0:01

This is a CBC Podcast. Hi

0:10

there, I'm David Cochran, and this is the

0:12

Power and Politics Podcast for Friday, April 26th.

0:15

Alberta wants to give itself more power

0:17

over cities and towns. We'll ask municipal

0:20

affairs minister Rick McIver why. And

0:22

the Trudeau government continues to sell its economic

0:24

plan, even though the budget hasn't resulted in

0:26

the bounce liberals hope for. The

0:29

power panel debates the direction they take next. We

0:34

begin with Alberta's new bill that aims

0:36

to give the province more power over

0:38

municipalities. Local leaders say it's an attack

0:40

on democracy. This is

0:42

going to undermine local decision making, and

0:44

it's going to hurt our communities. And

0:46

this is something that Newtonian's ever asked

0:48

for. So

0:51

I'm just kind of, I'm at a loss

0:53

to see why, what

0:55

is the need for these changes. There

0:58

are a few examples where municipal

1:00

governance definitely can benefit. Everything else

1:02

is pretty nebulous, not

1:04

a lot of answers around it. And

1:06

I think it's bordering on overreach in many cases. The

1:10

new bill would, amongst other things, introduce

1:12

political parties into local municipal politics, starting

1:14

in Edmonton and Calgary. The bill would

1:16

also give Cabinet the power to repeal

1:19

bylaws and remove councillors from office. One

1:21

Edmonton city councillor called this proposed

1:24

legislation really troubling. The

1:26

way it's written right now sounds like

1:29

it's very much about intimidation and silencing,

1:31

not about ensuring that those who have

1:33

clearly broken the rules and have just

1:36

have a terrible track record that

1:38

have the ability to remove them, right? To

1:42

explain why this legislation is needed, Rick McIver is

1:44

the Alberta Minister of Municipal Affairs, and he joins

1:46

me now. Minister, welcome to the programs. Good to

1:48

see you. It's great

1:50

to be here, David. Thank you. This bill,

1:53

it gives Cabinet some big powers, the power

1:55

to remove municipal councillors from office or call

1:57

a public referendum to have them removed to

1:59

overturn... municipal bylaws of any

2:01

kind. Why does cabinet need

2:04

such power and how do you define

2:06

the public interest threshold that would trigger

2:08

these? Well

2:10

the most important thing that I would like

2:12

to say to you about that is cabinet

2:14

or government already has these powers and

2:17

essentially always has. So the

2:20

only thing that's really changed I suppose is

2:22

the the time frame and the

2:24

process from A to B but the ability the

2:26

authority to go from point A to B has

2:28

been there as long as I

2:30

remember. So if it's there why do you need

2:32

this legislation because people are looking at some of

2:34

the measures here and seeing this as a bit

2:36

of overreach by the government? Well

2:39

it can't possibly be overreach

2:42

because municipal government is 100%

2:44

within the purview of the

2:46

provincial government as per Canada's

2:48

Constitution. So those that call

2:50

it overreach really don't understand how you

2:53

know how the Constitution works. So

2:56

we're just exerting the authority that we have

2:58

and again the powers that you talk about

3:00

are have always been there. We're certainly making

3:02

them a little more accessible should

3:05

they be required. That's true

3:07

and but there's a few things

3:09

that have kind of helped bring

3:11

us to this point. I'll point you to during

3:13

the time at the end of COVID the

3:17

City of Edmonton chose after

3:19

we removed our health ministry, removed the

3:21

masking bylaw, decided to be the provincial

3:23

government and put a masking bylaw in.

3:26

Now we had to

3:29

actually go and quickly draft a

3:31

piece of legislation to override that

3:33

and put it through and that's

3:36

that was fine then but what would happen if for

3:38

example we were in the middle of the summer break

3:40

when the legislature wasn't expected

3:42

to sit for another three four months. Then

3:45

of course we would have potentially would have

3:47

had to recall the legislature great expense a

3:49

lot of trouble and the inconvenience for staff

3:51

and people that perhaps were on long

3:54

planned vacations and we

3:56

don't want to ever have to have

3:58

that happen to occur. So this

4:01

doesn't expand our power, but it does actually

4:03

put us in a better position should we

4:05

have to act in a short period of

4:07

time. I understand the Constitution that in

4:10

the phrase of Parliament, municipalities are creatures of

4:12

the legislature and that they are created by

4:15

a piece of legislation in the provincial parliament.

4:17

But municipal governments do exist for a reason,

4:19

and they are elected for a reason. And

4:21

just to use the example that you cited

4:23

about Edmonton deciding to go with a masking

4:26

bylaw or a masking requirement,

4:29

we know during COVID that the virus

4:31

was in different conditions and different

4:33

levels of spread in different municipalities,

4:35

in different communities, and in different

4:38

parts of the country. So

4:40

why not? What is wrong

4:42

with a local government taking decisions to

4:44

respond to what its local health authorities

4:46

are warning them about the local situation

4:48

in their jurisdiction? No,

4:50

it's a provincial government authority, Ministry

4:53

of Health, and we

4:55

will, municipalities don't get to be the provincial

4:57

government nor pretend to be. So that's

5:00

not anything new. I don't imagine in other

5:02

places as well as Alberta. Okay.

5:04

Well, I mean, Toronto did have different

5:07

restrictions in Ottawa at different times during

5:09

the Ontario experience. But

5:12

you just don't think this should

5:14

rest with municipal governments? I mean, what

5:16

about other policies? Minister, for example, Calgary

5:18

is going through a process now to

5:20

review its zoning bylaws. If

5:22

you don't like where they land on that, is that

5:25

the sort of thing you might use the new power

5:27

to overturn? No,

5:29

actually, here's the interesting thing. We've

5:31

had the power in

5:33

Alberta to overturn municipal zoning

5:35

bylaws and decisions for a

5:38

long, long time and over

5:41

a decade. And that power has been

5:43

used exactly zero times. And

5:45

that's, I think, to the large part what you can look

5:47

forward to in the future. We

5:50

may or may not agree with Calgary's

5:52

decision, but it's squarely within the authority

5:54

that our government has given them. And

5:57

we hope they will make a good decision. The

6:00

already ignore what is the public

6:02

policy problem you're trying to solve. This

6:04

legislation the has alarm so many people

6:07

because the of the mares of Edmonton

6:09

and Calgary and councils in those to

6:11

the same that this could potentially

6:13

put a chill on their operations. The

6:16

worried about being constrained by potentially a

6:18

government that just as like their agenda

6:20

as a municipal level intruding and interfering

6:23

using the powers are consolidated under

6:25

this particular piece of legislation. The.

6:27

Powers are already there. There are to

6:29

consolidate little bit quicker to act on

6:31

them if if that comes off right

6:34

now. but again, I give each employee

6:36

had the power to overturn planning decisions.

6:38

Rover defeated abusive exactly zero times. I

6:41

think that's we hope that we can look forward to.

6:44

One of the measures in this legislation minister

6:46

is banning the use of tabulate years in

6:48

municipal elections. What wire do feel the need

6:50

it? We use those here in auto I

6:52

voted him a couple of times. It's speeds

6:54

everything up. What? What's the issue. I

6:57

don't have a problem with them, I have to tell you.

6:59

But here's the issue. A certain. Percentage.

7:01

Of the population is uncomfortable that idea

7:03

so in some would say and I'm

7:05

not even argument is that they might

7:08

be cheaper and quicker. Those are both

7:10

good things. But you know what's more

7:12

important than all of that is that

7:14

the day after the day after the

7:16

election when the winters are all declared

7:18

that the public as one hundred percent

7:20

confidence that those people declared the winners

7:23

actually got the most folks. and that

7:25

is actually more important than the cost

7:27

is more important than the speed of

7:29

the confidence. Because Mr. Police did. such

7:31

a for work and which we respect

7:34

very much and is amongst those things

7:36

a cast bylaws the people have to

7:38

obey and other rules and regulations that

7:40

people have to live by and they

7:43

the legitimacy of their authority comes from

7:45

be in be duly elected people that

7:47

one the municipal election and the less

7:49

doubt that we can have cast over

7:52

that i think leads to the more

7:54

confidence that people have in their local

7:56

municipal government and with and really than

7:58

that of more impetus for them to

8:01

obey and live by the rules

8:03

and bylaws that the municipality justifiably

8:06

and legitimately puts in place by

8:09

virtue of them being legitimately

8:11

elected. So taking away as much doubt from

8:13

the results as we possibly can, I think,

8:16

can only be a good thing. But

8:18

where's the doubt about tabulators? I mean, I know we

8:20

went through this whole thing in the United States. I

8:22

don't have it. I don't have it. So why do?

8:25

There are some. But it's not about me.

8:29

Somehow, partons do doubt it. So rather

8:31

than have people worry

8:34

about or doubt the legitimacy of a

8:36

municipal election, we're

8:39

going to take away all the doubt that we can. Again,

8:41

the municipalities have a very important role to

8:43

play, very important decisions to make, and we

8:45

need those decisions respected by all of the

8:47

citizens. So the best way to do that

8:49

is to make sure that whether you like

8:51

the person who was elected or not, we

8:54

should all be able to agree that the people sitting

8:56

in the elected seats. But

8:58

how widespread is this doubt on tabulators, Minister? I mean,

9:00

I know you see some of this in the more

9:04

conspiratorial circles of a population, but

9:06

I've never seen anything suggesting there is

9:08

a widespread or even

9:10

statistically significant concern about the

9:13

integrity of elections conducted using

9:16

these counts in Canada. I know there's technical

9:18

issues with the New Brunswick provincial election more

9:20

than a decade ago that they sorted out

9:22

rather quickly, but this is

9:24

used in municipalities right across the country. I've

9:28

seen nothing to challenge the legitimacy of them.

9:30

So why indulge that by banning them, I

9:32

wonder? Zero

9:34

doubt is better than some doubt when

9:36

it comes to people accepting the legitimacy

9:39

of an election. Again, we respect the

9:41

important job that municipalities do. We don't want

9:43

any doubt about the legitimacy of

9:46

the elections and the legitimacy of every single

9:48

person that sits in an elected seat

9:50

for a municipality. We want

9:52

the public, all of the public, to

9:54

respect the legitimacy of those people and to

9:56

respect their decision. So this is a good

9:58

way to... take a small amount of

10:01

doubt down to zero, and we think that's

10:03

well worth it. Okay, two other things I wanted to

10:05

just touch on with you very quickly if I can.

10:08

You're moving ahead with the plan the premium is about to

10:11

allow political parties in municipal politics, which

10:13

a lot of the people engaged in

10:15

that world have pushed back against the

10:18

saying it's not necessary and not something

10:20

they particularly want or need. And

10:22

you're also allowing corporations and unions to make

10:24

donations of up to $5,000. And

10:28

some of the criticism of that is there's way more

10:30

corporations out there than there are

10:32

unions. And this imbalances a playing

10:34

field where this sort of activity was disallowed

10:37

to now allow business interests to have the

10:39

upper hand. So why go ahead with those

10:41

two measures, given the concerns that

10:43

have been raised about it? Okay,

10:45

those are two very different questions. But on

10:47

the terms of political parties, the only place

10:50

where political parties will be put in place

10:52

is in Calgary and Edmonton. And

10:54

even media people have agreed with me

10:57

that largely there's a party political party

10:59

like activity already happening. So all we're

11:01

doing, we're not in fact right now,

11:03

there's no ban, no rules around political

11:06

parties. There's

11:08

no limitation on it. So we're going to put some

11:10

reasonable limitations on it. If

11:12

you're going to behave like a political party,

11:14

which is fine, then some of

11:16

the normal reporting requirements that other

11:18

political parties and other political arenas

11:20

have to have will apply. And

11:23

it's no more difficult than that. But to be clear,

11:26

no one will be required to be

11:28

part of a political party to run

11:30

in a municipality. And

11:32

we are ensuring that local elections

11:35

stay local, because we will

11:37

not be allowing any formal

11:39

relationship between a

11:41

provincial or federal provincial

11:44

or political party and a municipal political

11:46

party. In other words, local elections will

11:48

stay local. So just on

11:50

the other point, because I did join two

11:53

thoughts together, you were right in your first

11:55

response to that. Why allow this sort of

11:57

corporate money and union money into municipal politics

11:59

in this way? at all,

12:01

especially in the way that people seem to

12:03

think global imbalance towards corporate and business interests.

12:06

Well, I'm not sure I agree with you on that, but

12:08

I will say this, is that the NDP

12:11

took that out at one point because their quote

12:13

they're saying was, and they always used their quotes,

12:15

they're going to take the big money out of

12:17

politics. But the fact is it wasn't. As

12:20

much money or more has been spent in

12:22

the election since, but I

12:24

think it's less clear who it's coming from. So

12:27

I think having more clarity about who's giving money

12:29

who and who's getting the money is that

12:31

level of transparency and accountability is can

12:34

only be positive for Alberta

12:36

and for the elections that happen here.

12:39

So I'm comfortable with that. I think

12:41

that the more we

12:43

know about who's getting money from whom

12:45

and what they represent actually serves

12:47

the voters to know who they're

12:50

voting for, what line

12:52

of ideology or thought or

12:54

what emphasis they may have in the decisions they

12:56

make. And it actually should help voters

12:59

to make a more informed and better decision.

13:01

And hopefully that will lead to the best

13:03

municipal government that we can have in every

13:05

municipality in Alberta. Rick McIver,

13:07

I got a million more questions, but I don't have

13:09

a million more minutes. We're out of time. I want

13:11

to thank you for joining me. It's Alberta Minister of

13:13

Municipal Affairs, Rick McIver. Thank you, sir. I

13:16

appreciate your interest today and I hope to talk

13:18

to you soon. It's the end of the first

13:20

week of testimony in the criminal hush money trial

13:22

of Donald Trump. And today,

13:24

prosecutors called two more witnesses to

13:26

the stand. Rona Graf, Trump's

13:29

former and longtime executive assistant, and Gary

13:31

Farrow, a banker who worked with Michael

13:33

Cohen. Their testimony followed

13:35

multiple days of questioning of

13:37

former tabloid publisher David Pekker.

13:40

Pekker told the court about his involvement in a

13:42

plot to protect Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.

13:46

We have another day of court,

13:48

the freezing court office, it's very cold

13:51

and their petition is over. Do

13:53

you read what they say? The case should be over. Do you all in

13:55

Washington? continues

14:00

to deliberate whether former President Donald Trump

14:02

can be prosecuted by charges of trying

14:04

to subvert the 2020 election. Aaron

14:07

Blake is a senior political reporter with The Washington

14:09

Post and he's been following all of this closely.

14:11

Aaron, I don't know how you follow all of

14:13

it closely because there's a lot there. Thanks

14:16

for joining us today. Look,

14:18

Thanks for having me. Let's start in New York where

14:20

we're told the courtroom is very cold but where David

14:22

Pecker was back on the witness stand today. I mean,

14:24

what did we learn in that case today? Yeah,

14:28

so the big question and what

14:30

the prosecution is really setting the

14:32

stage for here is establishing that

14:34

these payments, this hush money payment

14:37

to adult film actress Stormy Daniels that

14:39

was made by Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen.

14:42

Michael Cohen was then reimbursed by the

14:44

President himself while he was in office.

14:46

The idea is proving that this was

14:48

geared towards the campaign. The

14:50

crime that Trump is charged with

14:52

here is falsifying business documents. It's

14:54

generally a misdemeanor offense but it

14:56

can be bumped up to felonies

14:59

if you can prove that it was

15:01

done to obscure another crime. And so

15:03

the idea here is that this was

15:05

covering up an effort to interfere in

15:07

the election, basically to hide this payment

15:09

to deprive people of information in the

15:11

election. So we saw David Pecker take

15:14

the stand, the first witness in this

15:16

case, basically describe meetings

15:18

with Trump and Michael Cohen

15:20

going back to 2015 that

15:23

tied this whole effort to not just

15:25

Trump's personal reputation but also to his

15:30

presidential campaign. And

15:32

that's a pretty significant, at least threshold issue

15:34

for the prosecution in this case. Yes,

15:36

I mean that's a key point and Pecker has

15:38

spoke about efforts to catch and kill negative stories

15:41

or essentially you pay somebody for the right to

15:43

publish your story and then never publish it. Also

15:45

planting favorable ones and he says it was

15:47

all to help Trump's 2016 campaign. Trump

15:51

keeps saying the hush money was personal.

15:53

So where do you think this is

15:55

going in court based on what you

15:58

Referenced that we heard today? Yeah.

16:01

Eight. So it as I mentioned, this is

16:03

a threshold is she? This is something that

16:05

is necessary for prosecutors to prove in order

16:07

for these to be considered felonies. I think

16:10

it's gonna be in a we had a

16:12

a taste a number of years ago that

16:14

people might remember involving John Edwards who was

16:16

of know presidential candidate, a democrat who actually

16:19

father a child ah with a woman who

16:21

was not his wife and it was somewhat

16:23

similar in that he was. He was charged

16:25

in this case of the jury and that

16:27

he's actually believe that this was more personal

16:30

in nature than campaign. Oriented embarrassed and

16:32

significant differences in the two cases here.

16:34

Ah, but that's also telling you why

16:36

the prosecution felt the need to really

16:38

drive home this fact with their first

16:41

witness. And I think. The. Way

16:43

that David Packer walk through these things.

16:45

The meetings that he had with Trump

16:47

and Cohen. The the conversations that he

16:49

had our for that with Cohen were

16:51

Cohen emphasized the campaign rather than just

16:53

top Trumps personal life. I think it's

16:55

really as a important testimony when it

16:57

comes to the prosecution actually proving it's

16:59

case. Okay I the and another thing

17:01

that needs to be decided. Another important

17:03

ruling from the New York Supreme Court

17:05

Justices on whether Trump has violated the

17:07

gag order around all of this. So

17:09

how is his conduct out by the

17:11

courts and on through. Social other places playing

17:14

in the distance. Yeah.

17:16

It's a really big question of. It's

17:18

something that we've been waiting a long

17:20

time for a ruling on. There are.

17:22

There is a gag order in this

17:24

case that prevents Trump from talking about

17:26

the jury from talking about the judges

17:28

daughter who he had attacked. From.

17:30

Talking about witnesses and Trump has

17:33

proceeded to either say things about

17:35

those entities or repost things on

17:37

his social media. Count on that

17:39

prosecutors allege violated that gag order

17:42

on the question is did he

17:44

actually violated and what if is

17:46

going to happen at that point.

17:49

Or. He's been fine before for violating gag

17:51

orders In other cases, that seems to

17:53

be a significant possibility here. And but

17:55

the real question is you know, given

17:57

he's continue to do these things even.

18:00

After those previous find, is the judge

18:02

gonna feel compelled to do something further?

18:04

You know the judge can throw somebody

18:06

in jail for a weekend if they

18:08

decide that's what's necessary in a case

18:10

like this. It seems like something that

18:12

the judges wouldn't wanna do because that

18:15

would set off a whole firestorm I'm

18:17

But you also have to protect the

18:19

proceedings that your overseen because you can't

18:21

just have the defendants continually doing things

18:23

that are going to undermine the validity

18:25

of whatever comes of that trial. Know

18:27

it's early Christian impossible situation to the.

18:30

Judge Right When you think about we are

18:32

what Trump is accused of unleashing. you know

18:34

what? I'm trying to january six some of

18:36

the extreme elements of his supporters taking the

18:38

sort of from actions you or me would

18:40

face in a stick with similar circumstances, the

18:42

totally different dynamic with winner with the former

18:45

President My Trump. It's meanwhile our and all

18:47

this is playing out against the backdrop of

18:49

the presidential campaign to public opinion coming out

18:51

like it? Yeah, what is your sense of

18:53

how this is affecting from with Republicans with

18:55

moderates are some suggestions are ready reporting that

18:57

Robert Kennedy Jr of all people as picking.

19:00

Up support from Trump as as this rules out

19:02

how the playing out in the public opinion dynamic

19:04

in the election year. The.

19:06

I think that there is a recognition

19:08

that the indictments that Donald Trump has

19:10

faced benefited him, at least when it

19:12

came to winning the Republican Presidential nomination.

19:14

That's a very different electorate than we

19:17

see in the general election Were more

19:19

moderate voters who didn't like Donald Trump

19:21

during his presidency could potentially look at

19:23

these things and kind of be reminded

19:25

of the things that they once didn't

19:27

like about Donald Trump or his image

19:29

has actually gotten better since he's would

19:31

bet out of office. but there's a

19:33

real question about whether that's gonna hold

19:35

up over time. I. think if you

19:37

look at this case in particular there

19:39

is less concerned about it among the

19:41

american people that his other cases are

19:43

less people think that the actually committed

19:45

a crime here they think it's a

19:47

less serious crime or that he's accused

19:49

of do of committing here i'm but

19:51

i do think that need to separate

19:54

to some degree the legal from the

19:56

political year whether trump is convicted in

19:58

this case is one person But whether

20:00

this reminds people of certain things that

20:02

they didn't like about Trump is another

20:04

and I think when it comes to a case

20:06

Involving paying hush money to an adult film actress

20:09

And potentially interfering in election though that kind

20:11

of hits a lot of the notes of

20:14

what people didn't like about Trump Trump back

20:16

then So we're starting to see some polling

20:18

on this. We haven't seen huge shifts We're

20:20

probably not going to see huge shifts just

20:22

because our country is so polarized But

20:25

we have what we have noticed in the last few weeks

20:27

is that president Biden seems to be gaining a little bit

20:29

in the national Polls basically a tide

20:31

race now and president Biden is now not

20:33

losing as many votes to these third-party candidates

20:35

as we saw before Some of those Robert

20:38

F. Kennedy junior voters Are

20:40

coming from Trump more so than before and

20:42

so to the extent that's a reflection of

20:44

people kind of Reevaluating the candidates in this

20:47

race as these trials move forward that

20:49

could be significant You said

20:51

Americans are less concerned about this case than

20:53

they are his other cases of which there

20:56

are several But the other

20:58

one that is playing out simultaneous to this is that the Supreme

21:00

Court in the United States about whether because his

21:02

acts were Committed while he was president whether he

21:04

can qualify for immunity some

21:06

of the scenarios that have been discussed in

21:09

this court about Hypotheticals of

21:11

whether it would be okay for a

21:13

sitting president to use the military to

21:15

stage a coup to stop an election

21:17

If it was an official act versus

21:20

a personal act or use the seals

21:22

to assassinate a political rival It was

21:24

an official it sounds crazy But

21:27

it's not I I mean, what is your sense

21:29

of where this case in particular is

21:32

going? Yeah,

21:34

just another normal week in American politics where

21:36

the former president's on trial for paying a

21:38

porn star And the Supreme

21:40

Court is asking the former president's lawyer whether

21:43

he could lawfully Assassinate his

21:45

political rivals and stage a

21:47

coup, you know, I'm laughing

21:49

about it But it really does kind of reinforce

21:52

what the Trump era has Thrust

21:54

upon us as a as a society here

21:56

that we're even talking about these things. Look

21:59

this immunity thing I think is

22:01

generally acknowledged to be a delay tactic

22:03

from Trump. The idea was that this

22:05

could potentially push his trials later

22:08

and maybe even after the election. It

22:10

actually seems to be potentially doing that given the

22:12

Supreme Court looks like it's going to spend some

22:14

time with this. But more broadly

22:16

speaking, it doesn't seem to be that he

22:18

is going to get the full immunity that

22:20

he has argued for. But the

22:23

Supreme Court does seem interested in

22:25

addressing more limited forms of immunity

22:27

for future presidents when it

22:29

comes to their official duties

22:31

and things that come up well shy of

22:33

the things that we talked about with SEAL

22:35

Team 6 and staging a coup.

22:38

They want to set some parameters it would

22:40

seem for the future. And that could actually

22:42

be very relevant if Trump is returned

22:45

to the White House because he signaled that he is

22:47

going to push the bounds of

22:49

presidential authority. And so I think that at

22:51

least creates a little bit of an incentive

22:53

for the Supreme Court to set some parameters

22:55

for that. Aaron Blake

22:58

of The Washington Post, we appreciate it man. There's a

23:00

lot of moving parts there and thanks for walking us

23:02

through them. Good to have you on the show. Thank

23:06

you. Liberals

23:12

fanned out across the country this week

23:14

selling their economic plan to Canadians. In

23:16

addition to promoting budget measures, the government

23:19

announced a massive economic deal with Honda,

23:21

pushing the promise of jobs and growth

23:23

what they call the largest auto investment

23:25

in Canada's history. It's a big

23:27

deal, but it's been a tough sell. Recent

23:30

polls suggest the budget hasn't moved the

23:32

needle, so this week we also saw

23:34

the Prime Minister's fees on Conservative leader

23:36

Pierre Poliev's controversial stop at a protest

23:39

camp and his failure to denounce conspiracy

23:41

theorist Alex Jones. If

23:43

Pierre Poliev wanted to be a responsible

23:46

leader, I'll

23:49

even give him the words. This

23:51

is what he should say. I

23:56

reject categorically the endorsement

23:58

of The American people. that and

24:00

the support. Of die I

24:02

go on. And of Alex

24:04

Jones. Meanwhile.

24:07

The Conservatives are trying to capitalize on

24:09

fruit Oslo popularity by inviting Mukherjee, who

24:12

is often touted as a possible successor

24:14

to Trudeau to give his thoughts on

24:16

the budget at a parliamentary committees. Some

24:18

to talk about. All this with the

24:20

Friday Power Failure Paul scalping of the

24:22

back on your gun Sinclair, The College

24:25

to the Winnipeg Free Press specifically to

24:27

immerse yourself is in Calgary and here

24:29

with me scoffing journalist and author Paul

24:31

Wealth and editorial writer for the divorce

24:33

Murray Vast Else will Paula lets us.

24:37

And I guess is as a normal weak ass

24:39

essential A fantastic. The discussion of policy and investment

24:41

as as and and industrial initiative and these wage

24:43

things on the culture side of things and trying

24:46

to undermine the lead somewhere. Do you think we

24:48

are on on on the day for sort of

24:50

the beginning of it? I believe Marconi will be

24:52

a candidate for liberal leadership at some point I

24:54

would not as about ten days ago or if

24:57

he's not getting ready to run to launch a

24:59

candidate on with the how he's doing. Com. And

25:02

fair, there's There's a There's a

25:05

growing consistency within the party. Ah,

25:07

Who think of him as it's as very good. Next

25:09

time candidates are and next I might be next week

25:11

for all we know. The.

25:15

Thing about of polio of

25:17

increasingly calling him. The. Next

25:19

Leader is classic post Harper conservatives

25:21

tactics ice. They ran an ad

25:23

in Two Thousand and Seven, Two

25:25

Thousand and Mates in which Michael

25:27

Ignatieff harangues stuff and deal about

25:29

failed environment policy. I wrote a

25:31

column saying this is to set

25:33

liberals among themselves and a conservative

25:35

strategist of the day wrote me

25:37

and said look at the journalism

25:40

thing ever doesn't work out, you

25:42

become were for us and surrounds

25:44

the moment During. His:

25:46

you're just upset. and

25:49

the rest is food for the the families

25:51

but yeah attorneys carney is seen as as

25:54

it's of a juicy target of opportunity by

25:56

the conservatives gave me guy know what's your

25:58

view that fab at yale You

26:00

can go where you want with this. You want to talk about the

26:02

economic stuff, talk about the wedge stuff, or we're just going to focus

26:04

on this for the whole panel. Well,

26:08

I was going to spend some time talking

26:10

about this Honda investment because I

26:12

think it's a very classic

26:14

situation where Doug Ford is

26:16

using, and arguably Trudeau as well,

26:18

arguing that the investment is happening

26:21

in the country as opposed to

26:23

what Barcarny criticized the budget for,

26:25

which is not enough investment. And

26:28

that is a very classic distraction

26:30

scenario that I think also

26:32

talks a lot about what Polyev is doing with

26:34

his political strategy. We seem to be in the

26:36

politics of distraction. Maybe we are

26:39

in the midst of it. Maybe we are at the tail end of it.

26:41

Who knows? The politics of distractions really

26:43

looks like we are ignoring

26:45

the fact that forest fires started this week,

26:47

and when we talk about the carbon tax,

26:49

we have to talk about the fact that

26:52

forest fires started out on the west coast

26:54

and will continue throughout Alberta, into Saskatchewan, even

26:56

into Manitoba, and that that forest

26:58

fire issue is a critical issue involving climate change,

27:00

and it's going to be very difficult to argue

27:02

for any situation or any issue around the carbon

27:04

tax when it comes to discussing forest fires. And

27:07

then on top of that, when you discuss

27:09

a Honda investment for EVs, you

27:11

really just ignore the fact that the Doug

27:13

Ford's government has completely failed when it comes

27:16

to the Ring of Fire in

27:18

terms of indigenous consultation. And the fact

27:20

is you cannot just simply move in

27:22

to try to take lithium or energy

27:24

of any kind without First Nations consultation.

27:27

So the fact that Doug Ford hasn't

27:29

really dealt with that issue whatsoever and

27:31

is making multi-billion dollar investment announcements really

27:33

indicates that both him and perhaps Trudeau

27:36

are really jumping the gun and focusing much more

27:38

on economic issues than some of the issues that are really

27:40

critically facing the country. Okay, just to

27:42

correct you on the wildfires, they didn't start this

27:44

week. The evacuation alerts started this week. Those wildfires

27:46

have been burning since last year. The winter didn't

27:48

put some of them out, which just

27:50

underscores the seriousness of the issue you're raising, right,

27:52

the sort of challenges there. So Maria, I mean,

27:54

where do you think we are at the end

27:56

of this week of budget roll continues the big

27:59

Honda deal? and now wage

28:01

issues galore. Well,

28:04

two different things. I think on the budget, it's

28:07

true that we haven't seen a bump despite

28:09

four weeks of selling it, which

28:11

could be surprising. But I was

28:14

looking at that Angus Reid poll, I think

28:16

it was yesterday, where the conservatives remained 20

28:18

points ahead of the liberals after all this

28:20

effort to sell, first of all, to throw

28:23

money at solutions for

28:25

housing and affordability, and then

28:28

throwing energy, I guess, at

28:30

selling it. And the polls

28:32

haven't really moved. But if you look at

28:34

the policies, which Angus Reid actually asked about,

28:36

like pharma care, dental care, disability benefits, those

28:39

are all supported by over 70% of

28:42

respondents, and things like

28:44

leasing federal land for housing, or

28:47

investing in housing infrastructure,

28:49

those are at 58%, 55% support. So

28:53

there is an appetite for what's in the budget.

28:55

So I'm curious to see if over

28:57

time these numbers move

28:59

if those policy announcements start

29:01

to percolate in people's minds, or whether it's

29:03

a little too late and people don't really

29:05

want to hear it anymore from this government

29:07

or this prime minister. But there does seem

29:10

to be potential for movement, especially because both

29:12

Pierre Poitiers and Justin Trudeau have large

29:14

unfavorables. So no one really seems that enthusiastic

29:17

about either of them. But on

29:19

the wedge issue, I

29:21

do notice that

29:23

the prime minister also is more on the offensive as

29:25

of late, responding to what Pierre Poitiers was doing. And

29:28

I understand the urge, and I'm not saying it's wrong.

29:30

I just worry sometimes

29:33

about the public discourse and public

29:35

policy, things like

29:37

the Honda deal announcement yesterday.

29:41

Someone from CTV asked about job numbers, which

29:43

is a legitimate question that people

29:46

ask. And the prime minister

29:48

very instantly sort of barks back with

29:51

an attack on the conservatives. I don't know if

29:53

that really serves public discourse

29:55

or public policy. If you look at gun

29:57

control, four years later, we still don't have

29:59

a buyback. program. It's a great wedge

30:01

issue but perhaps the buyback program

30:03

is more important than having a wedge issue for

30:05

the next election. So I

30:07

understand the urgent. I'm not saying the liberals are wrong

30:09

for doing it. I just worry about the

30:13

level of discourse in this country if we're

30:15

going down instead of trying to go up.

30:17

I don't think going up will come from

30:19

the conservative. So I'm not saying... Well I

30:21

do say that there's a lot of liberal

30:24

supporters probably watching this now saying you're blaming

30:26

Trudeau for this. I'm not blaming Trudeau. I'm

30:28

just as a citizen a little bit worried

30:30

about where things are going. I'm not saying

30:32

Trudeau's fault more than Poliev's fault, certainly not.

30:35

I understand the urge to respond when someone is saying

30:38

you're spewing bullshit all the time but

30:42

I just as a naive citizen and voter

30:44

I'm a little concerned about everything. Look I

30:46

agree with you. Directionally... My optimism is hard

30:48

to think about. No, I agree with you.

30:50

Directionally the conversation of the country, some

30:53

people won't even come on shows like this at

30:55

all to have that conversation. But Jason just to

30:57

talk about the budget for a second, as Marie

31:00

points out, individual components of the policies may be

31:02

popular but the whole is less than the sum

31:04

of its parts when it comes to winning over

31:07

either an oversaturated and exhausted electorate with

31:09

this current government or just a disinterested

31:12

electorate. I mean what do you make

31:14

of the fact that this rollout that

31:16

was praised from a communications perspective by

31:18

some people has policies that people like

31:20

on an individual level and then the

31:22

Honda announcement still has people done with

31:24

this Prime Minister at least from what

31:26

we're seeing today. I mean

31:28

the components are not what

31:31

Pierre Poliev is attacking. He's not attacking

31:33

the housing measures. He's not attacking dental

31:36

care, pharma care much. He's certainly not

31:38

attacking the capital gains tax that was

31:40

going to raise in revenue for it.

31:42

He's not going to be attacking alongside

31:45

Doug Ford and Justin Trudeau's Honda

31:47

announcement or any of his other EV announcements.

31:50

Those are seemingly... he must

31:53

sense that they're popular or popular

31:55

enough not to want to attack. All

31:58

he has to do is attack the... The

32:00

figurehead his announcing these things and asking

32:02

sufficient it's you know that have a

32:04

I think if this was what what

32:06

the first week of the budget and

32:08

either been no bounds on liberals would

32:10

have had. Give it time. But. As

32:12

where he said this week for. Of

32:14

the our budget announcements and still nothing. Ah

32:17

me how I think a lot liberals and

32:19

lot of people out there saw this as

32:21

a one big inflection point with the on.

32:24

There aren't many major inflection points to com

32:26

um before next October. One more budget on

32:28

the Us election May. but I this seemed

32:30

to them like a chance to turn the

32:33

page and the page has not been turns.

32:35

The policies may be popular or they may

32:37

appreciate I that they're taking more serious tone

32:40

on housing but I'd they're not, they're getting

32:42

the thanks for it. Just. A

32:44

you know to to read point of your was

32:46

on the capital gains tax thing. As you said

32:48

that they haven't taken the bait on that site.

32:51

It's is shielded live. I think the Liberals wanted

32:53

to beat them into a fight over taxation and

32:55

fairness and the Liberals have been bitten on that.

32:57

That's all I h one of my summer party

33:00

for second our i Want to Show stigma he

33:02

issued today in response to this request that he

33:04

com to ogle as the committee is notes he

33:06

says or industry but that was released to the

33:09

people. Canada Twenty Twenty Carney said I'm not interested

33:11

in playing games on such important issues for candidates,

33:13

economic future. Canadians really expect

33:15

our elected parliament areas to

33:17

produce solutions to Canada's challenges,

33:19

rather than performing political stance

33:21

or mindlessly repeating simplistic slogans.

33:25

And interesting rebuttal their paul such a girls on

33:27

the show last night time with poly of having

33:29

such estimated leave for such period of time a

33:31

bit times for get them to talk about what

33:33

is specifics would be something I think journals try

33:35

to do and don't as we have a lotta

33:37

luck. what do you make of that Arguments are

33:39

from the former banks had their com. I.

33:43

Would have responded the same way of in the

33:45

unlikely as an area where some anyone in parliament

33:47

try to harm me in front of me. I

33:51

think is I'm a little risk and calling a parliamentary

33:53

committee a game is why people who think that it's

33:55

the business of parliament in as as somebody who wants

33:57

to spend a lot of his time there, my want

33:59

to. By. But

34:02

ah, I was struck

34:05

by the tone which is a

34:07

of Mr. Carney release was very

34:09

patrician, very formal ah and seems

34:11

an odd set for the folly

34:13

error and but party wonders whether

34:16

he wants to be the next

34:18

next targets that that essentially setting

34:20

the table for a brief catastrophic

34:22

folly of of prime ministership after

34:24

which Canadians my be yearning for

34:26

some adult supervision. Or

34:29

that's imperfect that the how the banks are is

34:31

a very is a lot of since I was.

34:34

Gonna say people who think they can

34:36

manipulate the political universe in a way

34:38

that aligns with am at a Mr

34:40

Carney is doing this but you don't

34:42

have been next. Great hopes of parties

34:44

and provincial and federal and it's just

34:46

more are simply the fact attorney is

34:49

not at all like the person is

34:51

facing might be very appealing to to

34:53

to liberals is that. Almost

34:56

every new Prime minister that I have

34:58

covered seemed like a horror to the

35:00

party that they replaced. Perfect like spreads

35:02

him seem like a buffoon to Mulroney,

35:04

Conservatives and Stephen Harper seemed exactly wrong

35:07

for Canada. If you are a Martin

35:09

Liberal and Justin Trudeau, nice hair but

35:11

you know, not a series not just

35:13

not ready and yet and so. Ah,

35:18

The the the people who are worse

35:20

place. To. Judge the of fact

35:22

that an opponent might have are the

35:24

people for whom he's an opponent. And.

35:28

Together with any gamble what, what's your stance

35:30

on this is pushback from from Carney saying

35:32

that essentially this is a stunt and that

35:34

if you really want to deal with problems,

35:36

you gotta go beyond slogans because debate that

35:39

conservatives have rather effectively stuff and with the

35:41

discipline of you act attacks build on six

35:43

devices. Stop the crime and everybody knows these

35:45

these terms. Now I wouldn't make them Trying

35:47

to drag him in the committee or anti

35:49

semitic committee is a I guess his way

35:51

to get him to criticize. the current Prime

35:54

is hers. Economic plan. To

35:57

Windsor one is that he's already Christmas the

35:59

prime. It. and then second is that

36:01

him by playing the kind of game

36:04

of, calling the

36:06

very committee a game, is both

36:08

play into a real, kind

36:11

of conservative narrative. You know, polling

36:13

comes out recently about who would

36:15

be the possible next successor and

36:18

the three candidates are Melanie Jolie

36:20

and Christopher Freeland and Mark Carney.

36:22

And none of them broke the

36:24

20% barrier. The

36:26

point is, we don't know anyone,

36:29

or I don't know, that's what Canadian polls

36:31

said. And so that tells you a lot

36:34

about whether Trudeau has the

36:36

ability to be able to run in the next federal election.

36:38

And I think all signs point to that he's going to

36:41

make a run for it. What

36:43

has he got else left except for to

36:45

try to cement a legacy or recover a

36:47

legacy in some kind, because he's really at

36:49

his last legs politically. And

36:51

then also there really isn't a big successor.

36:54

When we're talking about the great next hope,

36:57

the words Paul Martin came in mind to

36:59

me, because while Liberals put all

37:01

of their eggs in the Martin basket, it

37:03

certainly didn't turn out very well and ended

37:05

up with three reigns of Stephen Harper. So

37:08

the reality is that the Liberals should be

37:10

thinking about not just this upcoming election, but

37:13

what the next few look like. And if they

37:15

are looking at losing, then what would be the

37:17

next successor and what would be that

37:19

successor that could take them long-term into at least two

37:21

elections. And the reality is it needs to be somebody

37:23

who is well known to Canadians. And

37:25

if Justin Trudeau is going to head into

37:28

the next election, how

37:30

much of a Mulroney-like damage will

37:32

that be? Will it be a

37:34

complete and abject failure? That's something that really has to

37:37

be taken very seriously and thought about right now. What's

37:40

your sense of that, right? Because

37:42

I don't know if I've ever covered

37:44

a politician who's campaigning who doesn't think they

37:46

can win, because I think you need that in the

37:48

back of your mind to have the energy to do

37:50

what is required. And the minute they lose that, you

37:52

just see them physically shut down on the campaign trail.

37:55

There's no indication to me that Trudeau

37:57

is going to win. is

38:00

getting ready to leave or the people around him are thinking

38:02

about that. But how do you think

38:04

they need to look at the next 18 months they

38:06

have? Do you think they think they can credibly get

38:08

it backwards or about raising the floor, potentially, of where

38:10

that next election might go? I'm

38:14

not sure. I don't get the sense that

38:16

he wants to leave. I think this is a very personal fight

38:18

for him. I would agree. I think he wants

38:20

to save his legacy, quote unquote, would be his

38:22

words, not mine. And

38:25

this wedge

38:27

politics with the Lieb, I think he takes

38:29

very personally that this is not what he

38:32

wants Canada to look like. And so I don't

38:34

think he's going anywhere. I don't think anyone is

38:36

pushing him to go anywhere, quite frankly. I think

38:39

even if some people think it might be better

38:41

with someone else, no one's going to push

38:44

out the guy who essentially saved them from their

38:46

ashes. Because when

38:48

Mr. Trudeau came along, the Liberals weren't doing

38:50

that well. They were not. And so I

38:53

think he will be around. I think

38:56

this budget was an attempt by them,

38:58

this new comm strategy, like talking about

39:00

the budget two weeks ahead. He's

39:04

different on social media. I don't really know how to

39:06

word it. You have seen a change of tone. He's

39:08

more confrontational, like I was

39:10

saying, against the Conservatives. So they are

39:12

trying a few different things. So far,

39:14

the numbers aren't moving. I

39:16

think they think something like Mr. Poliev going

39:19

to visit an encampment and being caught on

39:21

tape, saying all these things, I won't repeat

39:23

that word. I saw your face. Probably shouldn't have said the

39:25

yes. It's OK. It's just a suffer time show. OK.

39:29

I think that to them, they

39:32

see this as a positive. But you can't

39:34

just bank on people getting

39:36

cold feet about

39:38

the other guy. I think a lot of people still

39:41

are asking this as questions, maybe blue liberals thinking,

39:43

I'm tired of Trudeau, but I just can't.

39:45

I'm not sure about that yet. But that's

39:47

a big, big bet after 9 and 1,5

39:50

years, maybe 10 if we

39:52

get to the next one. So Jason, on

39:55

that point, to talk about this

39:57

trip to the protest camp, this is not the first convoy

40:00

a convoy adjacent event that Pierre

40:02

Polyeve has attended willingly. The

40:06

liberals are, I think, pretty clearly

40:08

hoping to drag down his positives,

40:10

drive up his negatives because rehabilitating

40:13

Justin Trudeau's positives is a difficult

40:15

proposition. This is why they

40:17

are putting this front and center and their

40:19

view, the argument you hear from liberals is

40:21

that the more people see this kind of

40:23

stuff, the less they're going to like Pierre

40:25

Polyeve. I don't know if that's a realistic

40:28

option for them or just a hope for

40:30

them at this point but how do you think

40:32

this sort of a moment this week could potentially

40:34

play in the broader political thing or is it

40:36

just something that as a conservative say is just

40:39

nonsense that legacy media is trying to

40:41

drum up to save their subsidies

40:43

which is what I believe they said in their

40:45

fundraising pitch this week. That's

40:47

kind of them, pretty good. The

40:51

liberals are going to use what they

40:53

can. I would point out that

40:55

this is not the first time that they've seized

40:57

on something that some association

41:00

or some meeting or

41:02

some attendance next to

41:04

somebody that Polyeve or the

41:06

conservatives have I think back to that

41:08

German far-right politician that some of his

41:11

MPs. Christine Anderson. Yes, that's correct. That's

41:13

the one. I would note that

41:16

they were, since those have happened,

41:18

Polyeve has become more popular

41:20

and that's causation I'm saying that's in

41:22

spite of all that. But

41:26

they will keep trying. They hope that like

41:28

with their budget and like all these measures

41:31

that they're putting out if those accumulations will

41:33

stack up and create an impression. It hasn't

41:35

happened yet but they will use the hopes

41:37

that they can. Contrast that with

41:39

the steady

41:42

character assassination, character attacks

41:45

on leaders successively that sort of

41:47

had done over time going

41:49

back to what Paul was saying about the attacks

41:51

on Dionne early. I mean what strikes me about

41:53

the Carney thing is that here they're not only

41:56

attacking, doing all they can to attack the current

41:58

leader but they're attacking. somebody

42:00

who hasn't even declared a leadership or some leadership

42:02

raise that doesn't exist. They are very

42:05

determined to do all they can

42:07

to use their ample war test

42:09

to attack any and their

42:11

rhetoric to attack any potential leader they

42:13

can. The Trudeau government never

42:15

did that. Liberals never did that really with

42:17

Paul Yev. And now what they're doing, and

42:19

from the Prime Minister's mouth as opposed to

42:22

from top administrators or some talking

42:24

heads mouth, it doesn't seem to

42:26

have worked. On the leadership

42:28

question, this one last point, I

42:31

know that Trudeau doesn't seem to want to

42:33

go at all, but the question as to

42:36

why the budget hasn't sold, why all these

42:38

steps that people are impressed with are not

42:40

actually making an impression, there are two potential

42:43

answers likely. One is that people are just

42:45

tired of the Liberals, in which there's no

42:47

hope, or people are tired and don't trust

42:50

the leader specifically. And

42:53

again, the accumulation of that may

42:55

wind up pushing Trudeau to do something he has not

42:58

wanted to do. So Paul,

43:00

just to go back to the using

43:02

of the convoy camp visit this week

43:04

and the political attacks there and the

43:06

bringing up Alex Jones and the refusal

43:09

to denounce that endorsement by noted

43:12

American conspiracy theorists, there's a lot of analysis

43:14

that the Prime Minister wants to run again

43:16

to cement his legacy or save his legacy.

43:18

It also seems pretty clear that they want

43:20

to stop Pierre Paul Yev, like they just

43:23

fundamentally oppose what he represents from

43:25

a value set. And

43:27

this sort of tactic of pointing to,

43:30

going to events like that, is that a thing

43:32

that can work? Is there fertile ground there, do

43:34

you think, for that? There sure is. If

43:36

nothing else to rally people who have been

43:39

voting Liberal anyway, or are already reluctant to

43:41

consider Paul Yev. In a complex, one of

43:43

the super simple grade school things that I

43:46

keep finding useful to remind people is that

43:48

in a complex country

43:50

with 340 odd ridings,

43:53

many effects can come from an act. So,

43:55

it's possible that Paul Yev... It

44:00

reminds conservative leading voters that he's

44:02

playing folks who like hanging out with playing folks.

44:06

At the same time as liberals and

44:10

sort of straight sheep, people who've been

44:13

voting liberal but really don't like Justin Trudeau will

44:15

say, well, my God, where's

44:17

the country going if this guy gets in and they come

44:19

home? You

44:23

know, what's left out is a center, but the

44:25

center is where Michael Ignatia

44:27

fought. So who needs it? You

44:30

know, Marie, and then the pushback

44:32

is this is the

44:34

Toronto Star, this is the CBC,

44:36

there's an attack on CTV that's

44:38

just gone out on social media

44:41

from the cause. It denounced the media

44:43

who asked questions about this and attacked it. So

44:46

it plays into the narrative that the

44:48

conservatives are building too, right? That it's

44:50

the establishment trying to save this guy

44:52

and calling normal people extremists and it

44:55

seems to be fueling both

44:59

sides of this whole argument this

45:01

week. But to Paul's point, I don't think

45:03

people in the quote unquote center,

45:06

largely center, resonate with

45:09

that, that you know, media are lying,

45:11

the prime minister is lying. I

45:15

think there is a risk to this strategy by Pierre

45:17

Poelien and like

45:19

the encampment, fine, he wants to

45:21

go encourage them, fine. The

45:23

Diagalon flag, it's inside the RV,

45:26

it's small, he might not have seen it. But

45:29

then the way he talks to those people,

45:31

kind of like spewing the anger and which

45:33

also by the way, it can backfire because

45:35

that anger can turn on someone else if

45:37

someone else is in government and deceives their

45:40

expectation. But that spewing the anger, those words

45:42

that I won't repeat, that to me is

45:44

what is unbecoming of

45:46

someone wanting to govern a country and

45:48

I think there is a risk that

45:50

turns off some people of this

45:53

broad, blue, tent, conservative coalition

45:56

that maybe don't like bad

45:58

side. thing to talk

46:00

to normal people, regular people, the guy in his

46:02

RV who's really really bummed about the carbon

46:05

tax, that's one thing. It's all the other stuff

46:07

around it. The fact that he didn't want to

46:09

post for a picture in front of that F

46:11

Trudeau flag. The fact that, yes I

46:13

didn't say that. No, no, if you said that we'd have

46:15

a problem. But yeah, the fact that he

46:18

seems to know that it's either

46:20

inappropriate or could look bad for

46:22

his own popular

46:25

campaign. That's what

46:28

looks weird to me. Either he

46:30

knows it's not a great idea or politically

46:32

or morally and he's

46:34

kind of doing it hoping

46:36

no one finds out. I think that's also where the risk

46:38

is. Where it seems like there's a strategic

46:40

courting certain people in a certain way. You

46:42

know and you got it's interesting because we

46:45

all learned about this because the people in

46:47

that encampment put it on their social media.

46:49

It was not on Mr. Pauliev's social media

46:51

which is where he likes to put pictures

46:53

of him meeting with normal Canadian folk. But

46:55

I wonder like he may not have seen the

46:58

diagonal on sign and all of these things and

47:00

you know there's no evidence to suggest he did.

47:03

But I flip it around and if Justin

47:05

Trudeau pulled over to a protest group

47:07

with F Pierre signs and just dropped

47:09

in to say hi because they were

47:11

running those slides. I imagine

47:14

the criticism will be fierce and intense.

47:16

You know I just wonder what you

47:18

make of the way people view it

47:20

when it's the leader of the opposition

47:22

going into an F Trudeau encampment. Well

47:26

I mean to be fair Trudeau

47:28

has gone to certain

47:30

protest camps indigenous in particular that do

47:32

have signs like F Canada

47:35

and while he doesn't appear beside those things

47:37

there there has been ways in which the

47:40

Trudeau has stopped at certain camps. I want

47:42

to talk about what Pauliev chose

47:44

to do though by going to this camp. I mean

47:46

this was an impromptu stop. It was

47:48

prompted by the fact that he heard it was

47:50

a carbon tax camp and so

47:52

it plays really into that narrative and I think

47:54

in many ways once you get in that circle

47:56

you're in the circle. Whatever is in

47:59

there is going to be there.

48:01

And there's this very big Venn diagram

48:03

with those who hate the carbon tax

48:05

and those who hate vaccinations who are

48:07

burn it all down and then on

48:10

top of that are conspiracy theory believers.

48:13

The fact was that he was there and

48:15

he also maybe perhaps has a base to

48:17

build. I mean these are likely maybe,

48:20

and certainly coming from Manitoba I can tell

48:22

you from first hand experience, these may be

48:24

maximum Bernier supporters, people's party supporters that there

48:26

still needs to be a small base to

48:29

grow there. That's my maybe optimistic

48:31

way of thinking about the way maybe

48:33

he thought that he could build something

48:35

there. But I would just say that

48:37

the problem with Trudeau framing Polyev in

48:39

these constant Alex Jones and framing him

48:41

with all these kinds of celebrities in

48:43

the United States is that some of

48:45

those are very mainstream people. Like Joe

48:47

Rogan for example is one of the

48:50

biggest Alex Jones though

48:52

isn't right? I mean Alex Jones is not.

48:54

Absolutely not the same thing in any way

48:56

but it's still kind of an American celebrity

48:58

ism that he's associating with Polyev that could

49:00

be highly problematic. And I think that Polyev

49:02

may not have seen, known exactly what he

49:04

was getting into when it was coming to

49:06

this protest gap. But certainly he didn't leave

49:08

which tells you I think a lot about

49:10

his view of the possibility of that being

49:12

a voting base. But I just want to

49:14

emphasize what Marie said is that anger, when

49:16

you stoke that anger, that anger is uncontrollable.

49:18

It's like a fire out of control and

49:20

it will come back and hurt you. So

49:23

Jason just a final thought from you. Is

49:26

this just what we're going

49:28

to endure between now and

49:31

the next election? Like little

49:33

wedge tactics, big culture war

49:35

sort of arguments about

49:37

the character and nature of the politicians rather

49:39

than sort of the ideas and the plans

49:41

and the policies for the future? Because it

49:43

sure seems things aren't moving

49:45

off slogans in a big way in the

49:47

broader conversation. The world

49:49

will turn. There will be more car

49:51

companies coming for more electric vehicle plans.

49:53

There will be more tax credits for

49:55

various initiatives and cabinet tours and everything

49:57

but it's hard to walk the line.

50:00

back from the moment when the

50:03

opposition leader tells a group of people

50:05

who are very angry that the

50:07

Prime Minister lies all the time. It's

50:09

also difficult for us to walk back

50:11

from Justin Trudeau using some

50:14

social media thing from Alex Jones who

50:16

just talked about Pierre

50:19

Poliev to say this is because

50:21

of something an American pundit said,

50:23

you shouldn't vote for my

50:26

opposition rival. Those

50:28

are just very harsh, extreme things to wind

50:31

up saying and things that are

50:33

more personality driven by

50:35

the leaders, not by their second,

50:37

their number two, their number three.

50:42

This is the leaders talking and they will

50:44

continue having this trash talk rap battle and

50:47

I don't think it's going to get a whole lot

50:49

better from here until October 2020, however whenever

50:51

it is. Yeah, Paul, just a last word

50:53

to you. I'm not trying to clutch my pearls

50:55

and wring my hands about this, but there is a

50:57

directional thing happening in an angry time, in an angry

50:59

country, in an angry west post-pandemic where things are going

51:01

in this direction. Do you think this is just where

51:03

it's going to be for the next 18 months in

51:06

terms of the high level conversation amongst

51:08

the leaders? Oh yeah, I mean

51:13

the Liberals have been very upset for two years

51:15

that Poliev is the voice for angry Canadians and

51:18

the Prime Minister is becoming a bit

51:20

more of a voice of a different

51:23

cohort of angry Canadians. The

51:26

old social diceties, I mean Stephen

51:29

Harper's politics seemed really quite surprising

51:32

and raw when he came on the

51:34

scene and he now seems like a figure

51:36

of retinue and

51:38

bashfulness compared to pure Poliev. Yeah, it seems to

51:40

me if Aaron O'Toole is the leader right now

51:42

and Trudeau is in this situation, he might think

51:44

about leaving because I don't think he'd

51:46

see the stakes as high. If he knew

51:48

that I might turn it over, but I don't think he will because

51:50

of what's going on there. I always

51:53

appreciate it. Have a good weekend. Happy Friday.

51:55

Jason Marcus off Nigan Sinclair at the Potty Mouth

51:57

Marie Vestal and Paul Wells. That's

52:01

it for today.

52:07

If you liked this episode, please follow the pod and

52:09

catch our next live show on CBC News Network.

52:12

We're on weekdays at 5 p.m. Eastern time.

52:14

I'm David Cochran. Thanks for listening. For

52:56

more CBC Podcasts, go

52:59

to cbc.ca/ podcasts.