The Paikin Podcast - Everything Political: Can a Conservative Party Led by Pierre Poilievre Win?

Episode Date: February 5, 2026

The Everything Political panel with former MPs Martha Hall Findlay and Tony Clement discuss Pierre Poilievre’s leadership review, what 87.4% support means, the level of unity in the Conservative Party, and how Poilievre gave the “best speech of his life.”They then discuss if Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative Party can win a general election, if he’s the right man for this geopolitical moment of uncertainty, Carney’s international background and experience, and why the next election will be Poilievre’s “last chance.” Support us: patreon.com/thepaikinpodcastFollow The Paikin Podcast: YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/@ThePaikinPodcastSPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/1OhwznC...X: x.com/ThePaikinPodINSTAGRAM: instagram.com/thepaikinpodcastBLUESKY: bsky.app/profile/thepaikinpodcast.bsky.socialEmail us at: [e-mail]

Folks, this is one of these rare situations where we are sitting here on a Monday night taping this, but you two are actually going to be together in the nation's capital over the next couple of days, I suspect, doing stuff that, look, we're not going to fake it here. We're not going to fake and say, oh, wasn't that amazing? Because, of course, this show isn't going to drop for a couple of days yet. So I'm going to get you, Tony, start us off. What's taking place in Ottawa over the next little while? This is the 20th anniversary of the swearing in of the Harper government, the Stephen Harper government. I call it Harper Palooza going on.

There's a big gala dinner that is raising money for student scholarships or something on Wednesday night. At the University of Calgary, by the way. Oh, there we go. Tuesday is the official unveiling of the availing of the official portrait of the Prime Minister, Harper. A lot going on in Ottawa about. stuff that happened 20 years ago. And Martha, you're going to this too. Well, I am involved with the University of Calgary.

You know, that made Martha's explanation made perfect sense as to why she's going, because I couldn't figure out why she would be going to Ottawa to celebrate, basically, the end of her opportunity to have been in government 20 years ago. So the fact that the University of Calgary is involved makes perfect sense. Tony, I can guarantee you one thing. When you go to see Mr. Harper's portrait put, along with all the other ex-prime ministers, in the nation's capital, and Prime Minister Mark Carney is in the middle of his speech. At some point, he will say, I've always wanted to see Stephen Harper hanged.

Yes, that line. That will happen. Yes, yes, yes, you're right. I bet he doesn't. You think he doesn't? You think he doesn't? Okay, next time we convene in two weeks' time, you guys can let me know whether or not he used the line because every prime minister's used it in the past because it always gets a lame laugh.

Yeah, exactly. Anyways, kids, let's do this. Let's talk about everything political. Everything political. Presented by Bruce Power. Well, you know them, you love them. Here they are, former parliamentarians Tony Clement, the former conservative MP and MP. And there's Martha Hull-Finley, the former Liberal MP.

And, of course, what we want to talk about are the events that took place this past weekend in Calgary, where Pierre Poliev put his leadership to the test with the faithful of the Conservative Party of Canada. And Tony, I want to know you were there. know what you thought when you heard the announcement that he managed to get 87.4% support. Well, I'd be lying up if I didn't say there was a considerable amount of relief has no motion, although I thought he was, I could tell that the momentum at the convention was going Pierre's way. So I went into the convention. I would have been happy with 80%, quite frankly, but he obviously achieved 87.4%, the highest level in any leading.

leadership, sort of vote, leadership review vote in Canadian history. So, yeah, that's a better number than Harper got 20 years ago. Yeah, Harper got 84, I believe, 84%. And so P. Both coming off a loss. Both coming off a loss. There's a lot of things that are analogous, one would hope, at least in our case, if that's true in the next election, we'll see.

But I can tell you, I'm sure we'll delve into this. but there's no question that unity is very important right now for the conservative party, and they were able to achieve that at this convention. We will dive into that in just a moment. Martha, your reaction when you heard that number? Not totally surprised. I knew also the momentum going into it, and there are no clear alternatives at this point. And Pierre's been working pretty hard the last few months to ensure that kind of support.

I think there are an awful lot of people in the party. And Tony, you can say otherwise, I think an awful lot of people just recognized unity is, in fact, really important right now. And I think that was a significant driver. So I wasn't totally surprised. Does it, though, Martha, in your view, end all of the discussion about Pierre Polyev's ability to be the undisputed leader of this party right now, given that, obviously the last nine months have not been great. there was an election loss. Two of his members crossed the floor to the liberals, lots of discussion about whether or not he was losing his grip on the party.

Does this put all of that to bed in your view? The party apparatus, the party faithful have made that determination. So yes, my caveat, though, is what happens over the next few months. The membership of a political party is by no means the same thing as the voting public in Canada. And so that will be a much bigger test. And there are so many things at play right now, geopolitics, economic. Trump, dare we actually say Trump is only one issue that we're having to deal with,

which is a bit shocking. But there's an awful lot going on. It's going to demand gravitas. It's going to demand cooperation, where sometimes political cooperation is hard. And that will be, that will be, interesting to see how Pierre Poliath responds to those needs over the next number of months, because the real test will be another election at some point. And, Tony, your view on that?

I mean, there's no question that 87.4% is a great number to get if your leadership is under review. But does it put all the other Mishigas to bed? Yeah, I think inside the party, it does, Steve. I really, I think there was a real consensus that I've never seen before, quite frankly, that Pierre is the guy that we are putting all our poker chips on, and he gave what I would consider to be his best speech of his life at that convention. It was emotional. It was forward-looking. It was positive.

It had ideas. It had a little bit of, you know, mirth to it as well. It had all of the major food groups that one wants to see in a speech. And I really think he sort of set the table. wanted or what I wanted at least, Steve and Martha, was to turn the page from a disappointing election result of last year and to start planning and looking forward to the next election and to all of the things that we've got to do in preparation of that election, all of the things we've got to do in the House of Commons. You're right. Both of you are right and the Canadian

public is right. Pierre has to do more, obviously, to get more adherence, more supporters, more voters who consider him a reasonable, viable alternative. We need at least a million more votes. We got 8 million in the last election. That's great for second place, not great for first place. So yes, there is work to do. Pierre acknowledged that. And what I would say is in the lead up to this convention, he's also setting the table. He's got a new campaign director who is widely respected. We overhauled our nomination rules, which were an absolute disaster in the last election. So there are things that are being done sort of in the internal plumbing that are going to be important for future success. And we saw just today as we're recording this podcast that in the House of Commons today, the concertors moved a motion to pass the liberal relief effort for affordability.

The conservators proposed the motion. It passed unanimously in the House. And so that is the kind of thing where the opposition can be constructive. Yes, we've got some beefs with Mark Carney. I'm not trying to gild the lily here, but there was an exact example of working together for the betterment of Canadians. And that's what I think Canadians want to see as well. Well, the question, Martha, becomes, if I can quote the Bee Gees, how deep is your love? Yes, and a unanimous vote today is a wonderful thing.

unanimity in the House of Commons is not a frequent occurrence. But let's put it this way. Pierre Pollyev is not necessarily known for playing ball, you know, nice in the sandbox with everybody else. So how deep is his love here? Well, if he's pragmatic and understands that at this moment of geopolitical, economic uncertainty, no one wants to see us all fighting.

inside, right? Like there are significant issues that this country has to face and people, I believe, want to see us facing those issues. One of the things that I found jarring and I do, I think that was, without question, his best speech,

but there were parts of it and it's odd because so much of the sort of the classic small L liberal conservative policies of lower smaller government and free enterprise and like I'm there, right? So I'm, you know, I'm not a conservative, but in terms of the party, but I support all those things.

But I found still there was a tone of every once in a while it was just sort of a snide, you know, thing. And often the criticisms of liberals were of the Trudeau liberals. And that ship has passed. We have a completely different prime minister. and I don't think that those criticisms of the Trudeau approach to life, of which I had lots of criticisms as well, they're just not valid. And I don't think that looking backwards is really helpful as opposed to looking forward.

Of course, there are going to be distinctions. There are going to be differences. They're going to be disagreements. I just have always felt the role of opposition. Some people say the role of opposition is to oppose. My view is no, you're all elected as members of parliament. The rule of opposition is to actually help do it. can to help the govern the country. If that requires opposing certain positions, I totally get it,

but it's not just to oppose. We actually expect more of our members of parliament. Tony, this isn't the first time that you'll have heard that Pierre Poliev is still bringing up the conservative party's greatest hits from days gone by, namely stuff that really works against Justin Trudeau, but seems to be less effective so far against Mark Carney. How do you plead to that? Yeah, I think we are moving away from that. I agree with Mark. that that would be a wrong approach. You don't fight the last war. You have to move forward and be on the battlefield for what is to come.

I would say that we're starting to see that in real time with the Conservative Party. They did propose a Canada Sovereignty Act in Parliament the previous week, which had all of the greatest hits about more pipelines and more natural resource extraction and more affordability for Canadians and all these things that are important. And what Pierre did in his speech, which I think was very important, is he tied that economic things to make Canada stronger economically make us stronger from a sovereignty point of view. And I think that's going to be the basic argument for the Conservative Party.

They can't out anti-Trump Carney, although goodness knows where Carney is on this stuff. I'm just going to assume that he's not going to be in Trump's back pocket. But I think we can make the argument. Look, if you believe in Canadian sovereignty, and we're the political party, the legacy party that actually help create the country in the first place. You know, we are patriotic too. We believe in Canada.

Pierre believes in Canada. The best way to show strength for Canada when it's negotiating, when it is dealing with geopolitical issues, is to have a strong economy. And so let's get moving on that. But that's not a conservative position. That's like we all agree with that. We all. The key then is how do we actually achieve that economic prosperity?

And there will be differences. And I have to say like there was a part of me listening after, you know, so many scars from having to deal with things like Bill C69, the challenges of getting infrastructure built, especially energy infrastructure. I have like been so frustrated. But my view is, I mean, we didn't build anything of significance. in the Harper years. It wasn't for lack of time,

but I think there was a significant underestimation of the power of indigenous protests, the power of environmental protests. The next government totally overestimated the power, I think, of indigenous protests and economic and environmental protests

didn't actually listen to all of the indigenous communities that really wanted to proceed with some of these projects. So we went from here, I'm using my hands, which is not great in a podcast, but we went from not really, really building anything. We managed to build two major projects under the Trudeau government,

but almost despite the Trudeau government. Let's be honest, LNG, Canada, and TMX. And yes, the government bought the pipeline, but we all know that nobody really wanted them to and ultimately was a last resort. But I think we also need to realize that the druthers don't necessarily work. So we have, you know, we have in my view, 25 years, a quarter century of somewhat lost opportunity. And I think in the Harper government, which you were a part of Tony, it wasn't for lack of a desire really wanting to get these things built. The last Trudeau government didn't. But in either case, mismanagement of understanding the challenges that we were facing, we're way behind right now. And I'm really hoping that whatever government we have, we can actually get on with that economic

prosperity that is so critical, as you say, to our sovereignty. I just because I love number much and because i want to play a little bit of the skunk at the garden party role here and it's also sort of sort of my job to be uh the guy that prods you to a little bit i want to just return to the numbers for a second because and i want to take nothing away from pierre pauliev here 87.4 percent is a great number ask jason kenny ask bonnie crombie ask thomas mulcair they would have all given their eye teeth for numbers that high none of them got anywhere close to that but but let's just be a little bit more specific about what he got. He got 87% of the 2,500 delegates who showed up to Calgary to vote. There was no

online voting allowed, and that 2,500 people who were in the hall who voted, I'm guessing, are not particularly representative of the broad base of the Canadian public right now, which is my way of just Tony asking you, how sure are you? And again, particularly because there's nobody else nipping at Pierre's heels to get the leadership away from him, which was not the case for the previous two leaders of the Conservative Party. So how sure are you that everything has been put to bed inside the party as it relates to his leadership? I'm very sure.

That's not his challenge. I will get to his challenge in a second. But in terms of the party, the apparatus is fully on board. The rank and file are fully on board. There's no question in my mind that this is representative of the activists in the party. Steve, you're absolutely right. That's what it reflects, nothing more, nothing less. So the issue then is how do you translate that into, you know, it's one thing to win the party again,

but that's not the name of the game. The name of the game is to present yourself to the Canadian public and gain, as I said, a million more votes is what we need from the last result. right in the right in the right writings by the way so that you can actually yeah they can't all happen in Alberta those can't all happen in Alberta exactly right so yeah so that's where he's got to work on I saw elements of that in the speech and I and just like little things um not to take anything away from Anna Pauliet who is a she is a she is a dynamo but there was some criticism inside the party after the election that every single rally had a 20-minute speech from Anna, then a 40-minute speech from Pierre,

and then none of the local candidates were up there on the podium, right? And so that was a little bit of a criticism within the party. Too much Anna, not enough, our local champions. So Melissa Lance. How did they handle that in Calgary over the past few days? So in the introduction to Pierre Pollyev, there's a few videos from Grant Devine and Rana Ambrose and so on, Anna marches to the stage, just like before, and says, ladies and gentlemen, the next Prime Minister of Canada and my husband, Pierre Palliyev, and then walks off.

And that was it. And that was it. So why am I telling you this story, folks? I'm telling you the story because what I'm seeing is adaptation, learning, maturing, hearing some criticism, which might have been hurtful. But moving on. And, you know, I think that's what you expect. That's exactly what happened with Stephen Harper between 2004 and 2006. He got better.

He got smarter. He got more focused. And the result was a minority conservative government in 2006. So, yeah, I think that that's the pathway that Pierre is following. And I do believe that there's, I think that that will be successful. We'll all see together. But I've got reason to hope. Let's put it that way.

Okay. Let me ask Martha about the other side of the coin, which is we've all been hearing the rumors that the liberals are feeling pretty buoyant about the way things are right now. Mark Carney's personal popularity is. prime minister and who would make the best prime minister is sort of miles ahead of where pierre pauliev is right now even if if you ask people on the party vote uh the two parties are pretty close together but i you know i guess there's a lot of canadians who had been suspecting that the liberals would love uh there to be some trouble in conservative circles right now is it related to pauliev's

leadership because you know they'd try and take advantage of it and call a snap election right now and the conservatives would be either without a leader or with a very defense administrative leader. How much of Pollyev's support in Calgary over the last few days do you think is because conservatives didn't want to, you know, look like they didn't have a strong leader in place if an election were actually going to happen in the next few months? Well, I think that would have been a major factor, frankly, you know, right from the beginning of this conversation, the importance of unity, people recognizing the importance of showing unity. Ironically, a fair number of liberals would be saying, thank goodness Pierre Poile ever won the league, you know, got such a resounding vote because

they see Pierre as being, as not being as strong vis-a-vis Mark Carney. And I would say that's, like Pierre's fantastic on his feet. Tony, being in the house and being across, he's good on his feet. And he has been right from the beginning and he still is. He's, I was clearly a little warmer. but we're in a time of significant geopolitical challenge. And, you know, maybe it's my fault. I'm reading all these books about, you know, the beginnings of World War I and the interwar period and it's seriously depressing. You know what?

Margaret McMillan, we just interviewed the historian on the Paken podcast, and she said the time we're living in right now reminds her a lot of the lead up to World War I and World War II. So it's not just you. No, and she's, and I've read her books, which is one of the reasons I'm depressed because I'm such a fan of hers. And I, you know, the similarities are frustrating and depressing. But my point is, if we go into these next couple of decades, next five years, next 10, next 20, without a really strong view of what we are as Canada and where our allies are and our role in the world, then that's going to be really challenging. And there's no question, look, you can't change history.

Mark Carney has immense global experience. He has gravitas. He has immense respect from world leaders around the world. Pierre's speech had virtually nothing in terms of international relations, geopolitics, other than we need to build up our military and not depend on the United States. I got to say that's pretty naive. And so, you know, but it got one of the biggest rounds of applause. I think having an opponent, if you will, or somebody to campaign against, in this time for this country, everyone agrees on the need for economic activity.

We have a liberal government that finally recognizes the importance of infrastructure and building our prosperity. but when it comes to geopolitical concerns, you know, nothing against Pierre personally, but he comes across as being pretty naive and not terribly experienced on the geopolitical side. I mean, to be fair, this was a speech to a domestic audience of party faith. You're not going to be doing a lot of professorial geopolitical analysis in that speech. I would say to you. No, and I don't disagree, but that's where the next number of months will be telling. I want to hone in on the speech just a little bit more, but first, we got to pay to keep the lights on here.

And to that end, I want to talk about a company that we have talked about before on this show, and that is Bruce Power. And I want to say that as a company that is Canadian at its core, Bruce Power spends 95% of its budget in Canada, helping build stronger communities while shaping the future of clean energy. Bruce Power's proposed expansion. It's called the Bruce C project is about more than adding clean megawatts. It's a commitment to Ontario's future. It's about keeping energy affordable, supporting indigenous partnerships and producing cancer fighting medical isotopes. Bruce C is a clean energy cornerstone, and it's building a future we can all believe in.

That's what they say. Discover how Bruce Power is helping communities thrive. They've got a website with more information. It's simply brucepower.com. All right, let's go talk more about this speech because, yes, I, I can. Tony, I can tell you, I'm hearing that it's certainly one of the best speeches Pierre Polly I've ever gave. I'm also hearing that there was no acknowledgement in the speech of, say, lessons learned from the last election or having done anything subpar in the last election. Althea Raj and the Toronto Star called it a speech for the already converted.

And I want to ask you whether you think there should have been any acknowledgement or reference in the speech to, you know, guys, we didn't win last time. but I learned a lot. Here's what I learned, and I can take that forward next time. I think it was implicit rather than as explicit as you're talking about. For one thing, he did, in fact, mention how our nomination process was a disaster and how it had to be fixed. So he did talk about that explicitly. The rest was, and my wife, who was with me at this convention, mentioned this point, you know, coming from a woman. I didn't notice this myself, but she noticed it, which was the speech didn't, Pierre had this

tendency in the election to just endlessly spout statistics and numbers and so on, which I thought was very compelling, but apparently turned off. But you're a nerd. Yeah, so he didn't do a lot of that in this speech, and she liked that. So I think, you know, we have a saying in conservative politics. You don't talk about the strategy, you do the strategy. Right. So I think that what I am discerning is that the strategy is going to be more emotive. Also in French, the French parts of the speech, were very emotional, which is new for Pierre as well. And Quebecers love emotion from their leaders, even more so than Anglos do. So he's doing these things that are different than eight or nine months ago. And I think ultimately they will be more effective. in terms of communicating a message to a broader audience, not just young males under 25.

Yeah, Martha, what interests me about, you know, Pierce approach going forward is that he's going to have to get people like you to vote for him. And when I say like you, I mean, you know, liberals who voted for Mark Carney last time, but maybe by next time will be a little bit dissolution because things haven't gone all that well. you know, right-leaning liberals are going to have to vote for Pierre or he can't win. So my question is, did you hear anything in that speech that you think might encourage right-leaning liberals to give him a chance? I said at the beginning of this that a number of the policy, smaller government, get out of the way, you know, focus on infrastructure. You know, let's use our taxpayer money more wisely, like the, you know, suggestions that there's been an awful lot of spending at the federal government level. but we don't really see much for it as comments about we need our military procurement to be more effective so that things like all of that i agree with um what i don't see is that the carney government doesn't see that as well and so i really do feel that there's a big difference

between the carney government and the trudeau government and yes i know a number of the cabinet ministers are the same, but I also know a number of those cabinet ministers who were extremely frustrated under the Trudeau government and who now are feeling more comfortable because of the direction they're getting from the prime minister. I would say that be a bit cautious because there were an awful lot of liberals, and I don't know the numbers. So I'm saying that more anecdotally, there were an awful lot of liberals who were going to vote conservative last time because they were so frustrated. at the Trudeau government.

And I don't know that all of them switched over to Carney, clearly enough to get him into that win. But I actually wouldn't be surprised if there are a fair number of people who would traditionally vote liberal, who kind of sat back and weren't really sure, may not have voted conservative, may not have voted liberal yet, because there was still this lingering. We're so frustrated at the Liberal Party

in the last 10 years, we might actually get a fair number of those people now saying, yeah, I'm going to vote for that Carney guy because, you know, he's kind of proven that he's, he knows what he's doing. So I wouldn't think, I wouldn't say it as just like zero sum. I think there might be some, some more movement in the next election. I'm curious whether the strategic part of Tony Clement's brain agrees with my assessment of, if Pierre's going to win next time, he needs disaffected liberals to vote for him. I mean, he's probably scooped up as much vote on the far right as he possibly can. And, you know, unhappy new Democrats are not going to vote for him.

So who's left? He's built up a new coalition, Steve, you know, a blue-collar, unionized workers, young people. We must be one of the very few concerted parties in the world who has such an attraction for young people, 18 to 34, let's say. We know where our problems lie. They rely, they lie with women and they rely with people over the 60 years of age. So, yeah, I do expect. On both counts, I wouldn't call that a problem, Tony. But, you know.

That's a problem for us to, yes. Okay, fair enough. It's one of our challenges, Martha, absolutely. There you go. Our challenge is not your challenge. So fair enough. But no, so I think there, we all know there's work to be done. The new campaign director, Steve Outhouse has been very, very clear about that.

as well. We've got to turn some people that were not likely, that did not vote for us because they didn't see themselves in our party. But I'll tell you one little anecdote. Sheila Cops, I think, posted something on X saying that she noticed that there were no young women at the party conference, the Conservative Party conference. And then what immediately arrived in the inboxes of social, media were like a slew of women under 30 at the convention floor going, hi Sheila, hi Sheila, hi Sheila, I thought that was pretty good. Oh, by the way, the other interesting trend was that for the first time at our conventions, we had special lanyards tags for influencers and they actually had an influencer night. These are podcasters and people like that. We had

an influencer night at the convention, 800 people showed up for these conservative influencers. So, you know, these are new things that are happening. So what am I getting at? I think that the party is changing. It is still a free market, small business and small government party. But I think that all of us realize we had to do more in the last election, which did not happen. And there's a lot of reasons for that. You can call it a Black Swan event, as some pollsters do. I think Gerald Brecker called it like a complete fluke. Whatever it was, we don't want two flukes in a row.

So there is going to be a lot, I believe, of upping our game. That includes the leader, includes our organization, it includes our candidates. Believe me, we know we have to do better to convince more people. Well, let me try this with you, Tony. how am I going to put this here? Okay, part of the conservative party's coalition, in fact, I would suggest a big part of it, are social conservatives. And the party delegates in Calgary last weekend voted not to reopen the question of whether to outlaw abortions in Canada.

And I'm assuming the social conservative wing of the party is unhappy with that development. How disappointed do you think they are with their position in the conservative coalition today? I think, you know, the abortion debate is settled. Now, at least in our party, we actually have the debate. If I can just put that chip on my shoulder, I don't think any other party even allows the debate to occur. So at least give us some props for having the debate. I know a fair number of liberals who feel very strongly about that. Do they actually get a resolution before the entire convention?

Well, there weren't enough of them to actually have an entire resolution. But the debate was still. Yeah. It's not quite so close. There are a small handful of people in the last liberal caucus who were so-called pro-life. Yeah. Absolutely. But they were battened down by Mr. Trudeau so they couldn't really have their voice.

But anyway, regardless of that, it's important to have these debates and we are an open party. We had a huge turnout for the debate on made whether to restrict the medical assistance in dying. That was another point where that one actually got through the policy session. So, yeah, we have these debates, but ultimately the majority of the delegates in the majority of provinces, we have a double majority system for these resolutions, has to vote in favor of it. It did not occur in that case. So, yeah, I mean, I don't think that that's, it's democracy. One side was clearly ahead of the other side. It wasn't a close vote.

And so I don't think it's a real, I don't think it's a real. I don't think it's a real cleavage in the party these days. And as I said, other issues that social conservatives care about, like medical assistance and dying, there was like 90% versus 10% on those resolutions. So, yeah, I don't think it's a big issue. And you know, Steve, it's not my place to be out here, you know, supporting Tony and defending. I try to be actually as nonpartisan as I can normally. But I was struck by the fact that the speech was not a Trump conservative speech. It was not playing the, you know, the hardcore anti this, anti that.

It was very much focused on the classic small, L liberal, you know, conservative approach to life, right? That it wasn't going down those those dog whistly things that you hear so much. from so many of the MAGA gang. And frankly, I was reassured by that. I thought this this bodes well for more solid conversations and discussions in the political world in Canada. And so I was actually glad for that. I know he technically doesn't have to find a new seat to run in until the next election

is actually underway. But the fact is, he said he's not going to stand in the current seat that he has right now in Alberta next time. the guy who gave up the seat for him, wants a seat back, and he's going to run there next time. So I'd just like to take a moment here because you know they're thinking about it. So if they're thinking about it, we should talk about it. Tony, if you were to advise him, where would you tell him to run next election? I'd pick a seat in Ontario.

It doesn't have to be in the Ottawa area. But I would advise, come back to Ontario. That's you fish where the fish are. And, you know, that's where we have to, we all know that's where we have to win. if we're going to form a government. So I don't have a particular seat in mind when I say that, but I'm hoping they are at least considering that possibility. I think that that would illustrate, I think, you know, he's got Cajonis a little bit, if I can use that term on your podcast. And that he's in my world, we call them ovaries. Yeah, okay. He's got those two. Yeah, sure.

So I think it's important that he not run away from a fight. And look, you know, this is going to be his second kick at the can to form a government. Let's face it, if he doesn't form the government, that's last chance, right? Last chance. So you might as well run for the seat in where you have to win a plurality to form government, and then the chips will fall where they may. There are now not one, but two writings in Toronto. Yes, Bill Blair. That's Tony Blair's departure. Not Tony Blair, Bill Blair. Bill Blair. So Bill Blair, the former Toronto police chief, former cabinet minister. Yeah.

Off to the UK and, of course, Christopher Freelins. Yeah, so, but I'm not sure. Well, Christopher Freelings writing, no conservative of, no conservative who wants to win is going to run there, I don't think, because that's one of the safest. If the, if the liberals

lose Toronto University Rosdale, um, they're down to four seats. So, fun fact, Steve, from the, when Pierre ran for leader, there are only two writings in the entire country that he did not win.

And one of them was University Rosdale. No kidding. Okay. Well, Danielle Martin, the family doc and someone who's got a hell of a lot of profile on health care issues is the, I think, official liberal candidate in that writing now. So. But let me ask you this, Tony. You know, the guy who beat Pierre Poliev in Napaean in the last election is saying, come on, run against me next time. You know, show.

And I'll tell you what. I wonder if you think Pierre should consider trying to recapture his old seat for two reasons. Number one, Mark Carney is about to lay off a whole lot of public servants. Tens of thousands. Yeah, and Pierre Polyev in part lost that election in the Pian because he promised to do the same thing. Right. And number two, if your theory of, you know, win somewhere where if you win the seat, you're likely to win government. If you lose the seat, it's because you aren't likely to lose government. maybe it's not such a dumb idea to try to get an opinion back. What do you think?

I think I'd do a poll on that before I make a decision. But I see what you're saying. You know, anyway, we won't get into what the liberals promised in the writing of Carlton and what they're delivering, which are two different things. But anyway, I think we got to do, I don't, I'm not particular about a writing. I'm just offering it out as one of his choices. But I think strategically from a personal level, there would be some appeal to that because if he runs in a riding, loses the election, but he wins, he's stuck in opposition, he's been an MP for so long, that wouldn't be a whole lot of fun. So, you know, if you're going to go, you might as well go. I think it'd be very interesting to see him run an opinion. And what do you think is going to happen in Scarborough? This is a seat that the liberals have held for a while.

but, you know, I wouldn't say it's a safe liberal seat. Who's got a thought about what's going to happen there? This is the Bill Blair seat. Yes, I'm just, I'm still processing because I only saw that, I only saw the news about Bill this afternoon. Yeah, I mean, I think that certain aspects of that writing are winnable for conservatives. If there's a high Chinese-Canadian contingent in that writing,

I think that bodes well. I think there are a lot of Sri Lankan Canadians in that writing, if I'm not mistaken, they could vote conservative in certain situations. Not that people voted blocks, but I'm just analyzing on the fly here. But yeah, I mean, if there's any area where our message of affordability issues, you know, would come home to roost and housing issues. She's very resonant there. Yeah, yeah. It could be that kind of writing. We'll see. Anyway, folks, let me get before we leave today, let me get a good on you from you, where we take a look at something that happened in the last couple of weeks in public life

and say, hey, that wasn't death and destruction. That was kind of nice. Good on you. Martha, what are you thinking? I will reserve my good on you for, in fact, Pierre Paulyev, for the reason I mentioned just a few minutes ago, I think the temptation to see the successes of Donald Trump and all the successes of the excesses, if you will, of Donald Trump, the dog whistle issues, the anti-immigration, the, you know, picking on different populations from different backgrounds. It just, it's so negative. And I think there were some people who were worried that that was a little bit where

the Canadian conservatives might go. And he didn't. And I, as I said before, I thought that was. Canadian in a lovely way, but I do suspect that there were a fair number of people who've been suggesting, hey, look at the success that they've been having down in south of the border. Don't you want to kind of push a little bit, push a little bit? And that was not the case in the speech. And so I want to a shout out to Pierre Polio for not succumbing to what I suspect were some people actually encouraging him to go that way and he didn't. So my good on you's son

to Pierre Polia. There we go. Tony, who gets yours? Well, just on Martha's point, he did mention in his speech, secure borders and a saner immigration system, but I think there's a consensus in our country on that right now. And that's numbers not origin. And that is exactly where he could have gone. But there's no question the last government really blew it for a few years

on numbers, on sheer numbers of immigration. and keeping us away from that anti-any-any-body, but more, let's, what are the numbers, how do we do this in a secure way, I think, was, is very important. Well, it's a xenophobic approach, we can say. Yeah, exactly. Well, Martha gave a good on you to Pierre Pali, so it seems only right that I give a good on you to Prime Minister Mark Carney. How's that for a switcheroo?

Well, done. My good on you for Prime Minister Carney is when he was asked point blank whether he was looking at an early election, he point blank said no. And so I'm assuming he's a man of his word and that we're not going to have an immediate election anytime soon. Good on you, Mark Carney, thinking of the national interest. And even if you're in a minority parliament, you're going to try to make things work. So that's just terrific. I love how ecumenical you two are being this time. This is great when you pick somebody from the other party. It just makes me think that, you know, not everything is pure partisan politics.

I do reserve the right. If he changes his mind and calls a snap election, I will roast him over the coals. 110%. Okay. Well, let me just say in closing then today that I guess in part because the liberal and conservative parties got about 85% of the votes in the last federal election, we do spend a disproportionate amount of our time on those two parties when we have our discussions. But we do know that the New Democrats are also in the mid-sides.

of a federal leadership race right now, which will end up at the end of March. Where's that happening? Winnipeg, I think that a leadership contest is happening. And we've already done an interview with Avi Lewis, and that's been dropped. And just this week, we dropped our second interview on the NDP leadership race with the Alberta MP, Heather McPherson, and we learned lots of stuff about her in that. So we urge you to watch and or listen to that interview. And we've also interviewed Rob Ashton, who, who is, I think many people, David Hurley said on his podcast, he's the one to watch.

You know, laborer from British Columbia, head of his union out there, and just like a real, you know, blue-collar guy who talks plain. And we had a really good chat. And that one is in the, I think that we're going to drop that one next week. So you'll get a chance to meet the top three front runners in the NDP leadership race. And we recommend those for people's viewing pleasure and or listening pleasure. We also want to let everybody know that we set up a Patreon page for this podcast, which means because we want to keep it free.

We don't want people to have to pay for this thing. But if they want to support what we're doing to help keep the lights on, patreon.com forward slash the Paken podcast. We've got lots of web-exclusive video there. We've got a couple of new things dropping very soon. Really interesting interview I did not too long ago with a guy who won a Nobel Prize. for physics in Canada. Hinton, he's a brilliant guy. Oh, yeah. And just a, like, not just smart, but really lovely. And we talked about how the education system has got to change

in the years ahead and whether artificial intelligence is going to take it all over. So Professor Hinton, it was at his best on that podcast. So that one will be dropping soon on the Patreon page. And, of course, all the programs, the Avi Lewis one, everything that we've done in the past is all archived at Stevepakin.com, so we hope you will watch that. Any last comments, guys? I think I made one mistake in this podcast. I'd like to correct it for the record. I think I mentioned that Grant Devine gave a speech, recorded speech at the convention. It was, in fact, Bradwell. If I said Grant Devine. You did say Grant Devine. Yeah, Bradwell. Bradwell makes more sense. There you go.

The current Saskatchewan Premier, not the former Saskatchewan Premier. Well, they're both former, but the fact of the matter is Grant Devines from many moons ago. So my apologies to our viewers and listeners, I had a bit of a brain cramp there, but I did correct the record. Jeez, you know what? I just had the same brain camera. You said Brad Wall. I said Bradwell like he's the current, and of course he's not the current. He's the one former as opposed to the, yeah, Scott Moe.

As opposed to, you know what? I'm shutting up and we're getting the hell out of here. Peace and love, everybody. Until next time. Peace and love.