The Paikin Podcast - Everything Political: Are the Knives Out for Pierre Poilievre?

Episode Date: October 23, 2025

“Pierre Poilievre is dismantling the principled, serious and credible Conservative Party,” wrote Dimitri Soudas, former director of communications and senior advisor under Stephen Harper. Are the knives out?The Everything Political panel with former MPs Martha Hall Findlay and Tony Clement discuss Soudas’s piece, the growing rift in the Conservative Party, if Harper greenlit the piece, Poilievre’s accusation of an RCMP cover-up for Trudeau, and the upcoming Conservative Party leadership review. Then a look at PM Carney’s attempts to secure a trade deal with America. Follow The Paikin Podcast: YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/@ThePaikinPodcastX: x.com/ThePaikinPodINSTAGRAM: instagram.com/thepaikinpodcastBLUESKY: bsky.app/profile/thepaikinpodcast.bsky.socialEmail us at: [e-mail]

So this is the part of the program where we usually find out what exotic location, Tony Clement or Martha Hall-Finley, are coming from. But I think I can see, Martha, you're in Calgary, right? I am indeed. And Tony, you're in Port Sydney, Ontario. I think I see that, right? That is correct, although I just spent four days in Montreal. I just got back.

Okay, well, I think I got you beat today. This will be the one time where I think I'm in a somewhat more exotic location than either of the two of you. Because, now we're taping this here on, what day is it, it's Monday. So the Blue Jays just won last night. They won game six to force a game seven. By the time people see this, we will know what has transpired in the American League Championship series. So I had to come to Boston to go to a conference at Harvard.

Not terrible. Oh, did you know, exactly. So you know, when in Rome, right? Look at the song. There you go. Yeah, you wear your Red Sox tie, which I can't really wear in Toronto, but I can wear down here. and where did I watch game six from? I watched game six.

Tony, you are so correct. I watched game six. There's Fenway Park. I went to a bar in Fenway Park and watched game six from a bar in Fenway Park. And I was not the only Blue Jay fan in the place. There's actually a lot of people cheering for the Jays down here. Okay. How about that?

Not bad, eh? No, not bad at all. That is so good. I had to interview at the Canadian Studies program here at Harvard, former Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Silberman-Abella. Wow. It was a real joy. She's just, you know, she's a superstar.

She is so fantastic. But in the meantime, we're going to do something today that we actually didn't do with Rosalie Abella, and that is talk about everything political. Everything Political, Everything Political, presented by the Canadian Bankers Association. Happy to be joined, as always, every other week here on the Paken podcast by former members of parliament, Tony Clement and Martha Hall Findlay. And folks, there is one story in Canadian politics this week.

And we are going to dive in big time because Tony, I guess he's a former friend of yours, Demetri Soutis. He is a current friend of mine. Okay, a current friend of yours. I guess when Stephen Harper was prime minister, he was in the inner circle of Harper Advisors. And he had an op-ed column published in the Toronto Star this past week in which he, He said, conservative party leader Pierre Polyev is dismantling the principled, serious, and credible conservative party that Stephen Harper worked so hard to lead and bring to power, one of substance, maturity, and integrity.

And we're going to do a few more quotes during the course of our conversation this afternoon. So why don't we start with that? Tony, first of all, do you agree with what he had to say? No, I, listen, Dmitri and I go back decades, and he is still a good friend of mine, and he is entitled to his opinion. It's just not my opinion, and, you know, I'm a Harper conservative as well as he, and Stephen Harper is a Harper conservative, and we, and Stephen publicly disagreed with him on that through a person who spoke on his behalf. So, no, but listen, we're going through a process in this party, and the only thing that I'm a little miffed about is we're talking about it on this show, and we're talking about it in the Canadian media.

And this is the sort of thing where, where conservators are divided, it doesn't end well, and it doesn't advance our agenda, our conservative agenda, you know, on behalf of the people of Canada. So that part of it I don't really like. We all have our views and we're all talking about things leading up to the convention. But to do so so publicly and emphatically as Dimitri did, I just don't like doing that. Did you call him and tell him that you opposed to what he did? Well, you know, we exchanged some views. I think I started the conversation. It was just texting back and forth and I said, tell us, tell us what you really think. Well, he did. He did. He did. So, you know, look, Dmitri is a very passionate guy. He wears his passion on his sleeve. And, you know, he is, he is a passionate conservative. I don't agree with those who are tarring him saying he's a liberal in disguise. He's not. He's a conservative.

No, Dmitri Soutis is not a liberal in disguise. Let me just don't think that's true. So that's fine. I mean, look, we're all going to have our points of view. I just don't like it being so public because I know what that, it gives aid and comfort to our adversaries. You know, conservatives shouldn't be fighting in public, is what I'm trying to say. Because they never do that in the past. Well, whenever we do, it doesn't end well. Yeah, no, I get you. Okay. Martha, when you read this op-ed piece, what did you think? Well, first off, I mean, and you can't have read it without hearing all the commentary around. I mean, it is definitely the story of the week. It will be longer than that.

I heard an interesting description today. I was listening to Radio Canada and some commentary. And somebody used the description. It was like the plate of sandwiches on the table. He took the first sandwich. As in, you know, you've always been there. Everybody's hungry, but nobody's willing to take the first sandwich. And then as soon as somebody takes the first sandwich, everybody dies.

in. And I think that was a very visual description of what I think might happen. Listen, Dimitri Soudas was never the guy that I would have pointed to as being the communications of the utmost maturity and integrity and, you know, lack of partisanship. I mean, he was pretty good at being pretty a tack dog, which means to me that it's even more important that he say that. And Tony, I appreciate it might create some challenge for the conservative parties' adversaries, but he's definitely given material to the folks who never were really supportive of Pierre as leader in the first place. And I've voted in four, I think, conservative leadership campaigns. I feel very strongly about, you know, exercising that right.

And I have had a lot of time and still have a lot of time for an awful lot of conservatives. I mean, I've been non-partisan for a long time. I was going to follow up on that too. Say what? I joined, listen, I'm in downtown Calgary. My general election vote probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference. But joining the conservative party so I could vote in a leadership made a lot of sense to me because it was really important to me that we have good leadership, regardless of party.

I mean, I call that a bit old-fashioned. And there are a lot of people, I think, who feel the same way. We're not necessarily anti-conservative, but not. not sure that the option that's being presented and continues to be presented. I mean, I still get all the emails from the Conservative Party. And I got to tell you, like, there are times when I just say, geez, guys, could you just grow up a little bit? Like, we have serious issues facing the country. So I think, Dmitri, I kind of, you know, I know you have a good on you session at the end of this, but, and I probably won't do it.

But I was tempted to say, my good on you is on Dmitri because he just took a really big, big step out on a, potentially significant ledge. He did. And let's also, I mean, we should get to some of the specifics of what Demetri Suda spoke about and have a bit of a discussion about them here to see whether or not you agree or disagree with his observation. And one of the things he said, well, let's start with the initial accusation, which is that he accused, Pierre Poliev accused basically the RCMP of turning a blind eye against Justin Trudeau whom he said should have ended up in jail. He said he should have been charged and put in jail.

And one of the things to be Petrisutis has said, Tony, is that he doesn't think any serious political party leader in Canada should be talking about locking up his political adversaries because that sounds a lot like Donald and Hillary and lock her up and all that business. What do you think? Yeah. I mean, look, I think the basic point, I'm going to reinterpret Pierre Pauly have a little bit for you. But I think the basic point was a bit of a turner. around from that, which is that the liberals under Justin Trudeau did lean on the RCNP. And that is a matter of public record when it came to the S&C Lavalin affair, where they did lean on our police and security services and tried to spin that there was no, there was,

there was non-interference when in fact there was interference. So there's nothing to see here. I do remember the prime minister leaning on his attorney general, Jody Wilson, Raibald, not to bring any charges against SNC Laughlin. But I don't remember anybody saying, let's go to the RCMP and get them to back off. And I think you have to be really careful, Tony. I mean, you know, we saw that Nigel Wright passed away. Nigel ended up leaving politics partly because there were a few things that were happening with Mike Duffy.

And, I mean, I agree with Steve on that one. there's no there was no doubt that prime minister trudeau was not ideal in this respect and there were an awful lot of liberals who were pretty appalled but calling for somebody to say he should have gone to jail is a step way too far in my understanding of Canadian democracy and Canadian political protocol yeah i mean i i think that the the point that was trying to be made is that it is in fact the liberal party that tries to push around, you know, institutions and to to make sure that they don't get into police trouble. I think that's the point that he was trying to make. Maybe he said it inelegantly. I don't know. But I think that that is a legitimate

point to make. And listen, I want to live in a country where the RCMP makes its own decisions about who is to be charged and not charged. Surely that's the real law. But they did. They made a very conscious decision that in the two instances in question, they were of the view that there was not enough to have criminal charges.

And so, you know, I would actually like to live in a country where our political leaders actually encourage respect for our institutions rather than tear them down. I think politically, at that and publicly, that's just not honest. because Pierre Pauliev has influence and that kind of commentary is dangerous. Well, listen, I completely disagree with you if that's your point.

The point should be that all elements of our state, of the political and other institutions of our country cannot be without, you know, looking at them to make sure that they're doing the right thing, that they are not, nobody's above the law, right? No, but the commentary should be honest, Tony. And I totally agree in a democracy, that freedom of discussion, that that's critically important. But when you have senior political leaders saying things that are not true and thus help to take away from the respective institutions, that's a very different thing. If you've got your evidence and you want to be critical and you want to open that up, I'm all for it. But that's not what happened here.

So here's how it looks for my conservative. If a conservative says that a political opponent should be arrested, let's say, if that's the accusation of what Pierre Palli have said, when, you know, we've had lots of instances over the last few years where liberals and liberal institutions have said that conservatives are so far beyond the line that the police should arrest them, whether it's because of their views on COVID, or what have you. So, you know, all I'm saying is what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you're saying that only the conservatives are the one that are lowering the, lowering the, lowering the political discourse in this country, I've got lots of examples where liberals in cabinet, in parliament, have basically said that the conservative party is a fringe party and that the police or institution should be, should take it.

Tony, you missed. That's not the point I was making. Politicians will make those jabs about other politicians all the time. Right. But the leader of the opposition saying some things that are simply not true for political gain. Tony, you would not have done this. And I know you're trying to defend your guy, but you would not have done this. And I'm trying to look at this not as anything partisan at all. I'm really trying to look at this as somebody of great influence.

in our political system should be a heck of a lot more careful about throwing things around that are not only not true, but also dangerous in terms of how Canadians look at the institutions that we need to trust and rely on. It's not a partisan comment at all. The only counter to that is that liberals for the last 10 years have not treated our institutions very well at all as well.

I would just jump in with this guys, and that is that probably the most egregious example of this where the RCMP put their thumb on the scale for anybody was when Ralph Goodell. There you go. It was done almost at the behest. Well, I won't say at the behest, but I will say that to the advantage of the conservative party of the day, it was the RCMP getting involved in something which made Ralph Goodell, the then liberal cabinet minister, looked like he was doing something inappropriate. In the middle of a federal election. Right. And the conservatives benefited it from it. Yeah, but it was not at the behest because we weren't in power. We were not in power.

Oh, Tony. Oh, Tony. We were not in power. No, they were not in power, but they won power in large measure as a result of that RCNB. My point is that power, you know, is concentrated in this country in case you haven't noticed. And, and we should be, we should have a system where we can call our institutions. I'm not saying anything about the RCMP here. I'm just saying generally, our institutions cannot be above criticism and above... No, that's for sure. That's for sure. But here's the line that Suda said, and then we should talk about this. He says, in a rule of law democracy, no opposition leader should ever call for a prime minister

or any political rival to be jailed. It undermines confidence in our justice system, our federal police, and ultimately the crown. That kind of rhetoric, he says, isn't strength, it's recklessness. And it shows a leadership approach that remains rooted in grievance rather than in grievement. governance. Tony, speak to that if you would, that the Conservative Party today is too rooted in grievance than governance under Polyev's leadership. No, I fundamentally disagree with that. I think ultimately an opposition party is going to call the government to account. And sometimes they use strong words and words that are going to hurt the feelings of the government. But that's all

part of political accountability. So I disagree with that comment. I think that Pierre Polyev is doing what he is paid to do, which is be the leader of the official opposition. There are times when Pierre Polyev, even after the election, has talked about policy, whether it's housing policy or fiscal policy or defense policy. Even after the election, he has laid out a lot of policy planks. So to claim that this is a party of grievance is factually not true. I love Dimitri. He's a good friend of mine, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with him on this point. Martha, what do you say? Well, one, this is nothing to do about hurting a government's feelings.

It has everything to do with going back to the responsibility of senior politicians not to use myth's truths to challenge the trust and reliance that people have to have in those institutions, including our legal police and judicial systems. It has everything to do with that. And so to say that this was, you know, too bad the government's feelings were hurt, I think, does a real disservice to the view that this is a serious question. I go back to Dimitri Sudas himself. I was never sent the oppression that he was a liberal in disguise when he was working with Prime Minister Harper. But I do think he's gone out on a very,

look, this wasn't easy for him. Tony, you know as well as I do. There are a lot of conservatives who are not necessarily big fans of Pierre Paulyev, but there has been a very significant unwillingness to really be critical at all, especially with the leadership review coming up with, you know, some just are unwilling. Some are worried that, you know, if Pierre Poilever wins a leadership review, then their political futures will be challenged, right? So Dimitri just showed, I think, a fair bit of courage, truth be told. Well, I mean, I think he's, he is putting forth a point of view,

which is allowed in our party and in our society. So I don't have any, I don't have any, thing to say about that. I think it's unfortunate that we're talking about this in public because as a conservative, I would like to have these discussions a little bit more inside the party. I'll be honest with it. Because you're commenting on it and all of the liberal pundits who have commented on it and all of the liberal columnists who commented on it, that means we're not talking about issues that we care about, such as cost of living or housing or defense policy or what have. So it is a defense. I didn't realize that the convention in Calgary. So the leadership review will be having it in Calgary and that to vote you have to

be there in person physically. And that and that well, but that the choice for Calgary is a very interesting one because there will be an awful lot of Quebec Conservatives, Ontario Conservatives, Atlantic Conservatives, who will not be voting in that leadership. And so in that regard, why do you say that? The reason I raise it is that maybe Dimitri's analysis of this is he needed to go public so that people could actually be having this conversation more publicly? Well, I mean, first of all, on Calgary, we haven't had a convention in Calgary for 10 years. So it's not as if we're overstaying our welcome in Calgary. We've had conventions in Quebec City and in Halifax and in Vancouver.

So we have conventions all over the country. So this one happens to be in Calgary in January. Yay. Hoping for a Chinook. But aside from that, no, I. I was at my delegate selection meeting for my riding association this weekend. And there's lots of people who are very, very looking forward to going. So I don't see, I don't see this as part of some sort of grand strategy, quite frankly.

It's that we had to have the convention. We haven't had one for a couple of years. The election also knocked our timing off a little bit. So this is when the convention is. And, of course, it's going to be a leadership review vote. Let me raise this issue because none of us will be among the first who have heard these rumors that something like this by Dmitri Soutis doesn't happen unless Stephen Harper green lights it. And there is a great deal of speculation out there as to whether or not Mr. Harper,

I won't say it was behind it, but certainly gave his tacit okay that this go forward. Tony, what do you think? Well, then why would he have a spokesperson say this is not my view? Dimitri's view is not my view. He doesn't speak for me. He doesn't speak for me, right. That's different. That's different than saying I disagree with them.

No, no, come on now. This is getting very conspiratorial. Dmitri's right, he's allowed to have his say, I wish he would have said it more private, but he said it in public. This is a non-issue issue in my point of view. Well, my, okay, let me just be a little mischievous here, which is to say that if Stephen Harper really wanted to come out and say, this is absolutely, fundamentally, unequivocally,

not my view. I wish he hadn't written this column. I totally disagree with it. Pierre Polyev has my full support, and I will go to Calgary and I will vote for him. Tony, I think you might have a point. But he didn't do that. He basically got a spokesperson to go out there

and say a one sentence, not particularly fulsome in its support of Pierre Polyev, which is, I think, why people are speculating. whether Mr. Harper was potentially okay with this. Okay? I mean, that's fair to observe, isn't it? Well, it's fair to observe, but it's not the right conclusion. I think that Stephen Harper did everything that was asked of him by Pierre Polyev in the election campaign, including a massive rally in Alberta. And Stephen Harper is trying not to be an issue because it's not his place to be an issue. He's a past prime minister. He's not a current

prime minister. So he didn't want to be dragged into this. I get that. I think that he did what he had to do to say, look, Dimitri's not speaking on my behalf. I think that's fair ball. And he just, that's not his place to get in the middle of all this. Martha, how do you read it? I have a slightly different take, Steve. I think Stephen Harper was very supportive during the campaign as he was, of course, going to do. But since then, I think an awful lot of people were expecting hoping Pierre Pueleev to rally to the understanding that the world changed not only with Donald Trump, but with Mark Carney taking over from Justin Trudeau. But Pueleev's tactics haven't

really changed. As I said, I still get all the emails all the time from the party, from the conservative party. It's just like, oh, I find myself, can you grow up? Can you talk about real issues? Some of them are just awful. And I think back, I didn't always agree with Stephen Harper. I didn't always disagree with Stephen Harper, but you cannot suggest that he was anything but mature and thoughtful and had integrity. And I mean, there are liberals listening to this who will disagree with me, but he was a grown up in power and felt very strong responsibility for this country and its future. And I suspect, and I obviously can't speak for Stephen Harper, but I suspect there's a bit of concern that Pierre Paulyev has not changed his tactics from the campaign to being, I think

Dimitri also made the point he needed to look and needs to look like a prime minister in waiting. And I'm not seeing that. And I wouldn't be surprised as Stephen Rivers. The opposition leader is never the prime minister in waiting until 10. He has to look like one though. He sure has to look like one. And I finish my point, please. Sorry. The leader of the opposition is never seen as the prime minister in waiting until 10 days before election day. That's the way it works in politics. Before then, he's a pesky or she is a pesky, you know, opposition. Why is he being so negative all the time? Well, that's the job of the opposition leader. If everybody agreed with everything all the time, that isn't a democracy. It's not the what, it's the how.

The point is, the how is, anytime he says something that gets under the skin of a liberal, oh, it's so terrible. Oh, Pierre is being so mean and nasty. Give me a break. This is politics. He is there to advance a point of view which is different from the government. That's what he was elected to do. Here's the line, though. Here's the line.

Well, I'll get this out there and then, Martha, you please comment and then Tony. Dmitra Shudis wrote, Canadians are tired of the anger, the mockery, the volume. They need calm, confidence, and answers. Yet despite warnings from advisors, polls and common sense,

Pahliav is still giving them attacks, blame, and fury. Discuss, Martha. I think Stephen Harper absolutely appeared like a prime minister in waiting for a heck of a lot longer than 10 days before the election. I think that was ultimately one of the things that was successful

was that he rose to the occasion of there are challenges facing this country. We didn't think there were issues in terms of the government of the day. And he came across as being, being mature, thoughtful. I absolutely disagreed with some of his campaign platform items. Not all of them, mind you, but some of them. But I still thought that he was doing that and putting them forward in a, albeit a bit negative, but certainly a grown-up mature way. And that, I think,

is the challenge, Tony. There's a, there's a demeanor here. And I think Dimitri nailed it. There's a demeanor, there's a, just an anger that is not the same as being negative with other alternatives being put on the table. I totally disagree. I think Stephen Harper absolutely looked like a prime minister in waiting for quite a long time before he actually became one. Tony? Yeah, no, look, I want to take you back to 2005, if I can. And, you know, Stephen Harper was leader of the opposition. He was seeking to become the next prime minister of the country. And the take on Harper was, well, you know, he's got to be, he's got to be calm and prime ministerial and all that. I get that. But at the same time, the governing liberals were accusing him of

wanting to put tanks on our streets, right? That was, that was what the, you know, every, I just, I just want, I just want a politics where, where, what you accuse your opponent of, you haven't done yourself. And the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party, which they sometimes get away with, or I would say frequently, is they accuse conservatives of being mean and nasty and negative when they, in fact, run campaigns that are mean and nasty and negative against the conservative party. Those ads were a bust, though. Those ads were, those ads were a bust and were widely ridiculed as being over the top. So the liberals tried to get away with something there, but they were hoisted on the end of their own patard on that one, if I recall.

Well, and the concert is one, you know, once in a generation. But, you know, so, so yeah, it didn't work that time, but it tends to work. You know, the, I have this saying, Steve, that for 110 years, the liberal party has only used one slogan, rinse and repeat every single time. You want to know what that slogan is? What is it? King or chaos. Okay. Meaning McKenzie King?

Yeah. That was the slogan in 1920, and they're still doing it. Okay. Somebody referenced this earlier, and maybe we should just take a couple of minutes on this, and that is, you know, there was a time during Dimitri Sudas's past life when he did appear to leave the conservative party for a while because he was in a relationship with a woman who ended up becoming or attempting to become a liberal member of parliament. And actually, you know, in his efforts to help her, I think she ran against Marco Mendocino for a nomination. for the liberals in Eglinton Lawrence and didn't get it. But he was helpful to her. And after that, I think a lot of conservatives said, oh, he's really a liberal in sheep's clothing and we're, you know, he's not one of us after all. And I am hearing some people use that background as if to say, this is Dimitri getting his revenge and we can't take what he says seriously. Martha, would that, would that be a mistake to come to that conclusion? Yes. And I say that simply

because we all know of quite a few couples who are resident in different parties, shall we say. I remember running in campaigns and being absolutely so, so surprised that it doesn't surprise me anymore when you'd go knocking on doors. And I don't know, Tony, if you had this experience, but you'd end up having conversation with people. And there was not unanimity in the household in terms of how people were voting. And I realized then that we have a robust in Canada. We have a robust ability to, you know, I'll never forget my father. There's many, many years ago, my parents have both passed away. And my father would say to my mother, you can't go and vote.

You'll cancel mine. And she'd answer, that's exactly the point. But we also know of elected officials who are in different parties. And I think, frankly, that's a really important part of Canadian culture. I might, my American friends now are really, really struggling with how polarized it's become. It's really, it's pretty hard to, you know, be under the same roof right now as a Democrat and a Republican. Though I just think it's something that we should be proud of here in Canada. It's, we've seen it lots of times.

I don't think Dimitri would ever have given up his conservative, you know, allegiances. And frankly, there was nothing in his peace in the star that suggested to me otherwise. He was talking about the importance of the Conservative Party legacy. He was certainly not sounding like a liberal. He was sounding like a proud conservative Canadian and want to, you know, get back to that place where the Conservative Party had that level of respect. So, no, I think that's reading way too much. Tony, do you think there are conservatives who are doubting Demetri Soutis' conservative

of bona fides because of his past relationship and because of this column? There may be, but I would just say I've known Dimitri for decades and he is a conservative, even though he is slightly wrong on this issue. I would not want to try to cancel him and say that he's a liberal, you know, in sheep's clothing. So, no, that's not part of the debate. It really is a question. Look, I'm now a delegate to the convention, right? So I'm going to have my say on the leadership and the future direction of the party. Pierre Polyev is going to be making a speech at that convention, which will be one of the most important speeches of his life. And in the meantime, he's got to continue to do his job in the House of Commons, which he was recently elected to do.

And so, yeah, people are going to have their say. It's the way we run the conservative party. There is going to be a democratic say for sure. Tony, do you know either through direct contact with Pierre Palliev or through associates of his whether he was personally wounded by this column? I don't know. I don't know the Pierre's reaction to that. And again, I like to, I know, I know it's important for this podcast and for political commentary. This is really a minor issue in the scope of things. But I know this is all fair ball. I get it. But we're not talking about

Mark Carney not getting a deal in Washington. We're not talking about him being invited at the last minute for the Gaza Peace Conference. There's a whole bunch of issues that Mark Carney should be accountable for that we're not talking about because of this own goal situation in the conservative parties. Well, I would add one word to that, Tony. And the one word I would add is, yet. Now we will because we've had a good kick at this one. All right. You think we should be talking about the the fact that Canada hasn't got a deal yet with the United States as it relates to tariffs and trades, trade rather. And I guess the question I would start this part of our discussion with is the one thing I hear fed back to me frequently, which is we're not going to take a lousy deal

over a quick deal. There's no advantage to getting a quick deal if it's a bad deal. So they're going to hold out for a better deal as opposed to satisfy the critics and get a quick deal, that's not a good deal. Tony, does that make sense to you? I think that makes sense as a talking point. I don't think it makes sense as a reality of the situation. I think that, you know, since we're talking a little bit about conspiracy theories on this program, you know, there is some commentary out there that Mark Carney would like to call an election a little bit sooner than perhaps people are aware of, but to try to get voters to give him a mandate to really negotiate with Trump. And oh, by the way, he'll wait until after the Quebec election, because then it'll be

a PQ majority government in Quebec. And so the Liberal Party can be the defenders of Canada against Trump and the defenders of Canada and Canadian federalism in the province of Quebec. So look for an election next fall, folks, is what I'm trying to say. So, yeah, no, I think that this makes perfect sense if you're in the liberal government, but I'm not sure that's the best thing for Canada. I think we get a deal where we can, and I'm not saying fold, but we've given up a lot already, and people are patient. People are respectful of a new government, Mark Carney being, I'm using air quotes,

new but at some point he's given away on the digital services tax he's dropped the tariffs he has done a number of other things to oh no the elbows are not up anymore that's pretty clear the elbows are not up anymore that's the elbows are down so okay uh if that's the strategy that's the strategy but where we talked about this before where's the beef where where are the actual results for Canadians so we're getting I'm getting a little bit antsy about it, folks. I've been on this program saying he deserves some time, but I want to see some results at some point.

And without those results, there's continued uncertainty in the economy of this country. There are people who will not invest in this country until all of this is sorted out. We have capital flight occurring in this country right now. So all of this is happening. And so I think we deserve some answers at some point, Steve. Martha, the follow-up question for you is, if you were advising Mark Carney right now, would you tell him to exploit the things that Tony just referenced and have an earlier election than a later election?

Well, who knows maybe Demetri Soutis' article will give cover to a few conservatives who are equally unhappy in that caucus. I'm not going to go down that path of election. What I would point out, and I am part of the expert group on Canada-U.S. relations, we have been working on this for the last almost four years, set up originally so that we could help the country get through a USMCA, a Kuzma review. And then, of course, Donald Trump got elected.

So we've been pretty darn busy. And anybody who thinks that Mark Carney should have come back from the White House recently with a deal is, and sorry, Tony, don't take this personally, but naive in the extreme. That's not how these work. The trade people can say, well, this is what Starmer did with the UK or this is what the relationship, the trade relationship between Canada and the United States is massively more complicated than the U.S. trade with any other country in the world. And that is very much because of the geographic proximity, because of the auto pact that was signed decades ago, it's really, really complicated. We've had a softwood lumber complication for decades. So, you know, to have people say Carney came back without a deal, I found offensive simply because I think Mark Carney, who if he is truly acting in Canada's best interests and the interests of Canadians,

he is wanting to get the best arrangement possible. And dealing with Donald Trump requires a whole lot of water in your wine. It does not require elbows up. Elbows up might feel good and might work on a hockey game. But when you're dealing with a guy like him, I actually don't think. that's the right approach. And I would, my advice to Mark Carney is carry on, work at becoming, I mean, we've talked about this on this show, the importance of the relationship between the Canadian Prime Minister and the U.S. President is critically important to Canada's best interests, whether we like it or not. And I think, frankly, Carney is doing the right thing. I was, I was just deeply offended at that. Well, you came back without a deal. You came out without anything.

that's not what he was doing. He was down there trying to work on building the relationship with which to get the best deal possible. Tony? So when, Martha, I take your point. When do Canadians have a right to say it's been too long? We want to see some results. When is that? Oh, but Tony, this is where you and I will agree completely. I'm still waiting to hear movement on the emissions cap. I'm still waiting to hear movement on the tanker bin. That should never have been put on one tiny part of one part of one coast, you know, to suggest that all the rest of Canada's coasts are somehow less important or less, you know, is, was shocking at the time and should be the fundamental reason why we get rid of it. But we haven't seen that yet, Tony.

So there are a lot of people like me who perhaps for different reasons on different files still waiting, you know, there's been the right things being said, but we need to see action. So I'm not disagreeing with you on that at all. I also just, I'm still in the camp of it has not been that long. There's been a whole lot going on in the world. I'm cutting him. I'm cutting him some slack still. How long? Tony's question is a pretty good one, though, in as much as, okay, he came in in

April. How much time should we give him before? Okay, that's enough. Yeah, but, you know, history is a long time, and that's not very long since April. So, yeah, there's some things I'd like to see action on, too. But I really feel strongly that this reaction to you came home without a deal after sitting for half an hour with the, not even with the president in the Oval Office is just naive. Okay.

Tony will get one more word or should we go on a good on you? I'll give him another 30 days and then I'm not voting for him next day. You want to fudge, Tony. Don't go 30. Don't go 29. You want a fudge. We know what you're trying to say. 30 more days. Otherwise, he loses the Clement vote. Okay, I'll note it. Noted. Okay, folks, well, you know what we like to do on this program, and that is every now and then we like to give a good on you to those who actually do things in politics that we think are worthy of commentary and praise. So Martha Hall-Finley, why don't you start us off? Who gets your good-on-you this week?

Well, the obvious would be Dimitri. But I'm going to go a little more nuanced and say, my good-on-you goes to Mark Carney and Donald Trump. And you might ask why, but I think the exchange that they had in Egypt where, and it was hot mic, so it wasn't public, but it was heard, was Donald Trump mistakenly called Carney president. Mark Carney, here's my good on you on Mark, Mark turned around with a laugh, treated it as humorous, there was slapping on each other's shoulders. you know, I be glad, thanks for the promotion or what, he didn't say promotion, but, you know, to president. And then Donald Trump responded by saying, well, at least I didn't call you governor. And I just thought, you know what, that was a moment where the, to my earlier point, the president of the United States and the prime minister, Canada, were actually suggesting a relationship that is significantly warmer than where we started. So my good on you is to both of them.

I get you. No, and there's absolutely no question that the current president of the United States seems to like, both professionally and personally, the current prime minister of Canada, a lot more than he did his predecessor. I think that's obvious on the face of it. That's fair. Yeah. Okay, Tony, who gets your good on you this week? Well, I'm taking note that Martha gave a good on you to Prime Minister Carney, so I reserve the right next episode to give a good on you to a conservative. Well, I gave a good on you to Donald Trump too, right? It was to both of them. That's pretty acumenical, ever, you've got to admit. Okay, I'm going to have to think of something good next episode.

But I did want to give a good on you to the Global Affairs slash Foreign Affairs Minister, Anita Anand for going to India, getting our political and trade relationship back on the rails after 10 years of disaster. And I'm presuming she did so with still making sure. sure that Canadians are not assassinated on our soil, which would not be a good thing. And so there has to be continued investigations as to whether the Indian government was involved in that at all. I don't know. I'm sure investigations are ongoing. But in the meantime, getting the political and trade discussions going is very important for this country. Canada should have an excellent relationship with fellow democracy. You know, we all have our faults here and there, but they are a democracy in India. And there's a huge diaspora, of course. And yeah, that's a good,

that's a good sign after 10 years of very, very bad signs. Can I just ask as a quick follow-up with you on that, Tony, in any of your cabinet portfolios, did you have to go to India and deal with the government over there? Oh, yeah. I visited India officially as Minister of Industry. And And I think even as somehow at Treasury Board, somehow I got over there for some reason. We weren't trade. We weren't on the trade community because I remember going in that capacity. Yeah, no, I think I was a minister. So how either clear or opaque is it to try to do business over there, government to government?

Oh, I think it's fine. Yeah. I don't have a problem saying that. I think that the Indian government, I mean, you have to know where you are. You're in India, not Canada. But no, I think it's a perfectly good place to do business. Gotcha. Anybody got anything else?

I'm just happy that we've finished this episode. I'm just happy that me. Dmitri anymore. I'm just happy that we get to do this. I just, this is great fun. So for your listeners, this is, you got the real thing here and it's really fun. Well, I'll tell you what, if we, if we. Read in the Toronto Star next week, the Jetty Byrne has written a similar column to the one

Dimitri just wrote. Boy, we're talking about this next week, Tony. I'll tell you. Fair deal. Fair deal. Okay, folks, let's just remind everybody if they want to have any comments about what we've talked about. The Paken Podcast at gmail.com. The Paken Podcast at gmail.com. And I look forward to seeing you, too, in two weeks' time. So until then, peace and love, everybody. Peace and love. Thanks, guys. Thank you.