inthat, and that's a piece I'm
becoming more and moreunderstanding of the importance
of me developing, as I continueto interview premiers and

(52:18):
ministers, is making sure thatI'm delivering fair but
journalistically integrityfilled interviews that if you
were to watch it, you wouldn'tgo.
This is this is not like I want, at least for journalists to be
able to listen to it and not go.
Oh, this guy has no idea whathe's doing in terms of
journalism.
Like, I can ask questions, butI would like to make sure each

(52:39):
one has a 25% core wherejournalists can go.
Okay, you asked the theappropriate questions that need
to be asked if you're doing itbefore an election and I think
I'm going to continue to do moreof those and so having a
resource to pull on on thosekind of circumstances to me is
important, because Joe Roganinfluenced the election and a

(52:59):
lot of the criticisms of hisinterview with President Trump
was that he didn't know how todo follow-ups or that he didn't
have an understanding of some ofthe issues in a deep enough way
to kind of push back where heheard things that weren't true.
I think we're seeing that nowin Canada.
Justin Trudeau has done a fewpodcasts.
He doesn't get asked toughquestions when he goes on
certain podcasts.
That might be intentional, butalso this is becoming a sphere

(53:23):
and we don't have the expertiseto deliver kind of the
hard-hitting information we needto in some regards, to make
sure that it's of a quality thatmeets Canadian standards.

Tara Henley (53:33):
I'm so glad you brought that up because there is
a shift in the political sphereof who's doing these interviews
and it is the podcasters.
I've been so excited to see theinterviews you're doing and
really, journalism it gets backto my point about you don't need
a college degree.
That's not what we need.
We need journalism to be taughton the ground in the process of
doing it, and CBC does have amentorship structure.

(53:55):
I was an official mentor topeople in my newsroom that were
just coming into journalism andthat's really what you need, and
I still go to the people thatare 20 years ahead of me and ask
them questions Like this is allstuff that is learned in the
doing and that's how it shouldbe, and we need that.
If we're going to meet thisnext moment, if we're going to
switch to digital, if thepodcasts are going to play a

(54:18):
huge role in our politics and inour media, then we need to be
extending ourselves to thecreators, to exactly what you're
saying is to give that nextgeneration the tools that they
want and are asking for.
So, yes, I think we need toreform hiring practices.
I've touched on that.
I think we need number 10 toenforce rules on social media.

(54:42):
The JSP the journalisticstandards and practices that the
CBC has lays out this veryclearly that news gathering and
current affairs journalists arenot allowed to say their opinion
on contentious subjects onsocial media, on other media.
Unfortunately, that rule getsbroken a lot and it's not evenly
enforced.

(55:03):
Every time a journalist goesout and says their own opinion
on social media, it erodes thecredibility not just of that
journalist but of theinstitution as a whole, and
other outlets in the country,like the Globe and Mail, are
much more strict and disciplinedabout this, and I think the CBC
needs to be as well.

(55:24):
Eleven increase conservativerepresentation.
You know we are askingconservatives in this country to
pay their taxpayer dollars tothis institution and they feel
and I think very justifiably sothat it does not represent them.
I, in the whole time I workedat CBC, I never worked with a

(55:44):
single open conservative onstaff.
I had one person once take measide and tell me that they were
a centrist and please don'ttell anyone.
That's the climate right andyou have to understand that
that's a liability.
You just have to understand.
There's so much about theconservative worldview the
conservative worldviews becausethere are so many different.

(56:06):
You know sections toconservative thought in this
country.
There's just a real lack ofawareness of who the main
players are, of what the centralarguments are, what the big
debates are, of who theinfluential thinkers are across
the border that are influencingus here.
Like there's just not awarenessand there really needs to be.
There needs to be somemeasurable goals for the

(56:28):
organization.
How does the CBC increase thenumber of conservatives on staff
?
How does it increase the numberof conservatives on air?
You know guests as well ashosts, I mean, and like also, I
don't count.
This is another thing.
I mean I'm often perceived asbeing a conservative now, but
I'm not conservative.
Actual conservatives don't findme conservative.

(56:50):
So this is again like we'rejust really missing a big part
of the country.
Number 12, we need guest speakerlunch and learns on contentious
issues.
Like, as you say, the transissue is a great example.
There's really a lack ofawareness of the fact that

(57:10):
there's a ton of liberalfeminists in this conversation,
for example.
There's just not awareness andI think that if the CBC did
lunch and learns, it's a verylow budget way of bringing
people into the building talkingthrough the other arguments on
these contentious issues andgiving the staff some exposure
to that.

(57:32):
Number 13, review pandemiccoverage.
We've talked about that.
They need to go back and lookat what they did and issue
corrections for stories wherethey didn't get it right.
Corrections are so painfulWe've all been there.
I hate it when I get acorrection, but that's how you
maintain trust, is you go?
Okay, I'm human, I messed up.
I'm going to say I messed upand we're going to get on with
it.
Um.

(57:54):
Number 14, reaffirm the value ofjournalistic objectivity in
2020.
There's been a debate withinjournalism circles for many
years and it really bubbled upin 2020.
There are people who think thatit's not a viable aim,
journalistic objectivity, thatpeople all have their own biases
and it's better just toacknowledge them and to not try

(58:17):
to go out to the public and saythat we're objective when we're
not.
My argument is A it's anaspiration, it is an aim.
It's never going to be perfect,but it's far better than
operating without that aim.
And B let's listen to what thepublic wants.
And the public says time andtime again, and just recently
said in Reuters Instituteresearch on this the public

(58:40):
wants impartial reporting.
They want to know that we'redoing the very best we can to
give them all the facts andallow them to make their own
decisions on it.
It's very, very clear.
So the New York Times has had abig push to reestablish this
norm and to reaffirm it inpublic, and has said things like
we went too far in 2020.

(59:00):
I think CBC needs to do thesame.
Finally, the CBC needs to stopblaming other people for his
troubles, as we, as we said inthe starting part of this.
Yes, there's all kinds ofcomplexities.
Right now.
It's a terrible market forjournalism right now.
There is misinformation.

(59:21):
There is all kinds of you know,complex problems that we're
dealing with.
There is audience fragmentation.
There's all of that.
There's news avoidance.
These are all real things, butthat's not going to win the
public back to your cause.
The way to win the public backto your cause is to say here's
what the broadcaster has done inthe past.
Let us remind you of all thewonderful things, all of the

(59:43):
wonderful interviews, all of theBarbara Frums and the Peter
Zoskis and, you know, michaelEnright and Peter Mansbridge and
all the beloved people thattook part in this organization,
all those moments that meantsomething in your life Hockey
Night in Canada, all the showsand remind them.
This is what we can be, and askfor a little patience while

(01:00:06):
they iron it out, but present apositive vision to the country.
This is what we're aiming fornow.
We've heard you, we've listenedto your concerns.
Now we're moving forward, we'reaiming for this vision.
I think that would be very,very powerful.
I think Canadians are hungry tohear that and I wish someone
would just say it.

Aaron Pete (01:00:26):
Beautiful.
That was very well said.
I appreciate you being willingto share that article.
I think it's going to get ahuge response, because it really
is important for us to havethese conversations.
How can people follow alongwith your work?

Tara Henley (01:00:39):
They can find me at tarahenleysubstackcom.
You can also find me on ApplePodcasts, lean Out with Tara
Henley, and you can find me onthe Hug Podcast, my new podcast
with Harrison Lohman and PeterMenzies.
It's called Full Press.
We talk about the newsdevelopments in this country
every two weeks on that podcast,and thanks so much for having
me, aaron.
I am always watching whatyou're doing, I am cheering you

(01:01:01):
on.
I think you are fantastic andyou are exactly what this
country needs right now, so I'ma big fan.

Aaron Pete (01:01:07):
I feel the exact same way.
No-transcript problem.

(01:01:29):
So thank you for always joiningand for your support in my
development over over the pastfew years.
Thanks so much, aaron.