At Issue - Poilievre pulls big crowds, but does it matter?

Episode Date: April 11, 2025

In this special Canada Votes edition live from Halifax, The National’s At Issue panel breaks down the latest from the federal election campaign trail, including rally stops in Alberta and an appearance by former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper. Plus, how party leaders are dealing with the media. Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

On the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz comes an unprecedented exhibition about one of history's darkest moments. Auschwitz, not long ago, not far away, features more than 500 original objects, first-hand accounts and survivor testimonies that tell the powerful story of the Auschwitz concentration camp, its history and legacy, and the underlying conditions that allowed the Holocaust to happen. On now exclusively at Rom. Tickets at Rom.ca. This is a CBC Podcast.

Hey there, I'm Rosemary Barton. This week on At Issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, April 10th. You don't need to tell me what Alberta's like. I'm from Alberta. So this week we're asking, what did we see from the campaigns as they head west this week. Chantilly Bear, Andrew Coyne, Althea Raj join me for a special edition of At Issue in Halifax. Plus how are party leaders dealing with the media? The National is traveling across the country to hear from voters, like all of you, through the campaign.

So we're here at the beautiful Halifax Central Library. So great to be here in person. So great to have these folks in person. You know them all, but I'll introduce them anyway. Chantelle Iber, Andrew Coyne, and Althea Raj. Thank you all for being here. Thank you for travelling. Okay, let's get right to it.

We want to talk about the week that we've had so far. A couple of things have stood out, both time that was spent in the West, talk of Western alienation and endorsement by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Chantelle, I'll start with you. an endorsement by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Chantelle, let's start with you. Where do you think we are in this kind of weird third week of the campaign? Yeah, third weeks are rarely defining weeks and some of the destinations are dictated by logistics.

Next week, the debates will take place in Montreal, so all the campaigns are gonna head there for debate prep, which involves people faking that they are someone else so that the leader who is practicing believes that Mark Carney is actually standing there. So the Western Canada thing for third week also makes sense, especially for the conservatives. They're not gonna spend a lot of time in Alberta

or Saskatchewan after this. Why? Because they've got this territory sewn up. BC for the liberals, for all campaigns, for the NDP makes a lot of sense. Why? Well, for the NDP because survival goes through BC. If they lose BC, there's not gonna be very much left of them,

including their leader in the House of Commons. So they have to campaign there. The Liberals, same reason, but in the reverse. This is where they're hoping to gain off the NDP the most because this is where the NDP has the most seats. Stephen Harper and the campaigns that I've covered, former prime ministers tend to show up when you need wind in your sail, when you don't

manage to get it yourself. Pierre Trudeau campaigned twice in 84 for John Turner. Other Prime Ministers, Jean Chrétien, at the tail end of 2011 showed up. It usually doesn't make a big difference. And the fact that there was a very large rally, it was in Edmonton, which was kind of telling. The fact that you would bring out, I think it was maybe just because Mr. Harper was available in Alberta, but the fact that you would do that in Alberta, and the fact that the former prime minister was there for Pierre Pauli, what does that tell you, Andrew? It tells you it's not going terribly well for them, I think in three ways. One is after enormous movement in the polls before the election, once election

campaign has started, it looks pretty baked in. Not a lot of movement has happened. The Tory has been throwing everything they can at Mark Carney. It doesn't seem to have dented his appeal amongst the people who find him appealing. So first thing. Secondly, it really does seem to have turned into a two-party race more than any race in my lifetime. Between the conservatives and liberals might get 80% of the vote in this election. The last time that happened I think was in 1957, 58. This is unusual.

And obviously when the NDP vote is down, that's not good for the conservatives. The third thing is it seems to be very much driven by the leaders. Obviously every election is, but more so than ever I think. Mark Carney is polling ahead of liberals, Pierre Pollyer was polling behind the conservatives. It really does seem to be the case

that a critical mass of voters have taken a look at the two candidates, two leaders, and have said, I prefer Mark Carney. So the Tories are in a ditch right now, and they've got a relative little time left to dig themselves out of it. And they seem to be talking and pointing to the rallies a lot. You've heard Mr. Poliev himself say, look at how big these rallies were in these different

places. And, sure, that's a sign of support, but they seem to think that it is something bigger, that it is a sign of a broader movement. What do you make of those claims and the way they're positioning those things, Althea? It's an interesting strategy because it reminds people of Donald Trump and how big his rallies were and how much he talked about his rallies. But it also reminds people, I think, of 2015 where the liberals tried to use the rallies to show momentum.

And I think that that is what the conservatives were trying to show. It's harder when you don't have the media with you to be able to show that momentum night after night. We'll talk about the media in the next part. So I won't spend too much time on it. I don't think Mr. Harper's endorsement is shocking. I mean, of course, the Conservative Prime Minister was going to endorse Pierre Pauli. It would have been news if he hadn't, frankly.

But he didn't endorse the last two. He didn't go out for Andrew Scheer. He didn't go out for Ernie Mitchell. But he did endorse them. He did not show up on... He did not endorse them. He just didn't do a big thing Scheer, he didn't go out for Aaron O'Toole. But he did endorse them. He did not show up on... He did not show up on... He just didn't do a big thing, sure. In a very public way.

In a way like to Shantaz's point, Brian Mulroney was dished out in the last week of Aaron O'Toole's campaign, and they tried to do that a little bit with Brian Mulroney's memory through Caroline Mulroney last week. But what is more interesting is who is Pierre Paulyev talking to and why. So here, they're in Edmonton, the Liberals actually think they can pick up about five seats in Alberta. So there's a strategic reason why you want to go to Edmonton and re-energize the party faithful.

But I also wonder if maybe they feel the writing is on the wall and part, and I say this believing that I think the Conserv conservatives, there's a pathway still to victory. But if Mr. Poliev wants to remain the conservative party leader, he needs to win a leadership vote if he loses. And one way he will do that is to continue to tack to the right because that's where the grassroots is.

So I think there's like two things happening at the same time. But it's still a competitive race. It is not over, but pick up on whatever part you want there. Well, first the rallies. Rallies do not, they're supposed to project momentum, but they do not tell you the state of a campaign. If they did, Pierre Trudeau would have won. I was a very young journalist walking from work in Toronto,

and you walk right next to Maple Leaf Gardens in 79, so I walked into a liberal rally, convinced me that I didn't want to be someone holding a... but I did like politics, but there were 20,000 people in there. Well, Pierre Turlot lost the election. It was interesting but meaningless. But in the case of the dynamics of this campaign, I think it's beyond... It's counterproductive. And why do I say that? Because the reality, Andrew spoke about this, the reality is that the NDP and the black vote, part of it is flocking to the liberals out of fear of Donald Trump, but also out

of fear of Pierre Poilier. And the more you show those big crowds to spooked voters, the more they're saying this guy could still win. Just the opposite, yeah. And it solidifies votes for the liberals that Pierre Poiliev can't get. The best case scenario for him would be to find a way to send them home to the NDP and the Bloc. How do you do that if you spook them into thinking that they're not going to,

that their parties won't win and if they go back home, then Pierre Poilier might win. And it's not just the size of the rallies, it's who goes out to them and what is the message they're hearing. So these are, you know, lovefests for Pierre Poilier, but lovefests in particular for the most harsh culture war, you know, vituperative edge of his campaign.

They love that stuff. He loves that stuff, but that's not the kind of voter they need to reach. And I think in many ways this campaign has failed to take stock of the way that the electoral landscape changed post Justin Trudeau, post Trudeau's tariff war, post the entry of Mark Carney. They're still running the same ideas and the same approach that they did before that, and one of which is they still think it's all about ginning up the base, getting out the turnout and not trying to appeal to people who aren't already in the base.

And this, Tories go back and forth on this debate. They certainly placed their bets on the turnout strategy this time, and it's not working for them. Last word to you, because that is, they need to broaden their coalition, and we don't know if that's being successful right now or if rallies do that. About a minute to you. Andrew's right. The biggest problem is that they haven't shifted their strategy.

Rallies are incredibly expensive and they're resource intensive. And the conservatives used to tell us they would rather have people knocking on doors and identifying their voters than spending time and energy getting people who were already converted out to rallies. And now that you're facing a very competitive election, you wonder why they have decided to pursue this strategy. But I think beyond that, what we've seen is that the liberals have basically borrowed, stolen, whatever word you want to use, the conservative party's not necessarily exact policies, but some similar policies and some of their wording. And the liberals are trying to basically nullify the policy issue so that the ballot issue

is a question about leadership. And on that question, Mark Carney wins head and shoulders above Pierre Paulyev. And the Paulyev camp, the conservative camp, has not adjusted yet. And I don't know why, we talked a little bit about this last week. Where's the team? Because there is a team, but they're not dishing him out. Okay, got to take a short break here. We're going to come back here from the library in downtown Halifax in a minute.

We're going to look at the leaders, the media, and how all of that is playing out in the campaign. At issue, a special edition Canada Votes. out in the campaign. At issue, a special edition Canada votes. It's a reporter trying to ask you a legitimate question. Welcome back to Halifax. We're here at the Central Library with our amazing live studio audience. Let's get back to it. All right, so what's to be made of how party leaders are dealing with the media? How is this affecting the campaign? How is it helping or hurting their strategies?

Chantal, Andrew and Althea all with me here in Halifax. I'm going to start with you, Andrew. We're asking this question because Pierre Poilieff has taken a particular approach to the media. There's no media on the campaign bus or plane, which is typical, but also because of the way he's restricting questions, choosing who gets questions, not allowing follow-ups, and sometimes even his people suggesting questions to the journalist. What do you make of this highly

controlled approach? Oh, and even further, cooping them up in little pins on a giant parking lot. There's some people who say, well, this is very silly. That's a front-runner strategy where you try to avoid questions to play it safe. Why are you doing that when you're behind? Actually, my theory is it's not about avoiding questions. I think the intent is to humiliate and confront. I think they're still locked in this idea of our base loves it when we confront the

media, our base loves it when we engage in a confrontational tone with them. This will make the media mad. It'll make us look like we're in control and dominating them, and this will play really well at home. I can't imagine that's helpful to them with anybody other than their committed followers, but they are so locked into this, I think it's instinctive for them. He learned this from Harper, who used to do it as well. The odd thing is, whenever either Poyer or Harper actually take questions, they're really good.

They're articulate, intelligent people. They're good spokesmen for their cause, if they could just get outside their own heads, if you will. Yeah, I mean, Pierre Polyev could take a question from anybody. He's not a new politician, unlike Mark Carney. It's not like he doesn't know his brief. Yeah, yeah. What do you think, Kelsey? Although I don't think we've seen that. He doesn't know his brief. No, yeah.

What do you think, Kelsey? Although I don't think we've seen that. When he's in a long-form podcast, he just did one with a Quebec host, his answers are thoughtful. He may or may not agree with what he's saying, but he can express his point of view and he's not shy of actually addressing the substance of the question. I think that they wanted to just control the message very clearly so that there would not be questions about abortion or a question about Bill 21 or questions about any tricky issues that

were not on the core things that they wanted to talk about. And so without, you know, taking a follow-up question away from a reporter, so usually the reporter asks a question, the politician speaks and then you say, well, like, you didn't really answer my question, like, you know, refocusing so that the person can elaborate on what their thought is. Taking that away because they have somebody holding the microphone and taking it back means that he can just say whatever talking point he wants to say and the voter is,

and the journalist who's reporting on this is not well served because there's nothing. But it's more than just that strategy. The other part of the strategy is, and we, the media, are complicit in this because we've allowed it to happen, he goes on for like 30 minutes, 15 minutes in French, 15 minutes in English about whatever he wants to say. That is broadcast on TV and then he takes five, you know, four questions and no follow-ups. And yes, everything you said is accurate about

like trying to shape some of the, especially local journalists' questions. But like at some point, we should be speaking out and saying, this is outrageous. Like, you're not even giving us equal time to ask questions. And you want to be the prime minister of the country and you're not accountable now? At what point do we believe that you will be accountable, that you will be willing to submit yourself to questions that are not just talking points that you want us to cover. Go back to your point about he's able to answer questions. It goes beyond that.

Some of the better days that Pierre Poiléves had reaching outside his tent have been days when he was challenged by some of his own members on abortion rights or same-sex marriage and had to come down with a very clear position. So the notion that he would fear questions on abortion or any question boggles my mind. I think they kind of outplayed themselves with the strategy of not having a media tour on the plane for stupid reasons. They're not getting all the coverage that they would like. I'm in Montreal.

I'm trying to find, it's early in the morning, I have to do radio. I know Stephen Harper showed up in Edmonton. I want to see what happened there before I go on radio. I go through the entire media. I find two big websites. I'm not going to name them, but mainstream organizations. They still have stories up that say, Stephen Harper is going to introduce Pierre Poilévin.

I'm thinking, did I miss this? Was it not last night? Finally, the CBC has it. But the reason why it's not getting that coverage has to do also with logistics. If you are not on the leader's plane and you need to follow that leader, you need to travel to the next morning's venue overnight. You also need to find a place to sleep and you need to drive. So you may not be doing the rallies because you need to get to whatever place. So logistically they're

losing out but also the penning and parking lots. Their strategy means there are a lot more local reporters who will show up. It's not a good idea to mistreat local reporters. They're not disliked in their communities, and they tell those stories because they don't live in that environment in the way that people who cover Parliament Hill all the time and cover campaigns do. So for me, I don't really care how I'm treated in a campaign. I also think Stephen Harper treated us a bit better than what I've been seeing, to be fair

to him. But I believe that they were shooting themselves in the foot in the way that they've handled this. And on this because I'm not trying to make this about the media, but why does it matter that why we're talking about this? Why does it matter? It matters... I mean, on one level, you can say, look, they're entitled to their own electoral strategy,

and at one point that is. But they're also under an obligation, I think, maybe in their own larger self-interest, to be accountable. And like or not, we, as imperfect as we are, we are part of the instrument by which they are held to account. So is Parliament, so is the law courts, et cetera. But if you're not willing to subject yourself to that, some of the voters who are looking at you are going to draw their own conclusions.

Why aren't you willing to do this? They're also passing up on the opportunity that so-called earned media reporting affords. Look at what Mark Carney's doing. Now he has the advantage of being the prime minister at a time of crisis, but my God is he milking it. You know, he goes out and he does these press conferences and he puts on this very somber face and he announces to the country what's just happened to us.

And you know, I think he gains every time he does that that even though he's not doing it through a YouTube video you know he's actually using the media well it turns out that actually helps. Okay we got to leave this part there thank you all very much but we are going to be back from Halifax tomorrow too we're gonna have more on Friday night and that part will be about the audience they're gonna ask some of their best questions how they are going to make a decision for this election, and we'll do our best to answer them. That's At Issue for this week live from Halifax. What do you think about how parties have been dealing with journalists? Let us know. You can send us

an email. Ask at cbc.ca. Remember you can catch me on Rosemary Barton Live Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern back in your podcast feeds tomorrow with another special edition of that issue where we will take questions from our audience. Thanks for listening. For more CBC podcasts go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.