At Issue - Will politics ever be less partisan? At Issue answers your questions

Episode Date: April 12, 2025

Rosemary Barton and The National’s At Issue panel bring the political discussion to Halifax, answering questions from Canadians about the biggest issues on the federal campaign trail. 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 Friday, April 11th. The national is traveling right around the country to hear from Canadians ahead of the election. This special at issue from Halifax is all about you. Your choice, your vote, your questions. So our first question comes from Charles and it's a question about the environment and the election. Charles, over to you, sir. Thank you very much. Ever since the Acts, the Tax campaign, any mention of climate change has been a vote killer for all parties in Canada.

Given that what we humans are doing today is set to permanently decimate life on Earth, what is our best hope that this issue won't get lost in the shuffle in these times of economic upheaval? That's a heavy question there, Charles, but thank you for it. Who wants to tackle whether we're talking enough about the environment and climate change? Andrew, you want to try that? You could easily say we should be talking more

about the environment, but ultimately, politicians are going to take their cues from the public. And what they have accurately intuited is the public's support for action on climate change is a mile wide, an inch thick. People are very much in favor of something being done about it as long as somebody else pays for it. And the strategy that the liberal government approached, took to it, they had the right

policy in my view in terms of the carbon tax. But the virtues of the carbon tax as policy, that is to say that it made the costs of releasing all this carbon into the atmosphere apparent to people, it imposed the costs on people, is the exact defect of it in political terms, because now people could see the cost. So everybody is now gravitated in favor of policies that will cost more but be less visible. So we'll do a lot of really dumb policies that the carbon tax was supposed to replace, regulatory changes and subsidies and things that don't work as well and cost way more,

but people will be less bothered by it. And unfortunately, I hate to be the cynic about it, but that is unfortunately a comment on both human nature and political calculation. Anyone else want in there? You don't all have to answer all the questions, but if anyone else feel, Althea? I think the environment sadly is kind of like

a luxury issue. And at the moment, people are very worried about Donald Trump and they're worried about Canadian sovereignty and the focus has been on how do we maintain not just our territorial integrity, but like how do we survive without the United States? And a lot of that discussion has been on, okay, well, we're going to become an energy superpower.

I do think that there is a difference in the way the leaders are approaching the topic. Yesterday, Wednesday, I think it was Mr. Carney was asked about oil and gas, and he didn't repeat oil and gas. He talks about traditional energy sources but I do think there are distinctions between the parties I think it's harder for the Green Party for example for whom we associate climate change action with to get a foothold in the national conversation because it has been dominated by Donald Trump and that existential threat but I do think it's like one of those issues when everything else seems to be going okay,

we can focus on as a country, but it's still for many people a driver. So I don't think it's gone completely. And I do think that we, if the Liberals win, we will see action moving in a certain direction because Mr. Carney personally seems very interested in that topic. And we've seen like Stephen Gibow was not dumped out of cabinet completely. So I do think that there is... It's still there. It's just on the back burner because frankly not that many people say they want to talk

about it. Quickly, Chantal. Yes, except over the past decade we've allowed climate change to be turned into a wedge issue. And until we have our main parties looking together in the same direction, it is going to be a very frustrating conversation. A government does something, and the next government promises, if elected, to undo everything

that the previous government has done. When in practice, we should want them to be building upon what others, or correcting what others have done. So for me, the solution, which I don't think is about to happen, is for the Conservative party to come inside the tent. But every time that's been attempted by Michael Chong, an MP who ran for the leadership, by error no tool, it cost him his leadership. That doesn't happen. But if you want national leadership on the environment, you need a party to be pushing the other to do better, not to do less. And at this point, that's not the dynamics that

we're into. There needs to be more of a political consensus. If the conservatives do win, I think you would still see that leadership happening, but happening from the provincial level. Like I don't think Daniel Smith would actually get rid of the industrial price on carbon in Alberta because so it drives so much investment. Okay, our next question is from Daniel. Daniel, if you'll stand up, we'll get the mic to you and just hold the mic right up to your mouth so we can hear. Your question is, focus on issues in Donald Trump I think. Yeah. So what can the media do in the times that we're living now to focus the conversation to what matters to Canadians most before Donald Trump's Act ends its took over?

Well that's why we're here, to make sure we're talking about the issues that matter most. Chantel? Chantel We do not and we should not be directing the political conversation. That is for the political leadership to do. And our agenda can't be to have them adopt our agenda. But I think up to a point Canadians have forced all parties to speak about Donald Trump in a way that many of the parties didn't expect to. But that is how conversations happen politically. It's not the media that determines this.

It's, well, it's you guys. It's voters. If you're forever talking about something that the voters don't care about and you're trying to avoid that big elephant in the room that people are talking about amongst themselves, you lose. But me, I'm uncomfortable with the notion that the media should be taking the lead in imposing topics of conversations in an election. Andrew, but I think, like maybe, I don't know if this is what you're getting at, but sometimes people are worried about issues and they don't see them reflected back in the media because

there's, particularly in this election, a predominant issue. Yeah, but I mean, it's a predominant issue because it's very clear that's what the public is most concerned about. So these other issues are also important. So A, politicians are gonna take their cue from the public. B, I'm not so sure the public is necessarily wrong in this. And it's not to downplay all those other issues, which I write about them,

and I think they're important as well. But let's be clear, Donald Trump is not a normal person. He's not a normal president. Part of his agenda is very clearly Donald Trump is not a normal person. He's not a normal president. Part of his agenda is very clearly to impose some kind of dominance on this country, beyond just being that big country of the South that's always important in our politics, but to a level that we haven't seen before. Whether it extends as far as attempting to annex us, who knows?

But clearly, he's not going to be shy about trying to impose his will on us in all kinds of ways that we wouldn't like. Well, sovereignty, our ability to make decisions in our own right for our own interests, that's key to everything else. If we can't be a sovereign, self-governing country, we can't solve poverty, we can't deal with inflation, we can't fix our deficit, we can't work on the environment, we can't do any of those things in the way that we would want to do.

We will have our freedom of maneuver circumscribed in various ways that we would find intolerable. So finding a way to address this challenge, both the short-term challenge of the tariffs and whatever else he's throwing at us, but also the longer-term challenge that pretty clearly over the next few years he is going to be in our face in a whole variety of different ways, I think that is an imperative issue. I think that is a priority issue. 30 seconds or so to you, all together. I don't know what Donald Trump is thinking, so I'm glad Andrew knows because I...

We talked earlier. I feel like the more I think I know what's going on in the White House, the clearer I don't. I think that we are trying to reflect what Canadians are telling us that they care about. And I do think from what we hear, and frankly, a lot of MPs, especially during elections, do a far better job than we do

communicating directly with voters because they're knocking on doors and what they're telling us, whether they're liberal MPs or conservative MPs, or green MPs, or new Democrat MPs, or black MPs, I actually haven't spoken to that many PPC MPs, but is that Donald Trump is the thing that comes up at the door all the time.

And so I think it's normal that that is usual, that that would be what we are talking about. I agree with Chanda, I don't think we should be driving the conversation, but I also think that it is our job to put issues forward so that the party leaders can talk about them, especially when there hasn't been a clear answer in one way or another and you're trying to figure out who is this person that is going to lead us and what are the values that drive them and what do they think about issues that

matter to us, that matter to other Canadians, and it's not just Donald Trump. But it does seem like, you know, that is the... And people, they are putting lots of other things in the window. There's lots of talk about housing, there's lots of talk about energy development. Those things are out there. We have a platform tracker. You can go and see where people are on certain issues.

And if they were getting a lift from them, they'd be talking about them more. You know, if crime was working for a play, yeah, he'd be talking about them more. If crime was working for a play, he'd be talking about crime even more than he is. We talk about issues that have legs and issues that don't. It doesn't mean that some are important and some are not, but in this election, the issue that has legs, that will take it to the ballot box on April 20th is Trump.

There is no doubt about that. Now I covered the free trade election in 88. There were other topics, I don't think anybody remembers them. What I remember is for four weeks we talked about the free trade agreement. What did we not talk about? Ah, the incoming GST and the Meats Lake Accord.

What did we talk about for three or four years after the election? The Meats Lake Accord and the GSD. So yes, elections capture moments. In this case, I agree with Andrew, it's going to last longer than we've settled this on April 28th and we can move on to those other issues. But elections are like that. There is an overriding issue that takes over the conversation and everything

else that is on offer kind of slips past the attention of voters. Especially when it's the shortest election period that it can be, which this one is. Okay, we're going to try and move along because otherwise people are going to be mad. They didn't get their questions. Godfrey, do you want to stand up? Godfrey, you have a question. Sir, Go ahead. Yes, thank you. I just want to say that I believe that Canada will never be part of the United States, because Canada is a sovereign country and it will stay so. And my question is, so you are in the media and we hear a lot of things going on with

Canadians getting a lot of scrutiny when they are going to the United States. And the government even issue a travel advisory that you should be careful when you are entering the United States. So the question is, it looks as if how much should we be worried here about freedoms? There's freedom of speech, but it seems there is no freedom after you've spoken. Because if you can get your phone searched, and who knows what they may find there. So should I be worried about even saying that,

should you be worried in Canada because two British MPs were not allowed to go to Israel because of what they said? They were free to say it, but they were not free after they've spoken. So how much should we be worried about that situation here in Canada? Thank you, Godfrey.

And I will say, there was some stats out when we're recording this that show that Canadians are going less and less to the United States, and I don't know if that's part of that. Who wants to tackle that, Andrew? I'm no expert in these things, but from what I read, you would be wise to be concerned. The stories have been too numerous to dismiss

as just one rogue customs officer, whatever. People, as you said, mentioned people having their phones searched. And if there are critical comments about Donald Trump on them being taken aside and questioned vigorously. When you look at what's happening to domestic, to American citizens right now, President Trump has just announced that he's going to get the Department of Justice to investigate a former State Department employee who wrote a critical book about him for the sole reason

that he wrote this critical book. We are in very, very strange times in America for the rule of law, for civil liberties, for freedom of speech. Again, this is not a normal president. And so while under any normal president you might hear about one of these stories and go, OK, well, that was just somebody had a bad day or something, it seems to be much more of a coordinated policy or certainly a signal has been sent to anybody who was of that mind in the constabulary

that it's open season now. You can do, you can, you know, feel your oats. You can have some fun. You can do whatever you've wanted to do to people in the past. So I would be concerned, frankly. Anyone else or I'm trying to move things along? I support this.

Okay, quickly Althea. I think what has emerged is how fragile our freedoms are. And on the international travel part, we often take certain rights for granted, but we don't have the right to go to other countries. That is their prerogative. They can tell us what conditions under which we're allowed to enter their country. I do think that the travel advisory, we would have had one for the United States a long time ago

were it not for the relationship that we have with the United States. Like the amount of mass shootings there are in the United States justifies the Canadian government warning Canadians to avoid situations of protests or big gatherings because if it was any other country in the world, there would have been a travel advisory.

To Andrew's point about the threat that Donald Trump poses, I think we often have thought of the United States as a system full of checks and balances where the courts would be a check, where Congress would be a check, and we talked about how we don't have such, like our parliament, you have a majority government, you don't have the checks that Congress

is able to do on the president. And then we realize that if those individual members are unwilling to stand up, those checks don't really matter. So I think it's all like everybody is realizing just how fragile our rights and freedoms are. Okay, Judy, where are you Judy? Judy, hello Judy. Okay, you've got a question. I think we've already talked about it, but you're gonna ask it and we're gonna talk about it more. Put the mic right up your mouth, Judy. OK, you've got a question. I think we've already talked about it, but you're going to ask it, and we're

going to talk about it more. Put the mic right up your mouth, Judy. Yes, you have touched on this. But my question was, what should we, as citizens, reasonably expect from politicians who are seeking office in terms of their willingness to allow journalists access to their lives? I know we touched on that,

but what really should, as a voter, what should we be able to expect from the politicians? Thank you. Chantal? Thank you, Judy. So I'm not gonna go back to what we already covered, but I live in both environments, French and English. I am troubled by the fact that as a Francophone I am getting a much better sense of the leaders

to their willingness to expose themselves to scrutiny than they are in English. And I'll give you one example. Last week on Radio Canada there was a program called Five Leaders, One Election where every leader sat with three journalists asking questions. Mark Carney and Pierre Poilier have half an hour each and then the other leaders got about 20 minutes. But of time where they had to answer questions, not a debate where you're scoring who cut off whom and how that, and the clock, the clock. And I think those formats not only should exist

in both official languages, but it should be mandatory, it should be expected of leaders to do these things in the same way that it's expected of them to participate in leaders' debates. It leaves voters with a much more grounded impression of each leader than if you just see them in a scrum and then you see the clip and the evening news.

Maybe it's not even with the real contextualized idea. And I think voters should demand that leaders even with the real contextualized idea. And I think voters should demand that leaders go to more than 30-second encounters with journalists or beyond the debates. I also think there should be more debates and less of the rallies and the news conference after the Gainsburger of the day has been handed out. That's how we call the daily announcements.

I will say we do, Judy, CBC has a request in to all the leaders to interview them. I don't know if that will happen. I've interviewed Mark Carney once when he was trying to become the liberal leader, I've never interviewed Pierre Polioff. I think we're gonna go to the next question. Lynn, Lynn, hello, we're gonna bring the mic to you, Lynn.

Thank you. In 2017, a United Nations expert panel recommended that the government of Canada issue an apology and consider providing reparations to African Canadians for enslavement and historical injustices. This has yet to occur. Reparations have not been a prime concern voiced by the federal candidates,

but they are of great concern and importance to African Canadians. What can be done to bring this matter to the forefront during this election? Well, I think you just did it. Yeah. You asked the question. That's what I intended to do. It's a complicated issue, as you know, and it has not been talked about at all. Why do we think that is? S?

Because no one has raised it with any of the leaders. Yeah. It's as simple as that, I think. Yeah. Andrew? I mean, it's not an issue I've delved into in great detail, I'm afraid. But that may speak poorly of me, that I perhaps have paid more attention to it. But you're absolutely achieving your goal here

by bringing it up in this forum, forcing us to confront it, and through us, the politicians are gonna have to address it as well. Tatel? Yes, except don't get your hopes up. It will be on the radar, but only very briefly. And why?

Because it is an important topic and it's of interest, but it's of major interest. I was talking about issues with legs and issues that are important but do not carry votes. This is one of those. There are scores of others. I believe if you want to advance that file, that it is better to build relationships with an elected government and try to move it forward than hope that it will surface in the middle of the turmoil of a national election. It would also help if you had political champions, elected ones.

Dr. Lynn Jones is what I should have called you. Thank you Dr. Lynn Jones, appreciate that. We're going to go to Maggie now. Maggie, where are you? There you are. Microphone is coming, Maggie. Hello. Hi.

Since healthcare... Put that microphone right up to your... There you go. Since healthcare is a top concern for Canadians, what are the key healthcare promises being made by each major federal party? Okay, I'll go there. That's what Tom wants to go right away. I'll go there because one, in Canada, healthcare is managed by the provinces and the proper

place for promises that can be fulfilled or not, and those held accountable for this, are first and foremost the politicians you elect in the Nova Scotia legislature in the case of this province. Moreover, yes, there is one party that is promised more on healthcare than others. The NDP is promised to hire thousands of doctors. The federal government of any party will never hire a single doctor, except maybe for the military. So to promise, if you're a federal politician, to build hospitals, to hire nurses and doctors,

that is a... It's not a false promise, it's an empty promise. Because you are not going to do that. What you can do though, is be the federal government that pushes for credentials from one province to be transferable to the other without hassle. Or for provinces to accept foreign credentials in a more timely way than they've been doing.

But to have healthcare promises, whenever I see a healthcare promise like I'm gonna hire doctors, I am a bit shocked to tell you the truth. She's energized, yeah, Althea, then. Totally. I just wanna add, I agree with what you've added, but asterisks, like there are things

that we can push the politicians to commit to, which is, you know, are they gonna cut the health and social transfers? Are they going to use the Canada Health Act to claw back money in the case of abortion in the last election? Like if the province denies access, you know, or if there's more privatization. I know that's an issue of interest to Andrew.

So I think there are questions to be asked of federal leaders on health care, but it's in terms of the funding envelope. Yeah, yeah. Andrew? Yeah, and that's, I think, part of the problem. Part of the problem we have with health care is we've allowed responsibility to be blurred between the two levels of government. So when something goes wrong, nobody knows who to blame.

And the provinces point the finger at the feds, and the feds point the finger at the provinces, and they both manage to get off scot-free. So I think we need to really rethink the way in which it's funded, first of all, and return funding to the provinces and make the provinces accountable for it to their own taxpayers and their own citizens. So that's on the issue. What I think is also significant, though, of what you're saying is, what gets declared to be the big issue in advance of an election is rarely the issue that actually decides

the election. This would be a counter example with Donald Trump. The big issue in advance of an election is rarely the issue that actually decides the election. This would be a counter example with Donald Trump. But most often, big issues don't necessarily decide elections because the positions are, first of all, so well-known. They're so close to each other. The parties generally trying to hug close to each other on an issue that they can't necessarily win on, but they want to make sure they don't lose on.

And it's a big issue because it's kind of intractable. Nobody's got any kind of silver bullet magic fix for health care that will fix it tomorrow. Citizens know that. So people look, I think, understandably and rightly skeptical when politicians come out and say, I've got the fix. So generally speaking, they kind of learn, try to neutralize it, try to make sure you don't lose on the issue, but they don't tend to campaign on it anymore. Now, they're also cowards in the sense that federally, all that you have to say is, I

am for Medicare. Yeah. So, if you dare say, I think we could do this in some other way that might work better, immediately you're going to be told you want to have a US-style healthcare system. And that's the end of the conversation. So they retreat behind this, I believe, in Medicare end of conversation.

But... And we all lose for this. But it's not for me to throw anything in. But there is a conversation around dental care. Who's going to keep dental care? There is a conversation around dental care, who's going to keep dental care. There is a conversation around pharmacare, whether that's going to be expanded. Those are pieces that we are hearing in this election.

Yes, but you cannot make these systems work unless the provinces want to carry part of the burden. Because what happened with Medicare? The federal government set it up with the provinces way back and promised to carry X percent of the cost. And then decade after decade retreated to a smaller portion and left it to the provinces. If you were a premier and knowing that experience,

you would think twice before committing to this great all-expense paid dental care program which will fall on your lap within a decade. Okay. And that's why dental care is entirely federal. But lots lap within a decade. Okay. And that's why dental care is entirely federal. But lots of people care about dental care. That's why I throw it in there.

Okay, our next question is from Matthew. Matthew, there you are, sir. Hello. We got you the microphone. Good, how are you? I'm excellent. I really appreciate you all coming to Halifax and all that you're contributing towards everything. My question is more of a broad scope question for all government in general.

I'm wondering, no matter who the prime minister becomes, whatever party it is, will the other parties start to get back towards like an 80s, 90s style, keeping them in check, but working as a collective for progress of the nation as a whole, versus always trying to undermine each other. Want them to be a little less partisan, do you, Matthew? I would like them to be a little less partisan, a little bit more collective, keep everybody in check, make the whole nation progress.

But the fact that the fact that this minority parliament has almost lasted the full tenure tells you that there must have been parties, and I don't mean just the NDP, that were willing to be constructive. Otherwise, we would have gone to the polls before Donald Trump came back. I think you were talking mainly about the liberals and the conservatives and the way that they play their game in opposition, which I agree has not been constructive and in particular over the past decade. We've seen in the House of Commons,

has not been an adult conversation that people should be proud of. It's been a game of mudslinging versus an alphabet of letters that come out of the government's mouth. No one looked better for it. Will the next parliament be better? I can't tell you that. But I have found over the years that parliament

has become less and less of a place where you want to listen to what is being said, because intelligent human beings are leaving their intelligence at the door. I think Mr. Coyne may have a few things to say on this topic. I'll be brief. We certainly need to fix our parliament and there's a whole range of issues that can be discussed about that to change the incentives so that we reward constructive criticism rather than just name-calling, et cetera.

But nevertheless, we are in an adversarial system. Some degree of partisanship is part of the mix. I would never want it to go away where people aren't being critical of the government, even if they're just being performative to some extent, because part of the performance is to get people's attention and to focus it, and to embarrass the government when they deserve to be embarrassed, et cetera. So some level of partisanship, I think, is part of the mix. That's not to say that, you know, as Chantel said, that we can be especially proud of some

of the moments in our recent political history, but I will say this. Looking at what's going on south of the border, looking at what's going on in some other countries right now, I have my criticisms of both the liberals and the conservatives and of their leaders, but I thank God that we still have some kind of a healthy political culture in this country where we're not questioning the results of elections, we're not threatening revenge on our enemies if we get into power. Yeah. So power, yeah.

But at this point, I would say, debates in this country are still more or less between the 45-yard lines. Let's keep it that way. Let's preserve... We have some institutional failings in this country. We've got some things we need to fix in our processes. But that political culture that we have, I think, is an enduring strength. So much of politics is actually about personalities.

And at the moment, I think, you know, under Aaron O'Toole, there was a lot of actual constructive work that got done, a lot of backbench MPs. There were some, got some bills passed with the liberal support. The conservatives at the time supported some liberal government bills. I think Mr. Poiliev's personality and his kind of zero sum approach to politics, and I think the social media importance,

the media landscape shifting, has encouraged people to be more vicious and personal in their criticism, and that has kind of poisoned a little bit of the well. Like peeling the curtain. The conservatives have prevented their MPs from going abroad on inter-parliamentary delegations. These are like groups that meet overseas and there's a delegate from every political party that would go. And during these trips these MPs bond with each other and they realize that actually they probably all hate their leaders and they like each other a lot better and they realize that they have so much more in common with each other and it builds a community and links and they bring that back to the Hill and they work more collaboratively and cooperatively with each other.

And I still think that we will probably go back to a system like that because when you take the leadership strategy away, a lot of the MPs could probably find each other in the other political parties, especially other political parties, I should say, because I think a lot of block MPs could find, and take the sovereignty question aside, could find themselves in either of the major parties. But I think at the moment, the leadership has dictated the tone that has infiltrated the House of Commons. You don't need to tell me what Alberta is like. I'm from Alberta.

It's a reporter trying to ask you a legitimate question. We're listening, trying to listen for that. OK, I'm going to pick up the pace a little bit here because I do want to make sure we get as many questions as we can. Lewis? With the situation south of the border dominating our attention, leadership has clearly become the ballot box issue for this election. Predominantly due to leadership, I've never seen such a change in public opinion in Canada over the last two months.

With that in mind, I reflect on the recent United States election where just two and a half weeks before the election, Kamala Harris led in the public opinion. In fact, we found one poll that had her seven points ahead. And here we are two and a half weeks out. Polls can be wrong, and people can change their minds. My question to the panel is, what opportunities do you see for the two leaders to make a change or to secure the win? What strategies might you suggest that we'll see or that they should implement if they want to become the next Prime Minister of Canada?

Louis, thank you for that. So I'll tell you one thing, they're not gonna tell them what to do. These guys don't do that. Cause they would, that's not their job. But very quickly, cause I'm gonna try and get through more questions. What is the likelihood that things could change over the next two and a half weeks?

I've seen debates change elections, but usually when they take place in the early part of the campaign, not at the tail end of them. That being said, you talk about two leaders, but I think to change the trend, Mr. Poilier needs Jacques Mitzing and Yves-Francois Blanchet to suddenly get voters' attention, their own voters. And so far that hasn't happened. It's not on Pierre Poilier to win the debate, to win the election.

It's on Jacques Mitzing and Nathia Francois Blanchet to get their vote back from the Liberals. Andrew? I think the debate is the last chance. I think Chantel's right about the Interparty dynamic. I also think that Maybe I'm making a hostage to fortune here, but I do think things have kind of baked in a little bit I've been struck by how much the Tories have thrown at Mark Carney and how little it seems to have affected anything In fact one at least one pollster says his personal estimation of the public estimation of it has gone up in the course of the campaign, which very rarely happens.

I think his biography and his persona, and there are things you can criticize about each of them, but in a time of serious crisis, a certain proportion of the voters are looking at that and going, that's what I want, and it's hard to see what would shake them off of that. We'll see. Quickly to you, Althea. Often things come up in an election that you don't see coming and that changes things. Yep.

In 2015, we started talking about Syrian refugees. We certainly think we didn't start that election thinking we were going to talk about that. In 2019 and 2021, the Liberals basically lost the majority because of the French debate. And Yves-François Blanchet was not doing so great at the beginning, but he did very well on election night. So things could change.

I agree with everything Chantal and Andrew have both said. The debate will be the pivotal moment. And then the long weekend where people get together with their families and hash it out in its advanced polls, and like do you get influenced by what your children are telling you about how much they like Pierre Poilier and what he wants to do to housing or does the grandpa convince you that like no Donald Trump is the greatest threat and you should vote for the calm collected guy? Who knows?

Yeah. Linda, where are you Linda? Linda, hello. We're going to get the mic to you and Linda will take your question. Thank you. I'm very concerned right now about the relationship between Canada and the United States. What position are the parties taking on the issue of Canadian sovereignty and what will they do if that relationship continues to deteriorate?

I mean, this is one where they are all saying that they can protect Canadian sovereignty, and certainly they all take that stance. How they approach it seems a bit different, Andrew? They're all saying it. Their approaches are not hugely different. So we are, as voters voters in a difficult question here. Maybe it's just a realistic question,

which is you're really just kind of sizing them up as people, to the extent that anybody can have any influence on this. And to some extent we are buffeted on the sea of whatever Donald Trump's latest tantrum is. But to the extent that we have agency and are able to protect our sovereignty, it's going to come down a lot in the absence of clear programmatic differences in how they approach it.

It's going to come down to our estimation of their character and judgment. How cool are they in a crisis? How good are they at assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their opposing number? How likely are they to make a misstep or, you know, irrationally annoy somebody or be too supine before them. These are all kind of intangible things, but I think it's very much in the nature of what we're deciding in this election. It is more than any election I can think of.

We're really focusing in on their qualities as leaders, and including their ability to rally and unite the public and to keep us on board through these perilous seas, through the kinds of tough decisions they're going to have to make. And part of that is not just the immediate crisis, but these larger issues that we're all confronting of, my goodness, we can't count on the United States to be our loyal trading partner and our protector anymore. We've got to make a much more independent course of things, paying for our own defense

and being more open to trade and more adventurous in trading with other countries than just the United States. So there's large policy questions that are looming in the offing, which frankly we're not getting a lot of discussion of in this campaign, but it's coming down to your assessment of their qualities as leaders and their ability to not just tackle Donald Trump,

but keep the public onside and united in support of them. And that's partly because there's only so many things you can do. There's counter tariffs, there's inter-provincial trade barriers. There aren't a million different policy responses to Donald Trump. Yes, but this actually normalizes the issue with Donald Trump in the sense that this 51st state business or what he wants to do with Greenland is way outside of a normal conversation on tariffs. I would start off by saying there are no leaders in this line up that would ever work to make

Canada the fifty-first state or a vassal state of the United States. Whether they would fail at keeping us as sovereign as we want to be, I can't answer that. It does come down to a judgment on character, but I would add it comes down also to a judgment on teams. And we're not seeing a lot of the teams in this election, especially on the conservative side, because the team on the liberal side, many of the players have been there for a while. That does trouble me that I still can't tell you who would be Mr. Pueblo's finance minister, for instance. Okay, I'm going to keep going because we are running out of time. Leith, Leith, where are you? Hi, we're going to get you the microphone and we'll hear your question.

Fabulous. How's that? Good. So my question is, like when the economy is tanking, as we're hearing, vulnerable communities often become scapegoats. And even here in Nova Scotia, extremist groups are already gaining visibility and bad behavior going on. I'm curious about what concrete steps are federal parties proposing to protect the rights

and safety of minorities and how this factors in negotiations with the US, which is currently shedding those protections left and right. Thank you, Leif. That is, I have heard that kind of thing from the leaders about not so much in opposition to the United States, but in trying to define Canadian values and identity. You're hearing a little bit of that on the trail.

I don't know whether anyone has a good answer for that. Really? You're hearing about it on the trail? I feel like we're not really getting there. I've heard from Mark. I've heard Mark Carney talk about that, about values. Well, he was asked a question about health care in Alberta, I feel like we're not really good. I've heard Mark Carney talk about that, about values. Well, he was asked a question about health care in Alberta, and he's been asked a little bit about expanding, like,

Bill 21 in that frame, but in terms of protecting minorities, no, I don't think that we have talked that much about it on the campaign. I just thought I wanted to say something. In the shadow of Donald Trump and the things that he's trying to do. He was asked a question about trans rights the other day Donald Trump and the things that he's trying to do. He was asked a question about trans rights the other day too. Yeah, in Alberta. Yeah, yeah.

Well, you'll certainly get all the party leaders saying they're against extremists. Some of them have different definitions of that, first of all. Some of them have been a little more willing to consort with them than others, Pierre Pellier in particular with the convoy people. But all of them have been unwilling to confront the provinces when they're infringing on people's rights. So we've had a series of issues now with provinces invoking the notwithstanding clause to basically take away people's rights in ways that I think should not be tolerated

in a decent modern liberal federation, and yet nobody even says boo about it at the federal level. They're so spooked by the idea of getting offside with the provinces on that. So I think that's an unfortunate part of our political culture. On the more positive side, while I've had some criticism of Pierre Pauli-Eve,

he is certainly nothing like a Donald Trump. My criticism is he more usually imports the nutty part of the MAGA elements rather than the nasty. So he'll rail on about the World Economic Forum more, less so these days, but when he was running for the leadership, World Economic Forum or Bitcoin or this or that, you don't see him bashing gays, you don't see him attacking immigrants. He's within the mainstream of modern Canadian opinion on that.

And again, not usually the Pollyanna of the bunch, but let's give thanks for that. No, he isn't usually. Very quickly. I'll go with Andrew's take because that is what I found. I know the conservative caucus and the liberal caucuses, and they're diverse enough that there are voices inside that tent in both cases to stand up for rights of minorities. I think this might be our last question. We'll see how I manage these guys.

Will, Will, there you are. Will? Thank you very much. So my question is, while the trade war with the US has dominated the headlines, Canada has actually been fighting two trade wars. Do you see our tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and the resulting tariffs against Western canola and Eastern seafood becoming an election issue.

How do they maintain that Team Canada approach now that the word tariff is on everyone's mind? Yeah, that's a good one because it's not just about the United States. The United States is also tariffing China through the roof now. Well, it shows you how times have changed. There would have been a time when I would have been bouncing the barricades against those tariffs on Chinese imports, notwithstanding China's own appalling record on trade in particular.

But I would have said, you know, these are counterproductive. We want to draw China into the family of nations, of trading nations, and this will over time will tend to liberalize them. I bought that stuff, and I don't anymore. I think the experiment's been run. The evidence is in. It hasn't made China more democratic or less authoritarian or more inclined to cooperate with the sort of family of nations.

So security has become much more of an issue. When you look at what China's been doing to us, interfering in our elections, kidnapping our citizens, attempting to manipulate us and dominate us in various ways, they are not our friends. They are not likely to become our friends anytime soon. And we can't simply approach trade in the same spirit as we would with a fellow democracy. It's legitimate, I think, to say we don't want to help enrich

China and entrench the regime there, and we don't want to help them acquire the tools with which to intimidate us in the future. So it's intruded into what was previously just a trade discussion. And that last sentence could apply to Donald Trump. We do not want to do anything to shore up that kind of an administration or to give them tools to arm us, which puts us in an interesting place. We are not friends with China, we do not want to be,

and our last ex-friend is sitting to the south of us going after us. And at some point there will be, I saw things over the past month that I didn't imagine. Japan and South Korea talking with China about fighting back against the US. You have to try really hard if you're the American president to get that meeting to happen. But it's a sea change

from anything I've known and I've spent a lot of time in Asia, anything I've known about Asia dynamics didn't lead me to have that on my scorecard, but it's happening. Okay, I have time for one last question I'm told. Fiona. Fiona, there you are, Fiona. Hello, over to you. Hi. With reconciliation ongoing in Canada, UNDRIP becoming law, and long-term matters like land rights, housing shortages, economic development, child welfare, access to clean drinking water, and systemic violence and racism, my question

is, in your view, how seriously are Canada's major parties addressing Indigenous priorities in the 2025 federal election? Fiona, thank you for that. Althea, you want to take a... It's an interesting question because I think the major parties, the conservatives and the liberals are addressing it in different ways based on who they believe their voting group within the indigenous community is. And so actually indigenous issues have been discussed a lot,

but for Pierre Polyev, they've been discussed mostly in terms of resource development and giving access to indigenous communities, whether it's tax rights or in terms of financial funding. We heard Mark Carney talk about Indigenous rights more actually, what day are we, Wednesday in Saskatchewan. And this was news to me, but apparently the Liberals have more Indigenous candidates than they've had ever.

So I think we're starting to have the discussion, but it's framed into who they want to be speaking to, as opposed to, I guess, previous ways that we have discussed the conversation. And interestingly enough, we're not really talking about reconciliation. We're talking about courting indigenous communities' votes based on certain policy issues, rather than rebuilding the relationship in the way that Prime Minister Trudeau talked about it. Quickly, Andrew Chantal. Well, it's to some extent gone more on the back burner than it would have been two, three, four years ago.

I don't think people should kid themselves that it's not going to come back again. So there's a lot of eagerness now, let's get resources to market, let's build pipelines, let's tear away impediments and regulatory obstacles. Okay, that's great. But if people think that the indigenous consent issue is going to just miraculously disappear, they're kidding themselves.

It's still going to be a very important thing. Maybe we can find better ways and more streamlined ways to deal with that, but it's still going to be with us. I also don't think the Canadian public would allow reconciliation to fall by the wayside. Maybe that's naive of me. Well, it shows you to be an optimist, which is a good beginning. I believe that the Canadian voters do not have a short attention span, but they do get

fatigued with issues. That includes reconciliation, as it included bilingualism, Quebec. That is what happens. But I do agree that you can't shop indigenous consent and pick and choose and, you know, I've got one consent so I don't need anybody else. But at some point, we also have to recognize the fact that the indigenous community is diverse

and it's got diverse interests. That's normal. And not everybody is going to say the same thing all the time and not everybody is going to win every time. That is also part of the to and fro. As for parties approaching different groups, that is how parties have always dealt with Quebec. That they speak to different constituencies based

on different approaches to policy. So I'm not surprised that that is where we are, and constituencies based on different approaches to policy. So I'm not surprised that that is where we are, but it's better to be thereon Live Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. Back in your podcast feeds next week when the debates happen. Thank you for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca.