The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Reporter's Notebook -- Kathleen Petty and The Real Alberta Story

Episode Date: May 20, 2026

The host of West of Centre, friend and colleague Kathleen Petty joins us from Calgary. There is so much happening in Alberta these days and almost all of it has national implications from referendums to pipelines. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of the bridge. And today, it's reporter's notebook. Althea Raj is on holidays, Kathleen Petty, the great Kathleen Petty. CBC podcast, West of Center, is joining us along with, of course, Rob Russo, the Canadian correspondent for the economist. All that coming right up. Okay, let's get her going.

Kathleen Petty, Rob Russo, Peter Mansbridge, here. with your reporter's notebook. And it's great to have Kathleen with us again. She's been on the program a number of times, but not through the recent spirit of the two great, what do we call them, the national obsessions. They're certainly provincial obsessions, but they've become national obsessions as well.

And that would be the talk of a referendum on separation in Alberta. And the issue of, well, are we going to become an energy superpower and is part of that, meaning a pipeline and all the debate that falls out on that. I want to get into some of the specifics on those two things, Kathleen, but I want to start with, I want to get your sense of how you feel

the central Canadian media is telling these stories. And it's easy to ask you because you used to be a part of that body in your great Ottawa years. But now, station in Calgary, you get to watch and listen and read to what the Central Canadian media is saying when they're

talk about these stories. We hear a lot of feedback from Westerners saying, you guys don't get it, you don't know what you're talking about. Is there some truth in that? Well, first, I just want to acknowledge that that is said inside Alberta as well, because there seems to be this battle among Albertans about which Albertans actually speak for Alberta more than other Alberts. Do you know what I mean? Right. So there is this sort of battle of bona fides, but I don't think there's any question

that when people are interviewed about what's going on here and they're not from here, in other words, there is not an Albertan as part of that conversation. People in Alberta kind of look quizzically and say, really? Now, on one hand, I think the whole country has a stake in what's going on here to be fair. And so I think it's important to hear. the view of people from outside this province. I'm certainly interested in hearing that view. But having said that, being able to really understand, you know, the DNA of this province, it's really hard to do that from a way.

And what I think back on, I was thinking about this, Peter, and back to a time actually when Rob was my boss in 2019, and it was during that federal election campaign, we remember that, Rob. I was just about to say nobody is your boss. So I sat down with two CEOs, big oil sand CEOs, one of whom was Derek Evans, who was the CEO of Meg Energy. Meg Energy has now been taken over by Sinovus, so it is no more. But the CEO at the time was a man named Derek Evans. And I sat down with Derek, and there were two things he said to me that I've never forgotten

and that I tell people when I get an opportunity. One was, he said to me, we are portrayed as doing the devil's work. I shaved my horns off for this meeting. That was one. The other thing he said to me was, I have employees coming to work every day who feel they are not worthy of being Canadians. And I've never forgotten those comments.

And, you know, this is a man, just so you understand, I mean, a free thinker, you know, obviously willing to engage in a very real way. He's also someone who told me in that interview that he said, look, I'll probably get kicked out of the petroleum club for saying this. But I think they should raise the industrial carbon price is what he told me in that interview. And he also told me in that interview that Meg was committed to reaching net zero by 2050. and it's even more remarkable, if you think back to 2019, to have heard that from him, when we also recall, at that point in the campaign,

Justin Trudeau had not committed to net zero by 2050 yet. So I guess that's all to say that I think the view of Alberta is more nuanced and complicated and not as straightforward as a lot of people think it is. Wow. That's good to hear. It's funny you're talking about 2019, though. I mean, it was only seven years ago, but so much has changed in those seven years, including attitudes toward climate, all of that.

You know, it's very different now than it was seven years ago. Rob, you get in on this because, you know, Rob was my boss, too, you know, like he was all our bosses. That'll send chuckles through the CBC. You know, now that you're with the economists, you've actually spent a lot of time in Alberta, probably more time in Alberta than any other province since you got the job with the economist. So how do you react to this issue about how well the Alberta story is being represented to the rest of the country by, you know, journalists outside of Alberta. Yeah. The first thing I want to say is Kathleen won't say it and I will.

One of the first people I talked to before I planned my trip to Alberta. is always, always Kathleen. And when I talk to CEOs, when I speak to pollsters there, they all say the same thing, including members right across the political spectrum in Alberta, that Kathleen is somebody they don't always agree with. They have felt the sting of their lash

when they try to dance away from questions, and they all respect her. We're happy and lucky to have her among us on this podcast. Look, you got to go. You got to go and you don't just go to Calgary or Edmonton. You got to get in your car and you got to drive. And whenever I've done that, I have learned so, so much. It's a great place.

It's one of those places where I would walk into a food court or a university, sit down and do the kind of thing I used to do as a kid reporter. and say, who wants to talk to a journalist from far away and talk some politics? And people want to talk to you. They want to be listened to, though. They don't want to be talked at. They want to be listened to. But you got to get in a car and drive.

That being said, you know, both those cities are still very important. What I'm struck by when I go to Alberta is how diverse those cities are. and I'm also struck by, and I might also say unsettled by the lack of diversity on the independent side. It's a very rural, white, I would say, movement. And I look at Calgary, for instance, where Kathleen and I met the last time I was there about six weeks ago. And that's not Calgary. And that's something that's troubled, for instance, it troubles Jason. Kenny troubles others sometimes as well.

But it's a place where you've got to get in your car, you've got to drive, you've got to get out of your car, you got to get out of your car, you got to go in and you got to talk to people, got to talk to them in their homes. You know, I spent 90 minutes at a roadside, not helping, not helping, but watching his signatures were collected. and it was a wonderful experience because you saw the entire gamut. You saw people stopping and getting out of their cars and rushing up with their licenses to sign up for this petition for the drive for independence. You also saw people slow down, roll down their windows and hurl salty epithets about going back and leaping into the embrace of Donald Trump. So it's all there. You just have to get on a plane and go. Okay.

Kathleen, tell us where we are on this story, on the separation story, the referendum story, call it whatever you want. Where are we? And where is the premier on this? Because every day you figure you've got her figured out, something will happen the next day to go, well, maybe she's actually really on this side or the other side,

and it goes back and forth. Where are we on this story now? There's a lot in that question, and I'm trying to decide where to start in answering us. So let me just start with the idea of a referendum question, because I think that's what everyone is wondering about. Sure. And truthfully, people in this province are wondering about it as well. What's going to happen there? As you know, there was a court decision that basically said the petition that was launched by State Free Alberta that collected, they say, over 300,000 signatures.

meant to trigger a referendum on separation, that it failed to meet the duty to consult, and therefore it was essentially dead in the water. It wouldn't be counted. And the separatists that launched the petition have launched an appeal. They've also asked for a stay of that judgment, but we know that courts don't move fast. So the date for the other nine referendum questions is October 19. So now the question is, what happens? Will there be a question on the ballot? And some people wondering whether the Premier would put forward a question on behalf of the government, something that she does not want to do because she very much wants any question on Alberta's place in Alberta not to be a government question. She wants it to be a question

brought forward through the citizen-initiated referendum legislation, which is what the state Free Alberta legislation that they follow to pursue their petition. But there was another petition, Peter. And you'll remember this. It was Thomas Lukasik, who's a former PC deputy premier, by the way, who did the Forever Canadian petition. And he, too, put forward a question that is essentially an affirmation of Alberta's place in Canada.

But it's, you know, do you agree Alberta should stay in Canada? I even vote known to that, right? Not just yes, even though it was sort of menten affirmations. Now, the question is, do they put forward that question? He does not want it put forward as a referendum. A lot of people argue that that was the premise of his campaign initially and that he sort of pivoted and changed his mind about what he wanted it to be. And there's a big debate about that.

I'm not going to get involved in the minutia of that because it is an active debate. But nevertheless, he has. had over 400,000 signatures verified. And so... Was that 400,000 on the yes side or 400,000 total voted? No, 400,000 on his petition drive for his question, should Alberta remain in Canada? Right?

So he submitted, it was closer to sort of 450, 460, and just over 400,000 were verified. So then there was a separate petition. I just, I want to get this right in my own mind. 400,000 verified as saying, yes, it should stay in Canada? Well, agreeing to that question being posed. Ah, okay. So they weren't, it wasn't an up and down vote on the actual question, petition on the question.

No, this is just, we want this question posed. I see. He argues that he wants MLAs in the legislature to vote on it because he wants people to declare whether they're federalists or separatists in the ledge. But the Premier has sort of hinted that she could see this actually going on a ballot as a referendum question. So now with the stay-free Alberta question, which is worded a little bit differently, which is, do you agree Alberta ceases to be a part of Canada and becomes an independent state, that one is set aside because those signatures aren't going to.

to be counted. So there is why speculation that the Premier is going to address the province on Thursday. We don't have that officially confirmed, but that's what everyone is suggesting. The NDP is suggesting it. I heard it from people last week that this was going to happen. The belief

being that this is what she's going to propose goes on the ballot on October 19th. You know, we have in a way of knowing for sure. But it allows her then to put forward a question that isn't a question that the government has put forward. Instead, it's a question being put forward based on signatures from Albertans.

And she often sort of combines the two efforts to say over 700,000 Albertans have said that they want to be able to express their view on Alberta's place in the Federation. And therefore, I feel compelled to allow people to express that view because she's an ardent, ardent, supporter of what she calls direct democracy. What else is she an ardent supporter of on this question? Well, I mean, a lot of people ask that question. She would argue that with this MOU, she's been negotiating different pieces of it,

and it's not done yet, but we now have an agreement on carbon pricing, that that is her sort of exhibit A, and it's a big, you know, capital A, exhibit A, that she wants Canada to work, that she believes Alberta can thrive in Canada with a cooperative federal government and cooperative federalism. But, you know, on the other side of that, when you introduce legislation that says, you know, calls for sovereign Alberta within a united Canada, there are any number of ways to interpret that. I mean, just look up sovereign in the dictionary. What does it mean? It means independence.

right? And so, you know, where you sort of exert all the power and you make all the decisions and federalism doesn't work exactly that way as we know. So, you know, certainly the provincial NB call her a separatist. And as we found out this week, David Eby clearly thinks she's a separatist because he complained loudly that bad behavior is being rewarded, his words. And he talked about, you know, separatists or separatist premiers, essentially getting their own way. And it was, you know, pretty evident he was talking about Daniel Smith. Right. I want to get Rob back in on this, but just before I do, is she in tight with her caucus on the way she's handling this situation? Because, you know, you hear that there's a lot of

tension within that UCP caucus in Alberta? Well, the difficulty with her caucus, I think, for her, clearly is managing it. As you know, there's been any number of polls, but I think the poll I would pay the most attention to is the one done for the CBC by Janet Brown, because Janet Brown pulls this province better than anyone. So if you're going to pay attention to a poll, you know, the other pollsters are very good, But she does polling differently. She does live calls, right?

This is a very time-consuming, rigorous process. And Janet has a way of reaching conservatives in a way that other pollsters do not in this province. And 57% of UCP supporters support separation. So given that, her caucus is obviously full of representatives of ridings. where there's strong support for separation. And a lot of her writings, you know, as Rob pointed out, go to rural Alberta or, you know, smaller centers, and not necessarily specifically rural,

but smaller centers outside of Calgary and Evanton. And that's where you find a lot of the, you know, the most hardcore, fervent support for separation. And a lot of her caucus represents people in those writings. All right, Rob. The federal government is trying to do a, you know, a difficult dance here, watching carefully what's happening,

but at the same time trying not to get in the way. Is that a fair description of what they're doing? Sure. I think they're doing more than that. I want to go back to something Kathleen said, based on the question that you asked about Daniel Smith. I watched her yesterday. She was on Bloomberg television in the United States,

and where she was asked some pointed questions. And already I noticed a shift in tone. There was also a shift in language. She was asked about independence and where she stood on the issue of independence. And she said, I support Alberta autonomy within Canada. And I support cooperative federalism. Already there, the word autonomy as opposed to sovereignty, I thought was an interesting change. in language. I was wondering what signal she's trying to ship or send by it with that

shit. But I'm you know I'm reminded of somebody that that we we all covered I think younger when we were younger in our careers and that's Robert Brasso. He was he was accused of being a separatist as well. He was not a separatist. He was he was using the leverage of the threat of independence and separation to further the interests of his party and his and his and his uh and his province certainly uh but at the same time i thought that he loved his province and he loved canada i i think daniel smith having spoken to her a couple of times feels the same way she clearly you know the calls are coming from the basement of her own house in terms of independence um but at the same time she and she's under tremendous pressure and nobody better than than Kathleen knows how long

premieres last in the province of Albert I think Ralph Klein was the last one to survive more than one term and she's staring down the barrel of that as well but I actually believe that she's a federalist and somebody who loves Canada in the same way Robert Borassar did it he had to do it very carefully but he did it um in terms of the federal government mark cronney has a really interesting advisory board of people that doesn't get talked about a lot that are from alberta um that are federalists they're across the country now they all come together in a zoom call and they talk about what's coming up uh what what has just happened can we trust can we trust daniel smith on this what does this mean?

What does, there was one of those meetings after the court decision. And he takes counsel from them. There, a lot of them are liberals, but they're Albertans, true and through. And he takes their advice. So there's almost a kind of a minute-by-minute expert panel that he turns to. There was a signal very, very early that he was taking. the threat of independence very, very seriously and that it was a priority for him. Didn't like the fact that the entire issue was coming down to a pipeline.

And if you listen to his answer, he was asked about this in Quebec yesterday. He said that, first of all, this is no longer an MOU. It's now an implementation agreement. So we're going ahead, but we're going ahead, not just as part of a pipeline. He's going to great pains to say this includes small modular reactors, it includes the electricity grid, it includes a framework, yes, for an industrial carbon tax, methane regulations. He's trying to spread it all out, but he's on this. He's on this regularly, and he's quite concerned about it.

Let me ask you this before we take our break. There was a piece in the Globe and Mail yesterday by Peter De Nolo, the former senior communications guy for Jean-Cray Chan. It's been in a liberal party a long time. Headlines, why aren't more Alberta MPs standing against separatism? And I guess that would include the leader of the Conservative Party, Pierre Palliev. I mean, he's made his position clear,

but it's not like he's out stumping every weekend or even some weekends. How does something like that, you know, what do we call him, the Laurentian elite, which I guess Peter Donolo is a player within that group of central Canadians who come from a liberal background who are saying, you know, you guys aren't doing enough to save your own province. How does something like that fly, Kathleen? Well, I'm glad you brought that up because it's a question I've been asking for quite a while now. And I know that I raised this.

I was on the current. Well, I've been on the current a few times because he keep coming back to me for obvious reasons. You're a surprise. Yeah, well, I refer to us as the Rubberneck province now, right? People just, they can't look away. And so I keep getting tapped. And I brought up the fact that we weren't hearing really much of anything from Pierpoliath specifically. And I brought that up a couple of times because, as you know, Jason Kenney has really been the loudest, most enthusiastic, determined high-profile voice speaking on behalf of Canada in this province.

But even he will acknowledge that a lot of the people that need to be persuaded don't want to hear from him at all. So he can't persuade them. He's not the guy. You know, because when you look at polling, there's, you know, everyone says, oh, roughly a third. But remember, out of that third, a small proportion of those are hardcore separatists. The others are sort of persuadable, right? They maybe, yes, maybe no, they're not really sure. So they're persuadable.

They're kind of on the fence. Whereas Pierre Polyev won, he and the conservatives won 64% of the vote in Alberta in the last election. So he actually and he represents a rural writing. He's an Alberta MP on top of that. And so the question, and even Jason Kenney suggested more recently, he wasn't before, but he is now, that he thinks Pierre Polyev needs to get in the mix. I suspect part of the hesitation is they want to be sure there's actually going to be a question that Albertans are going to be voting because do you really want to dive into this before it's real? And if it becomes real, as a lot of people expect at some point later this week, that that is the intention, that may change his calculation. It would seem to me that it would be good for him politically, just my observation, because he wants to grow.

He needs to grow outside of Alberta. You know, he can lose some support in Alberta and still do just fine in the next election, but he needs to grow outside of Alberta. side of Alberta. And so the ability to essentially be Captain Canada, or at least one of them, in this debate, I think, would probably serve him well politically. But one of the tricky parts for him, I believe, is that he's not a fan of this MOU. So he has not been a proponent of this MOU. He doesn't think it's a good deal. And so he's sort of, even though he and Daniel Smith are allies of a sort, she obviously thinks it is a good deal. She thinks this is an example that she is pursuing a deal with the federal government that shows that federalism, the Canada does work.

And yet he's saying that this is not a good deal. And he's been saying that for some time. And, you know, it's interesting to note that the separatists agree with him on that. So, you know, he sort of has that problem too because he's making essentially the same argument against his MOU as the separatists are. So it does get a bit convoluted and complicated for him. But having said that, I suspect he will consider what role he can play once he knows for sure that this is really happening. And there's going to be an actual campaign on a question that people know will be put to the people. in October. You know, this story has so many angles to it. It really is quite remarkable. It's, as you said a moment ago, Kathleen, it's, you know, we've all got rubbernecks turning around

watching this thing from different ways every day. We've got to take our break. I'm going to stay on this story because there's more to discuss on it. But first, we'll take this quick break. We'll be right back. And welcome back. You're listening to the bridge. On this week, it's Wednesday episode of Reporters Notebook, Althea Raj Away, Kathleen Petty from Calgary, joining us along with Rob Russo. You're listening to Series XM,

Channel 167, Canada Talks, are on your favorite podcast platform, or you're watching us on her extremely popular YouTube channel. Good to have you with us, whatever platform you're watching us, listening to us on. Okay, let me get back

at this story, and this part of it involves the U.S. ambassador. I want you to start us on this, Rob. I mean, we all know Peter Hoekstra or Hoekstra. You choose which. Hoestra?

Well, I heard Hoikstra. If you were at home with him and, you know, in his former homeland, it would be Hoikstra. But anyway, whatever. He's not shy. He's given his views on a number of things. To the point where this week,

the questions have been. raised about what part he played and the perhaps some of his staff played in the privacy league that happened in Alberta involving names on a voters list. It leaves you saying, why don't they kick this guy out? Like what's keeping him in? You know, countries have the power to ask an ambassador to leave and be replaced. It would be quite a statement on the part of the Canadian. government to make. But I mean, he's interfering in our process.

What's the word? What's the word on that, Rob? What are people saying? Do we know that he's interfering in our process? We don't know. We suspect. Look, if you, what's, you know, often, who said it? I can't remember who said. But somebody said that an ambassador is an honest man sent abroad to lie for his. country. That is not the case when it comes to Pete Hoekstra. We are getting unfiltered Trump. And is that a pleasant thing to hear? It isn't. It isn't always a pleasant thing to hear. Is it a helpful thing to hear? I think in many ways it is. We know where we stand. There are no pleasantries. There's none of the piffle, a diplomatic baffle gab that usually surrounds ambassadors.

you know, conversations between governments and ambassadors, particularly those from the United States and other countries where we have serious relationships are often quite brutal. We just don't see it because they're hidden behind the bow ties and ascots of diplomatic niceties. And we're not getting that in the case of Pete Hoekstra. I actually think that that's not a bad thing. I think that that's probably a good thing. Because we need at times a bracing slap in the face to realize how serious the threat is to us and what that threat constitutes. So I think that that what happened in Alberta, what happened in terms of the Undersecretary of Wars, as he's called now, Almerge Colby saying that the United States is putting a pause on aboard that Canada and the U.S.

jointly chaired. I think that we can draw a straight line between those kinds of things and the interventions perhaps, perhaps of Mr. Hookster. Mr. Hookster was meeting with Mr. Colby a few days before he made the announcement on the Joint Defense Board. But again, I actually think it's helpful to know when a train is coming down the track and not to wander into the tunnel blindly. So in that way, Mr. Hookster serves a useful purpose. Is it genteel diplomacy? No. We are in for some very tough times.

And what the signal is on the Joint Defense Board is, yeah, we're doing great in terms of spending money on NATO. But we can, cannot, and it will be a long time before we can assert sovereignty over 40% of our own territory. And that in order to assert that sovereignty, we depend on the United States. And they want us to do something about that. But I think it's kind of, I sometimes wonder if they get Canadian media because we are doing something about that. It's plain. We're spending a lot of our money in the Arctic. I think vast sums of the $81 or $82 billion we're going to spend over the next five years is in northern Canada.

What this really is is a squeeze on the F-35s. We're due to make a decision very soon. We're supposed to order 88 of them. It's a huge order for Lockheed Martin. And Donald Trump wants us to buy those planes and doesn't want us to split the fleet. This is nothing but kind of a nice Arctic you got there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it, kind of a grip. Hmm.

Catherine, you see, yeah, let me hear what you say on this. I'm just going to say, on the way he's involved himself in the debate in Alberta. I will just say, look, that that's not our reporting. So I don't know that I know the story that you're talking about, Peter. But I think it's important to make a distinction. He's not connected to the data leak per se. It's the app, right? is the app that was used to access the information that turned out, according to elections,

Alberta to be a voters list to this other separatist group. So they alleged that they had the voters list. The app is used to access it, and this was a voters list that came from a registered political party, just to be clear, the other thing I would say about Pete Hoekstra, and again, that's not our reporting. I'm just reflecting the story that I read. is what they're reporting. But the interesting thing about Pete Hoekstra is,

I'm a big consumer of podcasts. I probably watch too many of them, but some of them are well worth watching. Yours among them. I'm not just saying that is true. I watch your podcast, podcast, plural, every week. But another one that I watch locally is one where Pete Hoekstra

and Daniel Smith were on together. And it's worth watching. because especially at that point because he had been sort of in sort of spectacular conflicts all over the place right people were seeing him as sort of an aggressive actor in the conversation between Canada and the U.S. and that whole 51st state business was really dominating the conversation at that point it's died down considerably since then. So this was a very friendly conversation.

These were two people who clearly liked each other. He was very happy to be on with Daniel Smith. They agreed on pretty much everything and saw a great future together. And it was just kind of an interesting venue and format to see him in. And, you know, he was very relaxed. And anyway, she seems to talk his language, is what I'm going to see. say and you know he's as rob said there there is a benefit to someone who sort of speaks their mind uh because more often than not uh ambassadors don't and so you know you get a bunch of

opaque messaging and granted that you know there's always i'm sure a backstory and uh an agenda to some of what he says um but i would rather have a plain talker as an ambassador, and then one with whom I'm reading between the lines trying to figure out where they're coming from. Yeah, I see that. I hear that, and I probably agree with that. It's great to have a plain talker. It was very clear.

The issue is if it goes beyond talk and starts to involve in strategizing. And I say, you know, we all agree we don't have the proof of that. but one wonders when some of these stories come out and they it was a globe isn't it the globe that's reporting press progress that wrote the story right yes about the app I just wonder at what point you know it's not unusual for a foreign affairs minister to call an ambassador in for at least a discussion

when things seem somewhat controversial in terms of statements or actually by that ambassador. But you both seem to be suggesting that's not the case we're witnessing here, or at least from what we know. I would say it's not unusual is what I would say. I think it's clear that Donald Trump would be the first foreign leader to recognize an independent Alberta if Albertans ever voted 51% to 49%, let's say,

in favor of independence. he would be apprised of the requirements of the Clarity Act, one of which is in order for a legitimate unilateral declaration of independence to be seen as legitimate, there has to be foreign recognition. He would know that, and he would do it. So would he interfere that way? Yes. Let's go backwards. Has he already sort of stumbled and interfered in the debate?

Sure he has. Scott Bessent has made that mistake. But, you know, there has been, our history is replete with foreign interference. And sometimes we ask for it. All of us were around in 1995. I've no doubt that John Kletzian solicited Bill Clinton's help ahead of the 1995 referendum. And when Warren Christopher was asked the day or two before the referendum in 1995, whether or not Quebec could automatically exceed the North American Free Trade Agreement, he made it clear that that would not be the case,

that they would have to negotiate their way in. And implicit in all of that was all of this protection for the French language would be under federal. So, so like this is, this is par for the course. Sometimes we like it and sometimes we don't. We certainly don't like it in this instance. Well, if there's one thing, the two of you are guaranteed, it's invites to the July 4th Garden Party. My invitation has been lost in the mail of the last couple of years, believe it or not.

Well, I'm sure you get it back now. Okay, we never really got to the pipeline discussion. But let me ask this one last question. It's not on that. It's because of the things you said about Paul Yev, Kathleen, and I wonder whether both have you got a minute or so on this. Another resignation in the conservative leader's office. the chief of staff, Todd,

Ian Todd has resigned. Now, he was, you know, coming up on retirement, but he's not alone in terms of those who are leaving that office. And it looks, you know, you could look at that and say, oh, people are abandoning Polyev or Polyev is in for another redo of his office. what is this telling us about the overall picture surrounding Pollyev that senior staff are leaving? Well, look, I think Rob knows more than I do,

but I'll start and I'll be short, and then he can fill in the blanks that I'm not filling in. But I'll say a couple of things. Katie Merrifield, who was his head of comms, I actually know Katie. I've had her on my podcast sort of back on the day. and look, I'm sure she looked at, you know, years of being in opposition, and she had an opportunity in B.C., and that was essentially going home for her,

to be able to support a candidate that she believes will lead the Conservative Party there and will ultimately become the Premier of the province. So the timeline for being the office of somebody who's going to be in power is much, much shorter. And so, you know, if you're in politics, that that is a much more attractive place to be. And so I can certainly understand that she would see that as something that she wanted to do. She's worked in Alberta, too, by the way, when Kenny was premier. So, you know, Katie moves around. As for Ian Todd, you know, look, I'm old, so I'm just going to say he's old.

Like, he's old. And he's been doing it for a long time. And you're both younger than me. And I'm sure he's, well, we're all a little on the old side, folks. So let's just acknowledge that. And, you know, he's been at the game for a long time. And indeed, really at this stage of her career, after, you know, many accomplishments and having a long road and want to be part of a team that, again, it's going to be presumably, theoretically, who knows,

but you have to game it out and look at the odds. and, you know, there are decent odds that it's going to be a while before there's an election and a shot at being government. So it kind of makes sense to me rather than reading too much into it. Okay. Well, we'll leave Rob to read too much into it. Sure. And I guess for all old, I should stop dyeing my hair great.

At least you have it to die. Listen, Ian Todd, was brought in to prepare with a lot of other people, prepare Pierre Puea Puehliev to become Prime Minister. That's clearly not going to happen unless something completely unforeseen occurs for some time. And so new skills are required, different skills. Perhaps he didn't want to spend the next three or four years doing that job

because it will be three or four years before Pierre Paulyet. it might get another shot at becoming prime minister. We don't know whether or not he's going to get to the end of the line, but clearly Mr. Polyev has signaled that it's his intention to stay as leader of the opposition. And for that, other people are required with other skill sets, and Steve Outhouse comes in to do it. But I think it takes us back to a question you asked several minutes ago about what role Polyev is going to play in the –

in the referendum, if any. You know, Jason Kenney believes that Mr. Poilev should actually lead this, that this would be a way for him to trampling back into the discussion as a serious national leader. And I think of what it did for Jean Charray. Jean Choray was seen as somebody who was a talented politician, reduced to just a member of a two-person caucus after the 19th. 1993 election and and and and and then four or five years later he's the premier of Quebec and and and that made him a serious candidate to be prime minister again at some point so there are those who

believe that mr. Poilev should should take an active if not a leadership role in the uh remaining candidate campaign uh that that looks like it's going to happen in october i think that more people will come forward like mr polliev and others in that campaign in alberta once they know that a there's going to be a question and B, they know what the question is going to be. And I think those people will include people like Stephen Harper. Once that's all clear, I think that he will also play a role as well, not a leadership role, but a role because Mr. Harper has tremendous respect still in the province of Alberta. He's in Alberta.

He loves his province. And he's a guy who's seen as embodying the best of Albert. Alberta, for many of the people who are sort of on the fence, you know, they love Canada, but they don't know, they don't have enough right now to really run to say, this is a great deal. You know, they're still on the fence a little bit. I think, I think that the agreement on, on implementation, not the MOU last week on a pipeline, is going to help some people in industry, perhaps, also get off the fence.

We're waiting for industrial captains in the province of Alberta to manifest their colors one way or another. We'd probably be surprised, Kathleen knows us better than I do, that there are a lot of oil and gas CEOs who are supporting, if not financially, then politically supporting some of the independence movements there. as well. So we need captains of industry to come out and say this would be the wrong thing. If we actually want to get a pipeline built to tidewater, we better remain part of Canada. All those things will become clear. And I think Mr. Poitiev's role will become clearer as well, once we have a question and we know this is going to go ahead for sure.

All right. We're going to have to call it a day on this discussion, but it's been a great one. It's been great to have you with us, Kathleen. My pleasure. We will do it again soon. Lots of fun, as always. Lots of fun. I have to get it really early to get that camera ready. I have to tell you. I wouldn't do it for many people, but I did it for you.

And somehow you still look better than both of us, Kathy. That's for sure. Okay. Thank you to both. And thank you for listening. A quick reminder tomorrow, your turn. The question of the week, we're taking it easy this week. No heavy question this week is very simple.

What's your favorite superstition? What are you proud? practice. 75 words or fewer. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. Get your answers in before 3 o'clock Eastern time this afternoon. It's an early, early one on that. Include your name and the location you're writing from. I look forward to hearing from you. Once again, Rob, Kathleen, thank you so much. And we'll talk to everybody tomorrow.