Front Burner - An interview with Justin Trudeau

Episode Date: September 19, 2023

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he "could have" and "should have" moved faster on making affordable housing a priority for his government, but asks how much worse the situation would be without his policies. The concession comes as his government faces the worst polling it has seen since coming to power. Host Jayme Poisson returns for this special in-depth interview where Trudeau answers questions including: why he waited until last week to enact a 2015 housing promise, why his support from young people is tanking and whether his government's attempts to force grocery stores to stabilise prices will amount to anything. For transcripts of this series, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. Today on the show, Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada, is here. Yesterday, I was in Ottawa in his office, and we got to sit down and talk for about a half hour. I know that there's a ton that we could talk about with the PM,

but we really wanted to keep it focused on some of the issues that are painfully front and center for a lot of people right now, particularly young people. Housing, housing, housing, and the cost of living in general. And of course, we talked a bit about why he thinks he's the guy to go up against Pierre Polyev and the Conservatives in the next federal election. Take a listen. Mr. Prime Minister, thank you very much for coming on to the podcast. It's great to have you. It's great to be here, but I know people are more excited about you coming back from that leave than they are about me being on. I am sure that is not the case, but thank you very much. I know that we have a limited amount of time, so I just really want to get into it with you. Your polling numbers are pretty bad right now. They're as bad as they've ever been for your

government since you took power in 2015. But the group that I really want to talk to you about today is a group that are big listeners of our show, Gen Z Millennials, and you are polling particularly bad with this group. And I wonder if you reflect on it, why you think this group is leaving you in very big numbers? Because they came out to vote for you in 2015, right? Yeah, absolutely. And we worked with them eight years ago to reverse a government that didn't do anything on climate change, that didn't believe in inclusive economic growth, kept with trickle down, give tax breaks to the wealthiest. We managed to turn that around significantly. And we're in a really good position when the pandemic hit. And then the past few years have been really, really hard, particularly on young people, where there is now a sense not just of the challenges of paying for groceries or paying

for rent or anything, but the idea of homeownership, the idea of a really strong, exciting future seems further and further away now than it did just a few years ago. And that loss of hope and optimism is devastating for people's morale. Of course, they're going to grumble at government, and they're going to say the world's going in the wrong direction. And we have to step up and make sure we're solving for that. I just want to throw some numbers at you. So when asked if they had a positive or negative impression of you, 56% of millennials and Gen Zs said negative, 27% said positive. And do you take any responsibility for them turning away from you? I

mean, certainly you've described their circumstances, right? But do you think you could have or should have done more for them? I think I can continue to do more for them. I think one of the things that is real is whether it's coming out of the pandemic that was such a kick in the teeth to everyone, whether it's the war in Ukraine that's affecting food prices and energy prices, whether it's the global economic slowdown that's driving up interest rates and driving up inflation. These are things that really, really have tangible impacts, not just on people's daily lives, but on how they see the future. So, yes, a government is always going to wear what's going on. The question that people have to ask is, how do we solve it?

How do we see an optimistic vision of the future once again? And that's where I am confident that the work that we're doing and the positive solutions to really complex problems that we've been putting forward and are going to be putting forward over the coming years is going to allow particularly young people to see themselves in a positive future once again. So I hear you talking about how things have gotten worse for young people in this country since the pandemic, which there's truth to that for sure. But for sure, things were not great before the pandemic too, right? Like you mentioned housing. I remember back in 2015 when you appointed yourself youth minister. Remember, like you were like the guy, right? Like you mentioned housing. I remember back in 2015 when you appointed yourself youth minister, remember like you were like the guy, right? You campaigned on affordable

housing. That was such a big part of your thing back then. And since you took power in 2015, benchmark housing prices have gone up 70% in this country. The average rent is now north of 2000 bucks a month. It's going up like $100 a month. The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as I'm sure you've heard this number, is saying that we need 3.5 million homes beyond what we're already building by 2030 just to keep prices in check. And how would you respond to the criticism that your government in the eight years that has been in power has done very little to bring more homes to market in this country. I guess the question I'd ask is, how much worse would it have been

if we hadn't put forward a national housing strategy in 2017 with $70 billion worth of investment that allowed for 2 million people, families to get into new homes after 10 years of a conservative government that did nothing on housing. I mean, everyone understands housing takes a long lead time to actually make a difference. And if we hadn't got the federal government back into the business of housing, then everything would be much worse right now. So we actually kept things on a slightly better track than they are. But there is so much more to do. And that's exactly what we're doing.

Can you see how that's cold comfort to a young person stuck in their parents' basement or in a basement apartment? And they can't get out of the apartment. Because if they do, then they're going to see their rent double. You mentioned the national housing strategy. When you talk to experts about it, they feel like it has resulted in not nearly enough homes. It's been inefficient and slow.

How would you respond to that? That it's not been anywhere near enough. I will say it hasn't been enough. And that's why we're doing much more. But when you talk about young people in their families' basements, I get that. The one that really breaks my heart is people who say, okay, five years ago, we started saving up for a down payment, we knew we'd be able to put a down payment. And now we find ourselves further away than we were

five years ago, because housing prices are growing so much faster, and availability is dropping at a time where we were supposed to be getting into the market now. And that's heartbreaking. And that is something that we absolutely are stepping up to turn around. Now, the thing with housing is you can't fix it overnight. I mean, there are things that we are doing that are taking the pressure off right now. But my vision of success, what looks like in the coming years, is for people to see that over the coming two or three years, more housing starts are coming up, more apartment built, more purpose-built rentals, better construction and interest rates coming down so people can see themselves in that. Right now, it's not that there's a lot of people ready to get in a house tomorrow,

but there's a lot of people saying, okay, I need to know that if I save up, if I take on this behavior, if we prepare for this, we're going to be able to buy a home in my old neighborhood or in my parents' community or wherever where I grew up. That's something that people don't feel right now and are right to feel frustrated about. But that's something that we are so focused on solving with an understanding that there's not a single simplistic solution. These are all things that have to come together. All partners from provinces to municipalities to nonprofit to private sector all have to be part of it. And that's the kind of complexity that we're grappling with right now and we're solving. So I guess, you know, you mentioned the purpose-built rentals. Last week,

you announced that you were waiving the GST for purpose-built rentals. And one expert I talked to said that this could result in like 300,000 homes, right? Which is not nothing. And it seemed like that was not an overly difficult thing to do. You guys just kind of did it. It was also on your list of promises in 2015. So why not do it back then? I mean, housing was a problem back then. It was a problem in 2018 before the pandemic. Yes, we looked at it as a tool we could use. And we proposed it in the 2015 election.

And then over the next two years, we actually replaced that with a different program, the Rental Construction Financing Initiative, that created 40,000 homes because that was responding better to the needs at that time. Why don't you do both, though? Well, right now we are doing both. What we've seen over the past few years is the apartments buildings were still getting built seven, eight years ago. Right now, the math just doesn't make sense. With interest rates where they are, even if there's a huge demand, developers were saying, apartment building builders were saying,

it just doesn't make sense. This is actually changing in a way that is needed right now and over the coming seven years. So we're confident that it's the kind of solution that's going to result not just in more rental housing, but more rental housing with three bedrooms and even four bedrooms apartments for families that we know there's a real shortage of. Canada's immigration numbers have increased significantly on your watch. And I want to be clear, this is not a criticism of immigration.

TD Bank just said those immigration numbers could cause a housing shortfall to increase by half a million units in two years. And so why wasn't there a plan to ensure that this influx of people matched our housing needs better? Like, why no plan? That is part of what we've been doing as a plan to make sure that we're responding to shortages in the construction industry, that we're bringing in the right kinds of skilled trades as well. That is also something that has been shifting over the coming years. These are not things that can turn on a dime, unfortunately.

Government moves extremely slowly in responding to things, but it is moving because you don't want a government lurching around everywhere and flipping back and forth. You want a plan that's going to steadily make things better in tangible ways over the coming year, over the coming years, over the coming decade. And that's where understanding and bringing in all the different factors from global shortages to supply chains to inflation and interest rates to purchasing power, these are the kinds of things that come into building a plan like that, including around immigration numbers. But knowing that the numbers are as ambitious as they are,

why not ramp up more housing five years ago, right? I think that's a question a lot of people are asking, like where was the underlying plan? Well, we were. We put forward a national housing strategy with $70 billion that did have an impact. We called on municipalities and provinces to do more. And one of the things that we heard back, which is why we're launching a $4 billion program with municipalities right now, to help them reduce the barriers to building more housing, whether it's zoning and nimbyism,

whether it's greater density, whether it's accelerating permitting, whether it's zoning and nimbyism, whether it's greater density, whether it's accelerating permitting, whether it's making sure they're building purpose-built housing near the transit investments that we're making. These are the kinds of things that all come together. Why just do that now? People have been saying that for years, right? To tie the money to municipalities, maybe getting rid of exclusionary zoning. And all of a sudden, I'm seeing all these letters from Minister Sean Fraser's office coming out telling Calgary to get rid of exclusionary zoning if they want money. But why now? Well, quite frankly, because the need is there. I mean, even in Calgary that finally did

it, it was a very contested discussion in municipal council chambers to get Mayor Gondek to be able to move forward on this. So I'd love to be able to wave a federal magic wand and make it happen. That's not the way this country works. And that's where steady engagement, bringing along partners, including provincial partners that often are more conservative and not really into spending and investing in communities, getting them to the right place has been a lot of work, but that's what we're continuing to do. Do you think you've moved too slow, though?

I always say we should have, could have moved faster. Absolutely. There's always more to do. Just coming back to immigration for a second, have you ruled out changing the targets? I think we're seeing right across the country the impacts of the labour shortage that we have, whether it's in our healthcare system, whether it's small businesses that can't stay open seven days a week like they'd want to. We need more people. We also need to make sure we're building more housing, not just for them, but for everyone. And they are part of the solution as well. Yes, we need to make sure we're working with the provinces and municipalities and private and public sector partners to respond to that. But there's lots we can do. But have you ruled out changing the targets?

Are you going to keep the targets where they are right now? We'll adjust those targets as necessary. But we're going to continue to know that immigration is a way to grow the economy and create more housing and create better health care services in a way that really matters for people. I want to talk to you a little bit specifically about international students, because we're going to host 900,000 international students this year, which is triple the number from a decade ago. And a lot of these students are living in very cramped, sometimes very unsafe conditions. You know, again, why wasn't there a better plan to ensure that they had a safe place to live before granting all of these visas?

Again, this is really the country that we want to be, I think. Again, it's a question of a confluence of factors coming together and multiple partners needing to respond in different ways. Universities like welcoming in international students because they pay higher tuition fees than domestic students, than Canadian students. And that means they have ramped up, as many provinces have underinvested in education, they have ramped up the drawing in of international students. And that has had an impact on student housing in a way that we're directly going at. The new announcement on GST removal for apartment buildings will apply to student residences, for example. And we're working directly with provinces and with institutions to make sure if they're bringing in more international students,

they're creating purpose-built housing so it doesn't further exacerbate the shortages around the neighborhoods. But we know Canada has a tremendous potential to have a positive impact in the world and in our own economy by bringing in more international students. We need to keep bringing in international students. But is it fair to be putting them in the position that they're in right now? Right. It's quite upsetting to see, actually. It is. And that's why the federal government is part of that solution. But as we know, it's provinces that make determinations around student levels. It's the institutions themselves that are doing it. Making sure we're getting

everyone at the table to work constructively to solve that is part of, again, part of the complexity of Canada that it would be lovely to sort of say, okay, I'm going to snap my fingers as prime minister because I'm the boss of everything and it's going to fix. That's not the way it works. So the steady hard work, the understanding and accepting of all these different factors and actually bringing these partners along in a constructive way is the way we choose to do it. Now, others out there, including the opposition, says, no, no, I'm just going to pick fights and force people to do it. That doesn't necessarily solve these problems. But it may be very satisfying to say. What would you say to someone listening to you talk right now about housing in this country

and who might be thinking to themselves, this is too little too late. And what you've announced right now and maybe what you might announce next week is just kind of messing around the margins here. Because the CMHC is saying that we need to build 3.5 million more homes than we're building by 2030. And that if I was a very cynical person, that what we are announcing right now may be because the poll numbers are what they are. No, because we've heard from Canadians very clearly the level to which this is a huge challenge. And we have been doing things in our budget a year and a half ago. We put forward the housing accelerator to begin this work. But the core issue is that this is something that requires us to work in meaningful, tangible

ways to solve. And we have solved this problem before. When World War II ended and all the soldiers came home, we had to build massive numbers of homes. And the waves of immigrations from people coming from devastated Europe, we solved that problem as a country. When the boomers came of age and all wanted to buy their own places. We massively built housing. So the question that people will ask politically over the coming years is which government or which potential government has the solutions to this really big problem? And that's what people are going to look at, not what is the perfect way to do it? Who has the best plan? Who has the track record? Who has the ability to bend this curve as we have? And I'm confident about that.

Well, what about, well, just to push back on that, people might think that you actually haven't bent this curve at all. Because if you had bent the curve, then we wouldn't be where we are. And that actually, you don't have the track record. And that maybe it's time to give someone else a shot. Listen, then, let's contrast the plans and the solutions, whether they're real, grounded in science and evidence solutions, or whether they're just feel-good slogans and bumper stickers

that reflect back people's legitimate anger, as our opposition leader is doing. The question that we always have to ask is, it's easy to say, oh, housing is terrible right now, and it is. Would it have been worse if we hadn't lifted a million people out of poverty over the first few years in government? Would it have been worse if we hadn't created a million jobs? Would it be worse if we didn't move forward on $10 a day childcare? Would it be worse if we weren't building, reconciliating with Indigenous people to create economic

prosperity there? Would it be worse if we weren't drawing in investments like Volkswagen and Stellantis and others that are creating jobs and careers for the future? Yes, there are real challenges out there. Canada is the best positioned of any country around the world. We have the lowest deficit in the G7, the best economic position of all the large economies. But that's cold comfort to someone who can't pay for their rent or buy their groceries. But we have a lot of reasons to

be optimistic about the future. And the question people need to see answered is, who is working hard to deliver that? And that's exactly what we're demonstrating. And I think, well, just to compare us to other countries, home prices and incomes have grown by 35%, right, in this country, the gap between home prices and incomes. And across the OECD, it's only 20%. So it's worse here. It's worse here. And you mentioned, I don't want to take away some of the policies that you've done that have helped people. $10 daycare, you mentioned, I don't want to take away some of the policies that you've done that have helped people. $10 daycare you mentioned. I am a recipient of that. But talking to people on the show for the last five years, a lot of young Canadians,

there is this overwhelming sense that they take one step forward. So maybe they're saving $1,000 a month on daycare. And then they take three steps back. They have to spend 40% of their salary on rent. And then how could they ever save for a home? It's going to take them 25 years to do that. And then now they're going to the grocery store and a pack of chicken costs $25, $30. And so do you feel like you really have your finger on the pulse of how they're feeling. Yeah. I think of a mom I heard from in Oakville who, at the same time as we were saving her thousands of dollars on her childcare, her mortgage payments

just went up by exactly amount, which thank God the childcare came down because it would have been horrible, but it was supposed to give her more room and it didn't. People are just getting by. So the question that if they're even doing that, because food bank usage is up and all those challenges, which is why we're calling in the grocery store leaders to challenge them on bringing food prices down. But at the same time, the question of how we can do everything necessary, not just to support people now during this tough time, which is what we're doing, but show that you can know that three years from now, you're going to have saved enough for a down payment in a building that's going up now, that you are going to be able

to move back to the neighborhood that you wanted to, that you are going to be able to find a place to rent in a downtown core that you want. These kinds of things, knowing that they have to be fixed and they have to be on a track to be fixed that people can feel, is what people are going to be watching very closely at over the next couple of years. I'm really optimistic and almost excited about all the work we're going to do to demonstrate that what we've done over the past years and what we're going to be doing over the coming months and years is going to go. organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household

income? That's not a typo, 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. You mentioned the grocers. Let's do the grocers. Groceries have gone up 20% since 2020.

That's a huge amount, 20% in three years. And today, the big grocery store CEOs are coming to Ottawa. You called them here. They got a hold here before, though. I watched those committees, the committee hearings, and they are pretty clear that they didn't do anything wrong here, that they're not price gouging, and that the price of food is a lot more complicated and nuanced than we're in Ukraine, climate change. And so what's the point of calling them here? What do you think is going to happen? Well, first of all, for all their protestations, the fact is grocery stores, the largest chains, are making record profits at a time where Canadians can't pay for groceries. There is a disconnect there that they

need to be directly accounting for. And what we've done is when we called them here before a number of months ago, we said, bring forward plans, make a difference. We're not really seeing much in the way of that. This time we're saying, okay, now you're really going to do this or else we are going to step up with things that will balance it out. There are real consequences now in a way that I think government should be appropriately careful about intervening in market forces this way. But it's gotten so that that math, the Canadian sea, large grocery chains making record profits while people can't pay for groceries, something's got to give on that. And that's what we're doing. So what's the consequence?

What are you going to do if they don't come up with a plan that you don't like? Listen, we hope not to get down that. But there are a number of things that we can look at, including tax measures, that can balance that out. I want to come back to taxes. But what kind of plan do you want from them? Do you want them to tell you that they're going to bring grocery prices down, or do you want them to just stabilize prices? I think stabilizing is the first good thing,

but seeing prices come down would be even better. If they just stabilize prices, you're not saying that you're going to jump in. We will evaluate what's going on and what actual impact they're able to do. You talked about tax measures. My colleague Rosie Barton asked you about this at Christmas. And you said that you weren't going to tax them, that you thought that it was too simplistic and you didn't want the tax to be passed on to consumers. So why are you changing your mind now? I'm not changing my mind. I'm saying that there are options on the table. We would much rather for the large grocery chains to actually solve this in a way that is responsible and that looks at the whole food chain, the supply chain that they're part of, and passes on

savings to consumers instead of pocketing record profits. You think they're going to do that. The tax, the windfall tax, let's say you put a windfall tax on them. Like, would it get passed down to consumers? Well, we have brought in windfall taxes before. We did that around the pandemic when we saw the largest banks and insurance companies did extremely well during the pandemic while Canadians were having to tighten their belts. And we brought in extra measures to be able to make sure that they paid more than the share they had been to even things out because they did very well in that.

So we know it can be done. Banks didn't like it, and I'm sure the big grocery store chains won't like it either. But it is something that ultimately leaves Canadians better off. It is something that ultimately leaves Canadians better off. And when Canadians are better off, well, our grocery stores and our banks are going to do well as well. Yeah. Are you worried about possibly unintended consequences here? I ask this in part because the last time that you went up against some big corporations,

I'm thinking about Google and Meta here, it didn't end up helping the people that you intended to help. Well, we're still very much in the middle of the fight with Meta. Not going great. Well, listen, it's sort of a thing. Obviously, Meta has a huge amount of power, a huge amount of profits, a huge stake in continuing to be able to benefit from the work of local journalists for free. But let's ask ourselves,

if we don't say, well, no, you know what? If people are going to share local news on your platform and you're going to make money off of it from ad revenue, you should be responsible for paying for Canadian journalism, for Canadian content. That's if we don't do that, what happens in 20 years when we said, okay, fine, when we have no more Canadian journalism, we have no more Canadian content? This is not an easy fight. But it's the right fight to be in. Because if you don't have quality, independent journalism, then your democracy erodes even faster than it is now.

And we're simply asking that Meta be consequential and responsible. And what they've chosen to do is block people from sharing articles about wildfires because they don't want to pay for local journalism. Yeah, I think a lot of people might actually agree with what you're saying. But outcomes matter too, right? If you're going to play chicken, you want to be the guy that wins. Yes, absolutely. But if we don't win, then everybody loses. And that's where countries around the world are actually, and I heard this again when I was overseas, people saying, stand strong because this really matters because we are going to lose local journalism. People

won't have access to local news if the internet giants continue to make ad profits off of things that they don't have to pay for. Yeah. Although, you know, all these other countries, they don't seem to be like jumping to our side here to kind of- Quietly they are. And they're watching very closely and they're building things that are similar to us. But yeah, you go Canada, you take this fight. So we'll do it. We don't mind doing it because it's so important. I just want to loop back to groceries. What would you say, this is a big part of your press conference last week, and talking to you today, it's a bit light on details, right?

It's sort of unclear what it is exactly that you're looking for, and then it's unclear what the potential consequence is going to be. And grocery prices have been high for a really long time. So what would you say to someone thinking, like, how is this not just performative? How is this a real thing that they're doing? Well, you sort of can't have it both ways. You were asking me about, well, what about unintended consequences as you move forward on this? And then, well, why aren't you moving quicker? Well, they sort of cancel each other out. We have to make sure. I mean, you could have moved a long time ago, but yeah. Well, we have to make sure.

Well, we did make moves a long time ago. We brought in a grocery rebate that helped 11 million Canadians. We accelerated some things around supply chains. We supported some of the farmers. There's lots of things we did do that meant it would have been worse had we not acted to have Canadians' backs as we went through the pandemic and came out of it. We're always going to look at how we can help Canadians, but we're also going to be thoughtful and responsible about it. Because when government takes actions, particularly based on some great slogan like our opponents like to put out and say, oh, we'll just do this and it'll be all simple. There are so many different factors that go into things that a responsible government needs to actually take the time, do the work, so that the solution doesn't just feel good for a few weeks, but it actually makes the coming decade better for Canadians.

That's the thing that matters, and that's what has guided us since day one. Whether it was moving forward on climate change, on fighting climate change, whether it was moving forward on reconciliation, whether it was moving forward on equality and equity. These are things that actually changed the trajectory of the Canadian economy for the better. Let's talk about your leadership a little bit. We started this conversation talking about the polls, but polls aside for a moment, it's been a century since another leader was afforded four terms. And so what might you say to Canadians wondering, like, why not step down and give somebody else another shot at leading the Liberal Party? You know, we're about, what, two years out from an election. Let them lay some groundwork. Well, first of all, you know, the world is changing

incredibly fast. And you're looking at historical precedents or non-precedents. In 2015, we did something that no one's ever done, came from a distant third place to win an election. So just because some things are difficult or unlikely, shouldn't be affecting our decision. The question I'm asking myself and the question we're asking as a party is, how do we best respond to the times people are in right now, the challenging times we're asking as a party is, how do we best respond to the times people are in right now, the challenging times we're in, that are more complex geopolitically and in terms of global economy, in terms of climate change, in terms of everything? Who has the right team, the right idea, and the right energy to move forward? And I am incredibly excited about the work we get to do

with an incredible team over the coming years to tackle these problems. Elections in two years possibly are always going to be about who understands the situation we're in and has the plan to actually bring Canadians forward into the best possible future. I'm excited about that that question, that debate, and those discussions, because I feel that this is an incredibly consequential time and consequential choice Canadians are going to make about what kind of country we want to be. Are we a country that thinks that cuts and anger is a solution to everything? Or are we a country that is confident enough to invest in

its own future and to look straight at the complexity of the challenges and understand that economic policy is climate policy, is security policy, is social policy, that everything is woven together and able to solve it? That's what I'm excited about. We've been talking today a lot about younger people. And I want to talk to you before we go today a little bit about your main challenger, Pierre Polyev, because they are now in majority win territory. But the young people, they're actually going to the conservatives, right? Like right now, you're the third place party, but the conservatives are the first place party. In the House. In the polls, sorry. Well, so first of all,

how many of our young people are actually answering polls? Well, I don't think David Toledo at Abacus Data is talking to landlines. I think he's talking to them. Well, there's all sorts of questions. But the reality is polls, we were lower in the polls than we are now two months before the 2015 election

that we won in a majority. We were lower in the polls now in 2019 before we won that election as well. Polls are going to go up and down in two years away from an election. If people are going to give more scrutiny to Per Poliov right now and to the so-called solutions he's putting forward, I think that's good for democracy. And I think that that is just fine. We have work to do. And we're focused on delivering for Canadians. And we're going to continue to over the next two years until the election. Look, I've been to his leadership convention.

And we've been to his rallies. And we've talked to a lot of his supporters, people that have driven across the country to see him, to see this guy. And I would say that the energy around him is not dissimilar to the energy around you in 2050. And so does that keep you up at night? Are you worried? Are you more worried than when you went up against Andrew Scheer and Aaron O'Toole? I think one of the challenges with Andrew Scheer and Aaron O'Toole is that I don't think people had a clear sense of what was at stake in terms of the kind of country we were building. They did a very good job of looking

fairly harmless or inoffensive or just sort of playing very carefully. I think Mr. Polyev has been very, very clear that he sees a radically different future for the country of country we want to be, there are going to be some really important and exciting political discussions happening around kitchen tables, boardroom tables, dining room tables, and all that. But what he's saying is clearly resonating. You mentioned anger before. People are angry. Yes. Are you worried about him? Of course. I'm worried any time people are angry. No, no, clearly resonating. You know, you mentioned anger before. People are angry. Yes. Are you worried about him?

Of course. I'm worried any time people are angry. No, no, not about him. Are you worried about going up against him? Yeah, no, I'm... Because it's certainly, what he's doing, his work seems to be working. I am worried any time Canadians are angry and pessimistic about the future. And not about politics. I'm worried for the well-being of our country because Canadians being positive, hopeful, optimistic, confident that they're able to tackle and succeed any big challenges thrown at us is what has made this country unbelievably successful. It's what's

made us the best country in the world. But we need to work to make it even better. And I don't think talking down Canadians, talking down the economy, even if people are feeling down right now, is the solution to how we're going to meet and surpass the challenges that the world is throwing at every country around the world right now, but that Canada is uniquely and spectacularly positioned to solve, whether it's with our resources, whether it's with our resourcefulness, whether it's with immigration, whether it's with our trade deals with two-thirds of the global economy at a time where other people are turning inwards. We have a positive, ambitious, optimistic country that is going through a tough time right now. And we are just going to continue

to be steady and build that thing and recognize that, yeah, people are angry and worried. Absolutely. But it's not enough just to reflect back that real anger to them and get up in the polls. People want us to solve those challenges, and they're not easy as you've laid out. But we're doing it step by step. And that's the optimism that I know Canadians are always going to return to in the end. Mr. Prime Minister, thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks very much. It was a pleasure. Pleasure was mine. Thank you. I hope that you will consider coming back on. I look forward to it. If you promise to come back, I'll come back on. Done.

Before we go, just a few hours after I spoke with the Prime Minister, he rose in Parliament and made a bombshell accusation. spoke with the prime minister. He rose in parliament and made a bombshell accusation. Over the past number of weeks, Canadian security agencies have been actively pursuing credible allegations of a potential link between agents of the government of India and the killing of a Canadian citizen. That citizen is Hardeep Singh Nidjar, a prominent Sikh leader in BC that the Indian government has designated a terrorist. Mr. Nidger was killed back in June. Two masked gunmen shot him outside of the Nanak Sikh Gurdwara Temple in Surrey, BC.

The Indian government denies all responsibility for the shooting. Trudeau says he confronted India's prime minister about it. Last week at the G20, I brought them personally and directly to Prime Minister Modi in no uncertain terms. Any involvement of a foreign government in the killing of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil is an unacceptable violation of our sovereignty. Front Burner will be following the story.

I should say that you can watch my whole interview with the PM on our YouTube channel. Search Front Burner YouTube and you'll get it. As for me, I'm going back on maternity leave now. I couldn't pass up the awesome opportunity to interview the PM, but I'll be back in the new year and I really look forward to talking with you then.