The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk -- It's All Over But The Counting

Episode Date: April 25, 2025

Millions of Canadians are about to decide, if they haven't already in advance polls, which party & which leader they want to form a government. 

Are you ready for good talk? And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here with Chantelle Bear and Rob Brousseau. It's the Friday before the election. It's a good talk time. And there's lots to talk about as there always is every week, but we've got quite a few little nuggets of discussion in the next little while. I want to start this way. The week ends with people raising questions about Mark Carney's conversation with Donald Trump a few weeks ago and what exactly happened in that conversation and whether Carney has been forthcoming with all the information

about that conversation. Now, I'm not quite sure how important this is, but some people seem to think it's very important. Where do we stand on this? Chantelle, what are you starting? I stand on the it's the end of the campaign thing and we're running out of stuff to talk about. And on the, it's the end of the campaign thing, and we're running out of stuff to talk about. To tell you the truth, if someone had revealed to me that Donald Trump had said to Mark Carney, I want to make Canada the 51st state, and Carney had answered, we'll just negotiate this after the campaign, it would have been a huge revelation. What we are basically talking about here is that Mark Carney didn't give the impression that this was raised. It's a

conversation between two government leaders. We never get, you know, the play by play of what they talk about. So, and I don't see what it changes to the story, except that it filled an entire day of campaign, which by now doesn't really matter because the campaign is basically over. You see it that way, Ron? I found it curious, because in some ways, if he would have told people that that President Trump raised this again in this manner during their conversation and I think it would have actually helped them. It would have presented I think the reality that Trump is persistent when it comes to

the notion of Canada as the 51st state. So why he wouldn't have raised it is what I'm curious about because I think that it would have been to his political advantage. You know, he, people, I've asked people how Carney has changed during this campaign. And one of the things they've said to me is he has become a politician, even though he starts every stump speech by saying, I'm not a politician.

I'm being forced to do this. I've been forced to don the fluttering cape of Captain Canada because I needed to come down from Mount Olympus and save the country. This might be an example of how he wouldn't have seen the political advantage in saying this early on in the campaign. And maybe now he does. I find it curious, but ultimately like Chantal, inconsequential, I think. I mean, he did spend the campaign saying Donald Trump wants us, he wants to weaken us, he wants to take us over.

So it's not as if he said, I spoke to Donald Trump and now everything is okay. But I do believe that some, we're somehow once the campaign is over, somebody with prime minister is going to have a relationship with Donald Trump. And maybe it's a wiser idea to preserve some of the territory for that relationship, rather than use it completely for political purposes. I also think that if he'd gone there, he would have looked like he was using the job of prime minister to solidify scare scenarios that are to the benefit of the liberal. So, I mean, we can discuss this all night and not come to any definitive conclusion, except I don't really see how it changes the story in any significant way.

Well, one thing we can discuss and it's an odd thing really because Trump was a dominant issue at the beginning of this campaign. There's no doubt about that. It helped make Carney the leader in the campaign and it helped hurt Poliev. There's no doubt about that. But then he kind of disappeared, Trump, in terms of a Canadian issue. Now whether that was deliberate or not, it happened. And he wasn't really talked about it. He had enough other issues surrounding the tariffs and the implosion of his own government and cabinet anyway on a number of different issues. But here he's popped up in the final days of our campaign by raising Canada himself through a Q&A session with the reporters and hammering away at some of the liberals and

hurting Poliev. Now there's that, plus you have Jordan Peterson going on Joe Rogan's show. I don't know whether you saw that, but it's the same kind of thing where Peterson basically says it'd be much tougher for Trump if Carney's the Prime Minister. He knows how to deal with these things. And it'll be hard on Trump. Well, there's got to be music to Trump's ear or to Carney's ears. And once again, for Poliev, it's not a good moment.

Do you think this is also kind of accidental, that this has happened in the last couple of days? I don't believe that Donald Trump woke up yesterday morning and the heap of trouble that he's in with China, with Ukraine, with Russia, and decided, let me give a hand to Mark Carney so that he wins the election. I think he uses Canada as a distraction. A look of the American public isn't into the Ukraine-Russia. The China tariff war is not really filtered down to consumers, but it will. But there is no doubt this administration is in trouble. And whenever he's in trouble, his favorite punch bag, which comes at no cost, seems to be Canada.

So I would worry more about the threat of more tariffs on the auto industry than about anything else. As for Jordan Peterson, I think he's cut Paulyev loose because he believes that Paulyev is going to lose. We certainly certainly made it sound that way in the interview. Yes, but Jordan Peterson is his own person who does his things for himself. So he's not doing it for Mark Carney. He's, he's just showing that he's being smart because he would probably look stupid if he said the alternative, Pierre Pouillet is about to become prime minister. So I don't know, but we see

ourselves as the center of the universe at this point because we are at the tail end of an election campaign. But from where Mr. Peterson or Mr. Trump sit, we're not, we're a detail in their workday. Yeah, I know. I agree with that. And when I scan the world newspapers as you do, you don't see a lot about the Canadian election in there. Occasionally something pops up. Except in the Economist. Except in the Economist. They've got a terrific reporter in Canada. A groaning 2,000 word story about the election and the edition that's coming out tomorrow morning. Listen, you mentioned that he kind of went away. Look, I don't think that that's by accident. We

already have. We already know publicly that a provincial premier, Danielle Smith, did speak to Trump administration officials and did say, could he just stay out of this for a little while and allow Canadians to make up their own mind? She went on to say that it's because Mr. Poiliev's ideas are more in sync. That was the public recognition of what I think I can say quite comfortably now was part of a private effort to work with people around Mr. Trump to get him to shut up during the Canadian elections. I think I can say comfortably that conservatives did reach out to Mr. Trump, not directly, but the people in his administration and asked him just to stay out of this

and allow things to play out. We have a public recognition of that. I know that there were private efforts as well. What happened when that occurred? I think it's safe to say that there was a little sag in the energy of the liberal campaign. And all of a sudden, we had other issues that were aired. We had affordability issues that were aired.

We had cost of living, housing issues that were aired. We had crime issues that were aired. But did that necessarily help the conservative campaign? It might have. It might have added a little bit to their level of support. What didn't happen though, despite all of the evolution, and I think it's fair to say there was some evolution in Mr. Poiliev's campaign, we did not see Pierre Poiliev fully commit to the fight against Donald Trump. He never made that the central issue of his campaign.

He never went at Mr. Trump with the aggressiveness of his liberal or even NDP or rivals. And we have to ask, is it a mystery? Is it because he couldn't bring himself to do that? Is it because his supporters include a great number who support Mr. Trump? I think that that's the logical conclusion we have to come to. He didn't make that change at the beginning. He made a slight change during the campaign, but never really firmly committed to the fight over the central issue when historians look back at this campaign, over the central issue of this campaign. So why do you think that Trump reintroduced it here in the last couple of days?

Could it be as you know, Chantal? You're asking a lot of us here, right? So the answer is I don't have a clue. And I've long stopped wondering why it happened or why he said this or why he said that. I mean, the person who is the current prime minister of Canada came close to saying today, you know, these things come, he almost said, this crazy person says things and he always says them. So I am not reading a great strategic play here and suddenly Trump resurfacing, but it is convenient for the liberals that he did. Well, I guess that's the point I'm getting at, that it was very convenient for them.

Just like it was convenient for Poliev. It didn't work, but it was convenient for Poliev that he backed away at the encouragement of a number of different people who pleaded with the White House for him to back off. So we had two platforms from the main parties and a leader's debate that took place in a relaxing place where Donald Trump almost didn't exist. Oh, that was great. But that being said, Canadians are not, they don't have an attention deficit disorder collectively.

And this is one of the campaigns where I've seen the least movement in the polls of significance that I've ever covered, where people decide what they want and in an election, more so than the media, their leaders impose thesis. And on this score, yeah, it didn't work. Why didn't it work? Because most Canadians did not forget that Donald Trump was still the president of the US and was still doing things that are unpredictable. This notion that suddenly on Wednesday of the last week Donald Trump talked about Canada because he had a great plan to get Mark Carney or whatever. I don't buy that. I've seen no evidence that he thinks about things long enough to get that done.

Okay. I'll buy that. I'm happy you will because otherwise you're gonna have to argue for Mr. Trump's capacity to follow through on something. Right. Okay. I think it's why do we draw breath? Why do fish swim? Why do birds soar? You've got the wrong podcast here, Rob. You've got to dial over another one.

You're not David Attenborough? No, I'm older than him. No, I'm older than him. Okay, let me ask this. That was happening as the weekend. The other thing that was happening as the weekends, if you can believe the reports that are coming out around what Pauliev's new speech is by the end of the week here, the beginning of the week he was talking with smiles and optimism about the future based on their platform that he felt would bring all of that to Canada and Canadians. But by the end of the week, as it's being described, his speech is in a dark place, basically not conceding that the Liberals are going to win, but saying that if the liberals do win,

it's going to be really ugly out there and it's not going to be a good place to be living. Blood-hued sunsets and hangings at dawn. Exactly. So this is his closing speech, his closing argument, is this? Yeah, I mean look at his platform if you want. Here's what jumped out at me when I looked at his platform. All the numbers are magic beans and pixie dust, okay, for all of them. These are campaign communication pamphlets. They're not budgets and nobody should take them. But you look at them for tone. And the tone of Mr. Poiliev's platform, I thought, was very, very populist. Referenda for tax increases.

No university degrees for public service jobs. You know, you want a jab at the elite, there's a jab at the elite. The one that really jumped out at me was a promise to withdraw federal funding from universities that don't respect freedom of expression. What is that an echo of? Who else is fighting with universities right now in the Western hemisphere? All of that, All of that, plus the dystopian language of a Canadian hellscape, tells me that he's trying to solidify his vote as opposed to expand it. Tells me that his vote is under duress and may also be an attempt to rally the right wing of the Conservative Party for what could be a very ugly fight after this campaign is

over if the Conservatives lose, particularly if the Liberals win a majority. I think that that fight for the leadership, for the future of the Conservative Party is already starting. When we look at the stories that came out within minutes of each other in the Toronto Star and in the Globe and Mail about Mr. Poliev being in trouble in his own riding, that's not an accident. Within minutes of each other, there's a tweet from both of those news organizations saying he's in trouble. Somebody is telling those news organizations from inside the conservative party that resources people have been shuttled, hurried to the riding of Carlton just outside of Ottawa.

Well, it's a part of Ottawa now, but to try and shore up his chances. That's people basically saying to Mr. Poiliev, we're coming for you. And you're going to be in trouble. And if we lose, it's because of you. We are seeing, I think, the beginning of a fight for the future of Mr. Poiliev's leadership and the future of the Conservative Party.

We have two party leaders who have already in effect, in seated the election, Mr. Blanchet, which I thought was very clever, said, it's okay, Mark Carney's gonna be the prime minister. Block supporters, come home, come home. I thought that was clever. We've seen Mr. Singh pick that up in a way as well in a different approach saying, if you wanna keep the liberals honest, Mark Carney's gonna be the prime minister.

If you wanna keep them honest, send some more new Democrats. We haven't seen Mr. Poiliev concede, but we're beginning to see the people around him, in effect, act like they have conceded, like this is over. John Teller, what's your thought on that? I have to say that on the score of psychological warfare, which does exist in campaigns, which does exist in campaigns. These stories about Carleton did get some assist from the liberal war room and the liberal numbers.

It wasn't just some conservative who wanted to pay back against Piapoliev. It was the liberals pushing the narrative. And then you move on and you call a conservative because you're not gonna take the liberal's word for that. So you call a conservative, because you're not gonna take the liberal's word for that. So you call a conservative insider. And it's not too hard in this campaign in Ontario

to find conservative insiders with numbers. That's- Well, conservative pollsters. Yeah, yeah. That think Pierre Poilier stances. I don't know if he's in trouble in Carlton. I can see why he could be. Cuts to the civil service, the support for the convoy. It's not hard to see how that could complicate life and a more aggressive than usual liberal campaign. But, you know, we're going to hear a lot about Pierre Poilé's future, probably, if he doesn't do well in the election.

I'll say off the top, and I'll say this, having watched the John Turner, Lenti, let's get rid of John Turner thing, I don't believe in his chances to stay as leader, whether the liberals win a majority or a minority government. I'm not in that school. I believe in the end, he will be doomed. There are too many knives out there, too many people who see themselves as a better liberal leader. I totally agree with Rob that one way or another,

the Conservative Party is in for a very existential conversation about what it is about. having gone through four leaders, including Stephen Harper's defeat in 2015, who have failed to build a coalition large enough to win an election. And how do they deal? Because people talk about and I agree, the Western Canada in a liberal wind feels excluded, secessionist ideas take root. The problem is that they take root inside the conservative movement. And if you want to salvage a party that can aspire to government federally, and you're a

conservative, you need to do something about that. You can't just water it. Because if you do water it, you're doing it at the expense of your own party. So it's going to be I think the conservative party, if they lose, if they if he it loses will be the more interesting party to cover. Because it will have so many questions to answer, starting with leadership, but including others. And I for one believe in not having a one-party government forever. So I think it would be important for the conservatives to get their act together whichever way they choose in a way that allows us to go from liberals to conservatives and back because it's not healthy to have just one

party that can aspire. We saw what happened with Jacques Lecce when that was the case. The opposition built itself inside the party. Then there was a civil war. That doesn't advance governance. And it makes for a fairly lousy federal politics. So we'll see where we are next week. We will. And we have to keep reminding ourselves that it's only Friday and Mondays when Canadians actually decide when the votes are counted. Something else we should remind ourselves of is if the current polls are correct, the

Conservatives succeeded probably beyond their expectations. If they have a vote between 38 and 40 percent, that's a record vote for them, a new record vote for this iteration of the Conservative Party. I think their failure is that they didn't do anything to help the NDP, that they did everything they could to pulverize the NDP. But I'm sure that a lot of people would have said if they were told at the beginning of this campaign, you are going to get 40% of the vote. They would have said that's a great success for this iteration of the Conservative Party. Well, they do have a record of one and done for their leaders in the last 10 years.

Listen, if the liberals end up with a majority on Monday night and Pierre Pauliade loses his seat, he's going to be gone by Monday night. It'll be all over. But we're not there yet. So we'll see where we are. But before we move on, before we take our first break, Chantelle, is there anything you want to say about this attempt by Pauliade, at least seemingly going into this weekend, of doing the dark scenario, the dark side of what he thinks is coming if the liberals end up winning, which is kind of a switch from what he'd done at the beginning of the week. So there were two choices offered to Mr. Poliev coming out of the debates.

He didn't do badly in the debates. A lot of people thought that he was a different person who might have decided to be that person a few months ago. He could have gone mainstream, done all these interviews on mainstream platforms, and built on that. For some reason, I don't know if it's their numbers, he went the other road. But that road is basically, I'm appealing to my base to keep what I have. And so he went dark. I'm not sure why, there are have been one. But this is one of those.

I would have thought that if he built on the good impressions from the debate to people who were not conservative voters, he might have achieved more than going the road that he is going. But I don't have access to their numbers. It may be that they're worse than I assume. But the fact that he did tells me that the numbers are bad. Okay. I'll just say one thing,

and it kind of dovetails with what both of you are saying about this issue of Poliev's seat. Some liberals have been saying since the beginning of the campaign that Poliev was vulnerable in his own riding. They were saying that, you know, I was hearing that in the first week. There were conservatives saying that too. Right, but now it's really, you know, the conservatives are really pushing that button.

I take what Chantel is saying about how the liberals have been playing this game as well about how the liberals have been playing this game as well on this, but the conservatives, and it's kind of conservatives from Queens Park, right? That's right. We're pushing this. Yes, now that you put a name to it. Yeah. Okay, we're gonna take a break and we come back.

I've got a very different kind of question for you. So we'll see how you handle that. We'll do that right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Friday episode, which of course is good talk with Sean Tellebert and Rob Russo. I'm Peter Mansbridge. You're listening on SiriusXM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform,

or you're watching us on our YouTube channel. Whatever platform you've got us on, we're happy that you're with us. Okay, I said a different kind of question. So here it is. The campaign's been on for five weeks, officially, longer when you consider all the other things that have been happening. When you've watched this and you've both done a bit of travel, but you've talked to a lot of people, talked to your contacts across the country. What have you learned about Canadians in this spring of 2025? In terms of not what they're about to do in terms of their voting, but what they're thinking, What is it that's defining Canadians at this point in our history? How would you handle that?

What do you think the answer is to that? You don't want us to answer hockey, right? I know you're going to gloat about the Maple Leafs. I expect that. It's not over until it's over. Still doing better than others that I won't name. I have always had some fear, a degree of faith in voters. And there is sense of what's important and what's not.

And what I saw in this campaign is voters, they are basically saying, we're not going to sweat the small stuff here. We know that we're in a place that is weird, not something we ever knew anything about. And that's what we're going to focus on. I have not heard any normal voter outside of this journalistic bubble talk about most of the small stuff that make the daily coverage of the election. Actually voters have stayed focused on what their bigger worry was. They didn't need Donald Trump this week to remind them that this is reality. That's something we needed to go back to talking to that issue. But voters, they never stopped thinking about that stuff. And they never stopped looking at Mark Carney and Pierre-Claude Yev with that lens, which I think is a sign of collective intelligence that you don't get distracted every second minute by this little thing that we're

going to throw at you that will, you know, there are issues we talked about or things that happened on the campaign. I can't remember them and they made no impression on voters. That's kind of a sign of health. I watched my grandchild, the 12 year old, do something called la boucher l'électorale. So it's meant for younger people, but it's it you answer questions on the issues. And it tells you who you are in the end. And I offered no help. I just watched. I thought this is totally fascinating. There were questions. Are we taking too many refugees, a host of choices? Should we have more or less immigrants? Do you agree that Quebec should be recognized as a nation? We live in Montreal. Should Quebec be a separate country? What about how we treat this and that? I watched this and I thought, this is really interesting.

Because he was really thinking about this stuff in his own way. And it's the opposite of what happens in the US. It was all based on content and policy. He was very proud of where he landed, but I'm not going to tell you where he landed. But he was very proud of what that told him about himself in the end. And I thought we should do more of these things. By the way, maybe we should do more of these things with people in high school, university, kids in Quebec and many elementary and high schools tomorrow will be voting. And when they finished voting, I asked, are you going to get the results? And the answer was, well, of course, they're going to tell us the results. Why would we vote if they're not going to tell us what happened? We should do more of that stuff, but they looked to me when I looked at him, I thought Canadian voters are very much like him,

they take you know minutes to find their answer and then they look at where they land and then they vote and that's good. Rob? Well, I think the first thing that we can say with no small degree of confidence is that people are very interested in politics, that they are very engaged in this campaign. All you got to do is look at the numbers for this podcast. People are watching, they're downloading. I hear about it almost more than anything else that I do. Ratings are up everywhere. People are turning out at rallies in large numbers for both the conservatives and the liberals. So what did they say when you talk to them and they come to these places?

I think that despite significant divisions in the country, we can find common cause, we can find common ground. And I think that we have found more common ground than meets the eye sometimes in this campaign, that they will put aside for a while anyway, what divides them when there is a threat or a perceived threat to the notion of Canada. I think that that's happened in this campaign. I've seen more Canadian flags outside of homes where I live and places that I've visited that I've ever seen before. So there is an increase in

patriotism. I think that's a good thing. I think that that's a good thing for the country. I think if you look at the platforms, the major parties, which means, and they represent Canadians, Canadians probably agree on a large swath what needs to be done. They agree that something needs to be done to make it easier for younger people and first time home buyers. That's clear if you look at those platforms. They agree that we need to do more to defend ourselves.

They agree that we need to do more to modernize the infrastructure of our country that we've fallen behind. And I'm not just talking about pipelines, I'm talking about ports, I'm talking about airports, I'm talking about the things that make us more productive as a country. And what's really brought us together is that we need to confront what is a clear threat to us from the South. So that's what I've been struck by,

that there is a great deal that brings us together, and that politics might be polarized, people are not as polarized as the politicians might sometimes have us think. The thing is, we watch social media, and I don't think it's a good mirror of Canadian society. You see the more extreme views on both sides on social media and it's not a good idea to think that this to tell you that you're wrong just because you don't sound like you're saying exactly what they're saying. But what I find reassuring is whatever the outcome, we're not having the equivalent of true dominion for either leaders. This is not blind. Oh, we have a rock star and we want that rock star. Neither of these leaders, the main leaders is a rock star of that kind. And that's good, because we don't need that. We need serious people to do serious things. And I'm, you know, I was intrigued. Lawrence Martin from the Globe wrote a column this week, he pointed out something

that was quite right. We spent months arguing that perhaps Justin Trudeau was overstaying his welcome. He made the point, and I think he's right, that in the end Justin Trudeau resigned just in time, at the perfect moment, both for his party and for the country, because I think we do have better choices on Monday than we would have had, less loaded with the fatigue that came with Justin Trudeau, which is interesting considering that, you know, on paper, yes, he did leave it really late in the game, right? Did he resign in time or do we owe Christopher Freeland a debt of gratitude for loving him? She's going to frame that. Being Freeland still exists, by the way.

Right. Listen, let me return it to us, the people, again on that question, because I'm fascinated by trying to understand whether we have actually changed in this past year as a people at the core. Have we fundamentally changed as a result of this, I don't know, situation, crisis, call it what you want, The country has been going through. Have we changed? And if we have, what do we do with that change? Like, does it stay with us? Are we a different people heading forward into the future, no matter who the government is, than we were a year ago?

I'm not big on those notions that we change. I live in a province where I meet lots of people who this year will vote liberal, discreetly for the first time in their lives. And once this crisis is over, they will go home. And home is the Bleu Québécois. So I don't buy that we change fundamentally because a crisis is upon us. I don't know where we will be. I mean, we all talk about this existential crisis. It hasn't happened yet. It's starting to happen. It hasn't taken anything off you yet, in a real way. It will. And maybe it will change things. But at this point, and you know, the resolve comes easily, because so far it's been at no cost.

But that is going to increase. I would agree if grim times are coming, and they certainly are coming already to some sectors of our people. There will be a call to sacrifice a call to give something up. I think one of the first things we may have to give up is, you know, both the conservatives and the liberals are promising us some some pretty large tax cuts. And if we're if we're going to have to kind of spend our way out of this, that might be some of the things that looks not realistic. But we have not yet been called a

sacrifice. Sacrifice has been imposed on the people of, as I keep saying, of Vida or of Windsor and of Oakville, but when others are called upon a sacrifice, will they show up? That'll be the sign that we have changed, that we do have this sense of common cause that I was referring to earlier. Do you think we- The sacrifice isn't reading the labels on the lemons

that you buy at the supermarket. Right. But do you think we… Sacrifice isn't reading the labels on the lemons that you buy at the supermarket. Right. But do you think we realize, do you think the politicians or those running for office have made it clear enough to Canadians that that is what's coming, that in fact it is going to be a really difficult situation, whether it's a dark painting they portray or whether it's simply that tough times are coming. Do you think Canadians get that, understand that? No, I think they understand it better than what the politicians have led them to believe, have led them to believe. For sure. But do I think that the next prime minister and the party that wins is going to

benefit from having won this election? No, I don't. I actually think this is going to be a really lousy time to govern, which will get you kicked out of government in two or four years. There is no fun here. It's not going to be rainbows, unicorns. It's going to be bad. And maybe whoever wins or their party will rule the day that they won this election because people will not be happy about things that will happen. It's not going to be like the pandemic where you give them a pass because you're scared of getting sick. It's going to be something more complicated. We always say we want to fight climate change and then whenever it takes a buck

out of our pocket, suddenly we're not interested anymore. Many of us. So we'll see how that great resolve goes beyond singing all Canada loudly and buying lemons from Egypt. Do you want to add a word on that Rob, before we take our final break? I don't think I can do better than that, Peter. It was pretty good. Yeah. Okay, let's take our final break. We'll come back with some closing thoughts on what has been in, you know, quite the campaigns. Not over yet. Still a couple of days to go and who knows what might happen, but we'll have some thoughts

on that right after this. Peter Mansbridge here, our final break and our final segment of Good Talk for this week with Chantel and Rob. Um, okay. So one of the, one thing that usually happens on election nights is, um, you know, we see a victory speech on the part of, uh, at the winner, we see the concession speed on the main loser. And then we, uh, we started to see all the others speaking as well. And some of them are going to be saying goodbye. And if not directly, indirectly on Monday night,

we'll be watching leaders who have been at the front of a party for, for some time, likely saying that their, their time is done. Do we want to venture into that? Rob, What are you expecting? What are you thinking? Unless and even if Jagmeet Singh wins official party status for the NDP, which is right now the bar of success for the democratic campaign, a loss of 10 or more seats as success. This will likely be Mr. Singh's last campaign. And he looks like he's actually going out with, he's crossing the finish line with a high kick. He's not in any way down. He's not morose. There is no kind of post-apocalyptic visions from Mr. Singh in terms of what would happen if there is a liberal government.

So I think he would be done. I've already alluded to the fact that I believe the fight for the future of the Conservative Party has already begun. And I think that Mr. Pooylyev's speech and the subject matter for what he's talking about is evidence of that. And conservatives have done all but concede, well, they have to me, they've conceded privately. They look at his schedule. I believe he's going to be in Saskatchewan tonight for a rally. We're a couple of days away from a vote and he is in Saskatchewan where people have voted reliably conservative forever where Scott Moe was thought to have had a close election

last year and he won with over 50% of the vote. So, you know, if Mr. Poiliev is not conceding his travel itinerary is telling us he's conceding. Chantal would have a better sense of Mr. Blanchet, but I think some pointed questions would have to be asked of him if he ends up losing 15, 20 seats to somebody like Mark Carney, who I don't think understands Quebec, but who seems to have been able to

tap into their fears and their concerns and who seems to have been able to unleash in Quebecers a sense that the federal system of Canada is a very safe buffer against the onslaught of the Anglosphere, which is a good thing, I think, for Canada. It's remarkable that the person delivering that message of safety is a person who struggled in the French language, who doesn't, I don't think, really understand the vibe of Quebec and Quebecois, but he's done that. If that's the case, and I'm not sure that it has, because I think some bloc voters are coming home as the campaign ends, I think some pointed questions will have to be asked of Mr. Blanchet as well. Fonnton.

No one expects Yves-François Blanchet or is even calling for a Francois Blanchet to sit to step down, regardless of the results. Quebecers are a fairly tightly knit society, and everybody understands why the bloc would be losing Seats on Monday night and if that's the case, there's very little anger out there. At Mark Carney or at if Francois Blanchet it's by and large, the people who are switching are basically saying we're doing what we need to do this year. It has nothing to do with if Francois Blanchet's campaign, they were never in the conversation on this central ballot question. They may or may not save more seats.

I think the expectation is that they will lose more seats, but it's not the kind of defeat. I think their biggest fear at some point was a red wave like the orange wave that sweeps everything. That's not happening. It would be a surprise if they lost official party status, and they will go on to fight another day. I always believed that Chuck Mead's last campaign was this campaign regardless of results. I have limited admiration for his fortitude at this point in the campaign, because I'm reminded that this is the leader who danced on immense losses in one of his first

campaigns. As in I saved my skin, but and I'm dancing on the graves of defeated candidates and MPs from my party. So at this point, I can't see how the NDP would want to stay with someone who is presided over the loss of Atlantic Canada, the loss of Quebec, the loss of Metro Toronto. Should I go on? I would be cruel. I'm shooting at an ambulance at this point. Okay. Pierre Poirier will see, but I do hope that this concession speech, if he loses, will go the way of I lost and not the way of we were cheated out of a victory. Well, you know, if he loses, if the conservatives lose after having been sitting so high in the opinion polls for the last couple of years and as Rob says, finishing better than they finished in years if they end up with the kind of numbers that are suggested now in 38 to 40 percent of the vote and still

lose and lose possibly to a majority government on the liberal side, there are going to be some very angry conservatives in the country, and not just in the West. There are going to be some angry conservatives. I hate using that term angry because it... But there already are, as you know and as we all know. And that becomes a part of the platter of problems that face a new government starting next Tuesday in trying to unite the country and unite disparate portions of the voting of the electorate who feel that they've been robbed

of what they were convinced was a victory. That's not going to be easy. It's not just dealing with the Americans. It's not just dealing with a new world trade order and a world order in total and defense and all the rest of it. That's going to be a major part of what is dealt to the new Prime Minister and his government, if that's the way things turn out. I think everybody who cares about the country hopes that it's a majority mandate with representation for the winning party right across the country. That would be the best thing for the country. A difficult thing for the country. A difficult thing for the country would be a minority mandate, particularly one if it was supported by the Bloc Québécois.

That would be something that would endanger, I think, or it would certainly unleash some anger, particularly in Western Canada. So I think both sides hope for that. Both sides hope for a majority mandate with representation across the country. I think everybody acknowledges that that's a very unlikely scenario for the conservatives right now. There's only one party that has an opportunity to do that. And if not, the new prime minister, if it's Mr. Carney, will have some fences to mend immediately in his home province of Alberta. And it should be one of his first trips. He has said that he's going to convene a first minister's conference very, very

quickly. If he becomes prime minister, he has to deal with Mr. Trump. He has to deal with national unity right away. He'll have to deal with a new cabinet. I expect a new cabinet before, and before the Victoria Day weekend and a return of the house right after the Victoria Day weekend so that they get right back to work and go to mid-June, if not the end of June. Okay, I've got two minutes for you, Shantel. Okay, end of June, probably, if they have to go anywhere because let's not forget the G7 is

coming and we're the host country and that's in early June, so whoever is Prime Minister is going to have to be focused on that because it's not just the usual G7 meeting. It's in Alberta, right? I'm not saying that Albertans would not be angry over the results, but I don't think we should overplay this either. I once worked for a newspaper when I switched to English, I worked for various newspapers whose only headlines about Quebec were always, Quebec is about to go, and as if nothing else happened every morning. And I think we're doing this to Alberta at this point, and it's not really very healthy.

Just me saying. Well, I'd listen, you're right about that. There's a lot more happening and there are some big huge decisions that are to be made in the West with the help or the assistance of the federal government as well if they're smart, but there are big decisions coming, especially on the energy front. And that will help determine the future for many Westerners as well. We're out of time. This has been a good conversation and probably the first of many, especially next week, if Paulie F wins on Monday night,

we'll be spending next week trying to explain what we talked about here for the last hour. But never the less, We'll be spending next week trying to explain what we talked about here for the last hour. But nevertheless, the buzz will be out tomorrow morning at its regular time of 7 a.m. So you can subscribe if you haven't already at nationalnewswatch.com. It's always a good read 7 a.m. on Saturday mornings. Thanks to Rob. Thanks to Chantel. You're going to see both of these two people on various programs, whether you're watching them or listening to them on Monday night with their analysis of things that you have decided across the country. The decisions

weren't made today on this podcast. It's just our kind of sense of the way things are drifting. Uh, but on Monday, your voice is heard loud and clear, and those numbers will be calculated and tabulated and broadcast across the country. Um, thanks for listening on this day. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks again to Chantel and Rob. We'll talk to you again next week.