The Paikin Podcast - Everything Political: Carney the Convincer, Floor Crossings, and Mr. Poilievre Goes Abroad

Episode Date: March 19, 2026

The Everything Political panel with former MPs Martha Hall Findlay and Tony Clement discusses the most recent floor crossing to the Liberal caucus, how Carney has been able to convince four different MPs to come over, if it’s wrong or undemocratic to get a majority through these means, and how unprecedented historically all these crossings are. They then discuss Pierre Poilievre’s international excursions, how Tony thinks it shows his “seriousness,” and if playing partisan politics abroad is a breach of protocol.   Support us: patreon.com/thepaikinpodcast Follow The Paikin Podcast: YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/@ThePaikinPodcastSPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/1OhwznCIUEA11lZGcNIM4h?si=b5d73bc7c3a041b7X: x.com/ThePaikinPodINSTAGRAM: instagram.com/thepaikinpodcastBLUESKY: bsky.app/profile/thepaikinpodcast.bsky.social Email us at: [e-mail] 

Okay, you two, given that the Academy Awards just happened a few days ago, and given that I'm dealing with two incredibly plugged in cultural mavens here, I want to find out from the two of you whether they made the right decision in picking... What was the name of that movie again? Their one best picture? You know. One battle after another. That's right.

One battle after another. That's right. One battle after another. Did you see it, Martha? I did. I also saw sinners and I also saw Hamnet. Tony, what did you think of... What was it called again? One battle after another. What did you think of it? I could BS my way through this interview, but I haven't seen any of these movies.

None. Zero. Well, maybe it's just because we're all kind of getting old. Hate to say it, guys. Hey, speak for yourself. I don't know. No, I look at that movie about the Norwegian father with his two daughters, sentimental value.

I thought that was great. I haven't seen it yet. I'd like to. Oh, I really enjoyed that. But the one that won? I don't know. There's some very uncomfortable scenes in that. movie, which we're not going to talk about right now because it's time to talk everything political.

Thank you. Everything Political, presented by Bruce Power. Happy to be welcoming back to our discussion here on the Paken podcast. Two former members of parliament, Tony Clement, and Martha Hall-Finley, one liberal, one conservative, one from Alberta, one from, I don't know, where are you from, Tony? Sometimes Brampton, sometimes Perry San Muskoka. He's a Montreal. He's a Montreal. Hamilton?

But all Ontario. All Ontario. Yeah, all Ontario. So why is he a Montreal Canadiens fan? That's another thing I don't understand. Because I grew up in Hamilton. Back in the day. That makes perfect sense.

Hamiltonians did not cheer for Toronto teams. I'm a Hamiltonian. I've been a Leaf fan for 64 years. How can you say that? No, where I grew up in Hamilton on the mountain, we didn't cheer for Toronto for anything. Excuse me. I grew up on the mountain in Hamilton as well, Tony. Boy.

I grew up on West Fifth Street. We did. I grew up three minutes from you. at Garth and Fennell, and we did. So you're full of it. I'm sorry. Well, and just if I can say, all three of us when we were growing up, wherever we were growing up,

we did not have a professional women's hockey league. That is a massive improvement now that we have. And so just saying, I'm going to the Vancouver goldenize game next weekend in Vancouver. Excellent. You get my good on you. Good for you. There you go. I've been to a couple of Scepters games.

It's quite good entertainment, actually, and the people are really into it. And you know what's beautiful? Boy, we're really off track here, but what the hell. What's beautiful is I love seeing mothers who've taken their daughters to see professional women's hockey games. Yeah. That is really a lovely, lovely thing. And sons.

Yeah, but mostly moms and daughters. I love that. This coming weekend, I'm actually being taken to the game by my daughter, but we're also taking her six-year-old son. Oh, my gosh. It'll be lovely. Can I just say one thing about the Toronto Maple? leave, Steve? Oh, do you have to? We were in such a good mood here. Because, because for once in my life,

I had a lot of sympathy for the Leafs with that cheap knee-on-knee hit by Goudas. That was brutal. You know, and taking up Matthews for the season, the same guy that took out Sidney Crosby in the Olympics. Although that was not a dirty head. This one was, but that one was not. No, no, but it was a hard hit. You're right. You're right. But same guy, same goon. Sorry. And not sorry. And, and, uh, not sorry. And And so I actually had sympathy for the Leafs for the first time in modern memory. So there you go. And how did it feel, Tony? Did you cope?

My heart grew three times that day. Well, I can tell you this, Martha, it didn't obviously affect Tony as much as I hoped it would because he still sent me an awful meme after one of the Leaf losses. I think they, what was it? They lose eight games in a row after the Olympics. Eight games in a row. Yeah. So your sympathy for the Leafs was not so big that you're not still sending me these

awful memes after every loss. Maybe we can do something about that. Anyway, friends, I think we're here not to talk everything sports, but everything political. And I did want to start with something that, while not completely rare in the history of this country, certainly has been happening a lot more lately than it has most of the time. And that is, we have seen, I mean, I got to tell you,

Prime Minister Mark Carney has got horseshoes somewhere because he's had three conservatives crossed the floor to him. And now, since we last gathered, one new Democrat as well. Laurie Idlout from way up in northern Canada, Nunavut. And I guess I want to start by asking, Martha, let me go to you first. I don't know whether anybody crossed the floor while you were in Parliament. And if it did happen, tell us about it. So I was prevented from going into Parliament because of a rather,

high profile floor crossing, one Belinda Stronach who crossed the floor and became a liberal preventing me from actually being the liberal at that particular time. But you know, as much as that hurt personally, we've, we had this discussion on the other podcast with the other floor crossers. I am not a fan of floor crossing because of the importance of being respectful of the voters. And so I just, I mean, it's interesting seeing the dynamic in Ottawa. And I, and I know you want to talk a little bit more about that, but just on principle, yeah, I have a few scars on a personal level. But my concern about forecrossing really is on a more principal basis. Let me just see if I remember this. You were the liberal nominated candidate in Willardale, I think.

No, it was actually New Market and Aurora. New Market. Oh, New Market Aurora. Belinda, I had run against Belinda as a liberal. She is a conservative in 2004. We were one of the last ridings to be called. We lost on the advanced polls, but we won actually on election day. But it was like about a half a percent. And so I was going to be the liberal candidate. It was a minority government. We were going to have another election 2006. I made a huge commitment to the, to the area, bought a house there. I'd actually spent a bunch of years in new market. So there was that connection. And just as we were signing the lease for the campaign office for the 2006 election, which all of the polls were saying we would, we were actually

going to win that time, just as I was signing the lease for the campaign office, she crossed the floor. Because Paul Martin needed her to come across and vote for his budget. Right. Yeah. So I remember that. And she got a cabinet post. She sure did. She sure did. But it was a good time, not a long time. She left public life shortly thereafter. That's right. Yeah. It worked out well for Stephen Harper, too. I would love to have been there. Yeah. Any floor crossing? Were you there? Oh, yeah. We had we had the, the amazing David Emerson who spectacularly floor crossed right in time to be sworn in his international trade minister after being industry minister in the previous Paul Martin government. Yes. And I've told the story.

Tony. When you showed up to be sworn into Stephen Harper's first cabinet, and you saw David Emerson, who 10 minutes ago was a liberal MP, and in Paul Martin's cabinet, what went through your head? So, so interesting story. We, we were all as cabinet members to be sworn in the ante room at Rideau Hall, just milling about with our Bibles in our hands. And I'm, and, you know, we're talking to one another figuring out who's who in the zoo, right? Oh, John Baird, you're in cabinet. Yeah, yeah, I'm going to be a treasury board. Oh, Jim Flaherty, you're in cabinet. Yeah, I'm finance minister. Well, I'm minister of health, you know, and we're having this conversation. And I'm talking to Jim, and I look over, I say, Jim, that's David Emerson there. What's he

doing here? And Jim says, well, maybe he's the registrar general and he has to be, he has to register us. I said, Jim, he's got a Bible in his hands. And then that's when we clued in, he was going to be sworn in. And I said to Florida, you said, Jim, today you can jump up and down and cluck like a chicken at the swearing-in ceremony and you will not be the news item. That guy is going to suck all the off. And I was right for about two weeks. Oh, yes.

That's right. Oh, yeah. So that's my story about learning about David Emerson being. And of course, we had the great wajid Khan who crossed Florida from Mississauga. For Mississauga. So, yeah, we've had our share of floor crossers when I was in government for sure. But they didn't affect the real standing in the House, right? Like, because we had a minority, but it was a weaker minority.

No, in my time, you know, Belinda Strontic, I was not in Parliament during that episode. But in my time, no one affected the calculations of who's in a minority or majority in the House of Commons, which is, of course, what's happening in the Mark Carney case. And I think that that makes it a special case of concern. Let's put it that way. And now a message from Bruce Power. Ontario stands at a pivotal moment in its energy and industrial evolution. Billions are being invested in nuclear refurbishment and new electrical builds,

creating a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform our energy and manufacturing base into a global powerhouse. Bruce Power is proud to be Canadian, spending 95% of its budget right here at home, building stronger communities while driving the future of clean energy. And with the proposed expansion of its site through the Bruce C project, along with other major nuclear and generation projects, demand for mechanical and electrical components will surge. Bruce Power says this is our moment to leverage a generational energy buildout and position Ontario and Canada as a global leader in the supply of critical components for the electricity sector. learn more about Bruce Power's commitment to being, quote,

Canadian at our core at brucepower.com. Okay, I'm going to pick up on that on the math in just a second, but I do want to know, because I've heard this many times, is that when somebody crosses the floor, their old party hates them for their disloyalty, and their new party doesn't quite trust them yet either because they've left their old party. And, of course, you know, if the new person comes in,

You know, it's wonderfully joyous for about 10 minutes when the cameras come in and everybody's giving the new person a standing ovation. But then the reality hits home, which is this person is now in competition with me for whatever potential cabinet job I could potentially get. So my question is, how long did it take conservatives in that caucus to really welcome David Emerson in and not see him as a liberal turncoat? Well, I was already in cabinet, so we weren't vying for, he didn't displace me from cabinet. I don't know how a backbencher would feel. Maybe there would be some who would be concerned about that. But I think Stephen Harper's rationale was, you know, if you're going to have a rationale for this, it wasn't just that he was an extra vote.

It was because we had, we had elected no members in the Vancouver area. And he wanted a person from the city of Vancouver, which is why. He also had Fortier appointed to the Senate to represent Montreal. And so that that was his rationale for national unity, for unity of government, all of those, all of those things. So my observation at the time was it didn't take very long at all. And David Emerson is a, you know, he's a top notch cabinet member. There's no doubt about that. He had a history in business and could do the job of international trade.

got us the softwood lumber deal with the United States. That was his big accomplishment within months of being sworn in as Harper's minister. So, yeah, it worked out very well for us, I would say. And it wasn't, and it wouldn't have just been geographical considerations. I mean, David Emerson was pretty highly respected and capable, right? And didn't want to sit on the opposition benches and hurl brickbats. He wanted to run something. Exactly.

And he wasn't very ideological to begin with. Right. I would agree. I would agree. It was still challenging from, you know, my respect, the voter, schick. Oh, yeah. And the voters in that Vancouver Kingsway, I think he represented. They did not like that at all.

Yeah. And he did not run again. Martha, tell us what you think it says today about the Liberal Party of Canada in as much as three conservatives have crossed the floor to come into the liberal caucus. But so has one new Democrat. And for all of those who say Mark Carney is really just a progressive conservative in disguise, What do you infer from that mixed bag of floor crossers? Well, I think it says a lot about Mark Carney. I think it says a lot about the views, I think significant views, both in Canada and abroad,

that Mark Carney is doing a pretty good job for Canada right now, regardless of political party. And I mean, you guys know me well enough. I was, when I was a liberal, I was very much what one calls a blue liberal or a red Tory. very much. And I've always objected to the concept of center because it almost suggests a mushy middle. I have very strong views about social issues, very, I think very progressive socially, but also very strong views about the economy and business and fiscal prudence, et cetera. So that's not in the middle. That's actually just, you know, strong views on both of those issues. And I've really bemoaned for quite a long time the lack of that in our, in our politics right now.

and we certainly see it in the United States, but we've been seeing it here in Canada too. We've sort of seen, you know, some of us that said, where, you know, where's the purple party,

right? Where's the party that has some of that good from liberal and some of that good from, from conservative? And we haven't really had it. I personally have felt kind of not represented politically for quite a long time. I think Mark Carney, forget the colors and the whatever.

I think he is representing, um, uh, a really interesting mix of we're trying to do all of the right things for Canada right now. And they're not necessarily left or right or red or orange in this case. I think it speaks a lot to Mark Carney's first year of actually being seen to be getting things done for the country. In which case, Tony, let me get you to compare and contrast with the conservative party, which I think you'll agree, the knock on the Polyev led.

conservative party is that it's been too far to the right for too long and unable to broaden the base enough to be popular enough to win. Here's a guy in Mark Carney who's managed to get three conservatives and one new Democrat to come over to him. What do you think that says? Well, I have a couple of different emotions about this. First, I don't know whether it really means that much difference between a strong minority versus a very weak majority. In terms of that aspect of the mechanics of Parliament. I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes. So the liberals are expending all of this energy to woo and to strong arm and to persuade

various loose fish members of Parliament to come over to the other side. The thing that does bother me, obviously, and should bother everyone is he's going to get a majority by virtue of these floor crossings and the by-election. Maybe. And the by-likes. And the by-lite, if he wins all three by-elections. Yeah. So. Oh, right.

Well, technically he needs to, I guess. He gets to equal. That's right. That's right. And then you've got the speaker. So, so, but I think most Canadian, to me, it's a bit unseemly. I got to say, folks, that that this is the way you're getting from a minority to a majority is, is these four crossings.

I don't think it's right. I think that if you want to get a majority, go to the people and ask for a majority. And then they will bestow that. upon you or they won't. So I'm not sure this is the, and I think, Martha, you have expressed some concern about this too, that this is not a good look for politicians doing these deals, you know, rather than asking the people for sanctions. So that part does bother me. And I think that ultimately this will be, you know, when Mark Carney does move to the, to the part of his mandate where he is losing popularity,

which is clearly not now, but will happen eventually at some point in the future. This will be one of the marks against him. I know pun intended, but it will be a mark against him that he's pursuing a majority this way. Martha, you got a problem with the math here? I would just, my criticism is less with respect to Mark Carney

and more with the individual. people who were elected by the people in those constituencies. Look, if you're prime minister and you're that close to a majority and somebody comes to you and says, hey, listen, I'm really, you know, for whatever reason, I'd like to, I'd like to join your party across the floor. You know, what prime minister is going to say no? Stephen Harper said, you know, David Emerson, sure, come along. But I do think that the individuals involved are the ones who have a direct response

to the people who voted for them. And we know that in most cases, people don't vote for the person. They vote for the party first. Then they vote for the party leader. And then a distant third usually is voting for the person. Now, I did see some commentary from Nunavut, some people saying, you know, it's a bit different up here.

We actually don't go partisan. We really tend to vote for the person more, which I found interesting. And there might be a bit of a cultural easing of my mind a little bit. in that regard, but I still, I don't, I'm not going to blame Mark Carney for this. Not at all, just as I wouldn't blame Stephen Harper. Yeah, it's a really good point to make because the only partisan politics that takes place in the three northern territories are during federal elections.

Their provincial elections are nonpartisan. Their municipal elections are nonpartisan. So, yeah, I, she was a partisan MP. Let's be clear. Oh, yeah. A week before she, she crossed the floor, she was denouncing the liberal government for not doing enough for Nunavut. And she...

And potentially backing Avi Lewis for the NDP leadership. So those were partisan things that she was doing, to be fair. The Insurance Brokers Association of Canada is all about protection. This spring they will be in Ottawa to advocate for a consumer first approach to federal initiatives around natural disasters, cybersecurity, and other risks that Canadians face every day. Insurance protects families, homes, and businesses when the unexpected happens. are your trusted advisors, helping you choose the right insurance to safeguard what you value most.

Canada's insurance brokers. Their slogan is, we know what's worth protecting. Now, I want to get a better understanding from you, too, as to what happens when a party goes from having a large minority government, as Mr. Carney currently has, to then potentially a very tiny majority government, because there are, I mean, some of the plumbing inside auto actually changes when you go from minority to majority. For example, you now get to control committees in a way that you didn't before. And I guess I want to know whether that actually matters. Tony, tell me.

It matters within four blocks of Parliament Hill, as the famous saying once said. But, you know, look, it means that committees, if they're controlled by the governing party, are less likely to, I think there's less accountability by the governing party as a result of that because they'll just force through votes based on their majority. So for people who don't know right now, the committees are controlled by the combined opposition forces. They'll usually have one more MP than the governing liberals will in much of these committees. and some of them are already chaired by opposition members like the public accounts committee. That's always the way it always has been.

But most of them are shared by the majority, which would be conservatives or whatever deal is cooked up between them, the block and the NDP, less so. But so, yeah, there are changes in committees. It would mean like you see in the United States, when when majorities shift between in the House of Representatives in the U.S., all of a sudden, it goes from trying to prosecute Democrats for something. They'll start prosecuting Republicans for something. So that might be something that will be happening in a few months' time in the United States. But it's not as partisan clearly here as that. But it means the agenda of these committees effectively is being set by the governing party rather than the opposition parties for sure.

And Martha, I mean, again, help us understand whether that actually makes a difference at all in Ottawa. to the way things work because, I mean, my assumption is, and you tell me if this is right or wrong, my assumption is if the liberals, if they get a majority, are able to control all of the committee work that eventually, you know, works its way up to the whole House of Commons, you know, they can shut down things that the opposition majority on a committee would want to do. They can have their way on those committees in a way that they wouldn't have had in the past. Does any of that matter? I think it used to.

but frankly even since I was in office when I was there and I'd love your perspective on this Tony when I was there there were a couple of committees that were still doing really good work partly because of the personality of the chair regardless of party right I remember James Rajat was chair at finance and I mean we just

there were a couple finance international trade there were a couple of public accounts or a go whatever it was government operations There was some really important work being done. And the reports were generally listened to at the house. But you could tell even then, you know, we brought cameras in. As soon as we had video in for the committees, I was just becoming appalled at how many of the members of committees would sit.

And instead of asking questions to elicit information, they would pronounce, right, for the benefit of a video clip that they could put on their campaign, website the next election or for their constituencies. And I also at the same time found that people were paying people in the House to actually vote on legislation or to vote for amendments weren't paying a heck of a lot of attention to what a number of those committee reports said. So, you know, that's been what, how many years ago now? If I go back 15 years ago, I was already seeing some frustration at that, how things were evolving. Man, oh man, I've appeared in front of a number of committees in the intervening time, both House and Senate, the House committees in particular are appalling. It just, they're not effective. And so I don't actually think

that changing, you know, playing musical chairs a little bit on this is really going to have an effect. Fundamentally, it comes down to, are you going to have a majority of the votes in a house, in a House vote? So I, and I take no pleasure in saying that. I mean, And I think our system, I think this affects the whole system. I think our system really depends on strong parliamentary process, strong respect for the process, strong committee work, strong. And I just, I feel like we've really lost a lot of that in the last couple of decades. Can I tell one story to that? To, to support Martha's analysis.

I was in opposition MP from 2015 to 2019. I was vice chair of the Justice Committee, being the justice critic for a period of time. And we were, we were examining liberal changes to the criminal code, which would have made it easier, well, in our point of view, easier for felons to get out of prison early and all of these things that we, was in our view watering down the justice system. So I proposed a series of amendments about,

I don't know, 50 of them or something like that. And 48 of them were voted down by the majority liberals. That's fine. That's the process. Two of them, one of the liberal committee members, you might have heard of him, Nathaniel Erskine Smith. Oh, I've heard of him. Yeah. Voted for my amendments. And I'm like, okay. You know, and after the thing was over, like, then they carried, right? And so after the thing, after the committee hearing was over, I went up to him and I said, Nate, thanks for, thanks for that really. Well, I like to do the right thing. You know, all this. Next committee meeting, he was bounced from the committee by the liberals. And there was some other, some other liberal in there who did not do what that Nate was doing.

So that tells you the story, what Mars this is saying right there, I think. Well, as the former governor from Alaska used to say, Nate was always allowed to be a little bit mavericky, but occasionally, you know, I guess even he went too far in some cases. Indeed. Yeah. Well, my hunch is we have not heard the last from Naderzkin Smith because we know he is about to run for a by-election in provincial politics in the province of Ontario and potentially leave his job as a federal member. of parliament. I want to do one more ask on this issue, and that is that we, as we have noted, over the last few weeks, it's almost always the case that somebody leaves the opposition to go to the government when a floor crossing takes place. But I remember, and Tony, I think you were there,

but maybe not, you'll refresh my memory on this. Yeah, Leona Alice left actually left the Trudeau government and went over to the opposition to sit with the conservatives. Because I guess she'd lost, you know, she didn't like the way, I think she was taking a chapter out of the Hall-Finley playbook there, she didn't like what was going on with with the Trudeau liberals, and she went and sat with the opposition conservatives. How did that play?

Well, it was a good day for Andrew Shear, the opposition leader, that's been there as he walked her across the aisle, and she was a former Canadian forces member and didn't like defense policy under the

Trudeau liberals, that's for sure. So yeah, she was fated and by us and she was welcomed with open arms for sure. And I remember she was taught, she went to one of our caucus, well, she immediately went to one of our caucus meetings. And we had our traditional conservative caucus meetings where people are standing at the microphones jabbing their finger wanting this changed or that changed. You know, we always had a free for all in caucus, quite frankly, in government or opposition. And she came up to me, Leona did afterwards.

He said, do you guys get to ask questions in caucus? Yeah. Oh, we didn't. We had to, we had to request to be put on a list that was always ignored. This is, you know, in the, in the era of Jerry and Katie, perhaps. Yeah, it wasn't like that before, to be fair. That when I was there was before Katie, Jerry time, Jerry, Katie, Justin. trio, we did actually have, it was more like yours. It wasn't quite so controlled. Okay, well, that's good,

because that's the way it should be. That's what frankly. Yes. Yeah. So she was, she was enamored with that. And I guess, I mean, we're going to keep an eye on this whole story because the fact of the matter is most of the people who crossed the floor and Leona Alice Lev would be part of this club as well, don't survive it politically. You know, when they run for re-election in their new party, most of the time they lose. So, you know, for all those who think that they're being very opportunistic, you know, it can be good for a good time, but not necessarily a long time. Can I add one more thing about the changing dynamic? I just thought of this now because as we're speaking for the last year, the pressure's been on, particularly on Pahliav with these floor crossers, right? Once Carney gets his majority, the pressure's on Carney.

Like all you need is one or two of that people to slide away for whatever reason. They don't like his Iran policy or they don't like this or that energy, whatever, then all of a sudden he's got a political crisis within his caucus. So the dynamic could change very, very quickly in the near future. Yeah. And I think just on that, I think there are some. I mean, the two candidates for the by-elections in Toronto are seen regarded to be a little bit more of the left of center part of part of the party, if you will, even though I just said I don't like that description of center, but you guys know what I mean.

Yep. But there will be some discomfort as we go into a period of time where Canada has to be really, really serious about Canada's best interests. And some of the other things, climate, some of the things where we've, you know, for the last decade really been focused on, you know, how does Canada do its part? and, you know, don't we want to feel good about this stuff? There are going to be people watching the NDP leadership contest very carefully because I think the outcome of that will may encourage, discourage movement in that direction.

So I think that'll be an interesting dynamic. And one final, final point, you know, it is going to be, it could be very interesting. you know, be careful what you wish for kind of thing. The liberals wish they had the majority. They thought they should have had it on election day last year. Well, you're going to get your majority. Well, now it's like the pottery barn. Remember this analogy, Steve?

You know, you break it. You own it. And they can't blame anything. All of the economic news, all of the political news. They're a majority government, folks. So it's all your fault. Well, let's see. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

They're not there yet. I just heard somebody say the break it you own it was in reference to Donald Trump now asking all of these other countries. Hey, can you help us? What part of starting this war? Did you not think the straight of Hormuz is going to become a problem? I mean, it's called planning. It's called all of the war games that the Pentagon will have been doing for years. So how this is a surprise. But somebody used that exact expression. They said Netanyahu and Trump broke it. It's up to them. them to fix it or only. Well, the first guy, Martha, if you keep going on this, Martha, I'm going to ask you to come back next week and come on with Janice Stein and talk about this. So we are going to get out of this right now. Okay. Okay. And we'll be back right after this. Somebody mentioned Pierre Poliev's name just a moment ago, and I want to follow up on that. Because one of the, I guess,

more challenging aspects when you're the leader of the opposition is being able to own the microphone. And by that, I mean, you know, kind of set an agenda for politics in the country. And, clearly the prime minister has been doing that over the last many weeks with all of the traveling he's been doing and the other world leaders he has been seeing he has really owned the microphone and pierre polliev is making some effort to try to compete with that by going on a bit of his own international tour and as we sit here taping this today he is in texas having just done some speaking in windsor he's going to finish up in new york he has already been to london united kingdom and Berlin.

So, I mean, it's a bit of a tour for the opposition leader. And I guess, Tony, let's start with you. What's the mission when the opposition leader takes on an ambitious speaking tour like this, particularly at a time when you know that most of the attention is on the other guy? Right. I think it has a number of different aspects to it, Steve. I think the first aspect is to show some gravitas. quite frankly that was one of the knocks on pierre polyev in the last campaign that he didn't have

world experience whereas mark carney did pierre after winning the leadership deliberately decided not to do world tours to concentrate on the home front at the time i thought that was a that was a good plan that was a good plan under trudeau i'm not sure it was the right plan when suddenly confronted with mark carney so i think they're trying to fix that and to show that uh that that Pierre Pollyev can articulate a vision for Canada outside of our boundaries and be taken seriously on the world stage, obviously not as seriously as the Prime Minister of Canada. No one can do that. But at the same time, if he doesn't do a verbal gaffe or doesn't do something embarrassing, which he has not done any of those things, then it's a net plus. I think it's also an opportunity

for Pierre Pollyev to advance some policies, which he can then put in the platform and to show, again, how important those are for Canada's status in the world, how it affects Canada-U.S. trade, for instance, his autopac policy is a good case in point where he announced that in Windsor before going to Detroit and talk about our energy policy in on. Austin and Houston, I think those are all good things in terms of advancing the policy agenda. So that, you know, and I always thought this was unfair, but the, what the allegation in the last election was that Pierre didn't, wasn't, he was just three words slogans, right? And that he didn't have in-depth policies.

Well, I think he's trying to flesh that out a little bit. Incidentally, Mark Carney won with a two-word slogan. But anyway, I won't get into that. But elbows up. Is that the one? that's the one okay you know uh anyway apparently a two-word slogan beat a three-word slogan but anyway that's that's the past i know i know i know i'm in therapy for this story but anyway i know i know but i got i got to i got to get the joke in when i can uh the point

that i'm trying to make though is that he's expanding beyond that these uh he's talking about uh you know trade relationships uh that that should have been done in the last 10 years uh with germany and with the uk uh and so on and now of course in the u. So I think it advances a policy agenda and ultimately, Steve, it's showing seriousness. And if there was one knock against Pierre Polyev in the last election, it wasn't, he wasn't a serious candidate or variations of that front. So I think he's trying to alleviate that threat for the next election and at the same time further develop his policy chops. You know, I think the reality is, though, that slogans may work. And let me just see if I can do this.

here. Acts the tax, stop the crime, fix the budget, build the homes. Yeah, I guess it still works. Those three words slogans, they still work to a certain extent. They work to be a strong opposition leader. You're right. Okay. Martha, what are you seeing on this Pahliav tour? Well, I, you know, I try to be nice and diplomatic much of the time. But I think, particularly now, particularly given world events, this is not the time to have an opposition leader going out and engaging internationally. In my international trade world, we always felt very strongly that Canada needed to present a unified front. You know, we had serious criticism of certain Albertans who support the separatist movement going to Washington.

and how dare they, right? That's treasonous. They shouldn't go. I don't think it's, one, one, Pierre Poliyev is not going to get the international experience and gravitas that he wants to get simply by going and speaking, right? That does not replace the decades of international engagement, engagement with different countries, different organizations that, that Mark Carney, but frankly, you know, a number of others

do as well, right? Brian Mulroney, Jean-Critian, both had tremendous international experience as well. You're not going to get that by going and speaking in a number of places. What I do worry about, though, is that you're going to be giving this impression that Canada is divided, that Canada does not, you know, that the prime minister doesn't speak for Canada. Well, frankly, right now, I think we need the rest of the world to see that Canada has a united front, does have a prime minister who speaks to the country, and that we're not airing our dirty laundry abroad.

And so he can do whatever he wants, obviously. That's something that's very important in our country, is freedom of speech and all that kind of thing. But I think right now, I actually think it's unseemly that the leader of the opposition is doing an international tour. Tony, as I get you to respond to that, let me put on the record here that I watched the speech that Pierre Poliev gave in Berlin.

And most of it was, as you described it, an attempt at a serious vision for the country and speaking in depth on various issues. But he used a couple of lines in that speech that I did raise my eyebrows on. And those lines were when I am prime minister or when I take over the government of Canada. I don't think that's the German audience doesn't need to hear that. If he wants to have that, he should be doing it at home. That's what I was going to ask, Tony. There's sort of always been a tradition that partisan politics stops at the water.

edge when anybody takes, particularly an opposition leader, takes a foreign tour to speak. Did those expressions cross the line in your view? I think that. I think people know that he's an opposition leader and who wants to be prime minister. So I don't, I'm not sure that that is the most egregious thing I've heard from an opposition leader. Not the most egregious, but. But I, and I would also make the point since Martha raised it and she's fair to raise it is

that Pierre Polyev deliberately is not going to Washington, D.C. on this tour because he has said, we only have one prime minister at a time. And I think that was the right call by him. That was the right way to express it. He's not trying to negotiate with the White House or with Congress. And so he's sort of keeping to Texas and to New York and to Michigan, et cetera. So I think that He's trying to be respectful while at the same time advancing some policy ideas, which I think he knows are important to the future of the country and its economic policy. But he's advancing them with people who don't vote for him. Right?

I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish other than to burnish his image back home. And I think that's, I don't think we. There's nothing wrong with that. But if you take away from what we're trying to do internationally as a. country in a time of significant geopolitical challenge, I would prefer he did it at home. Well, you know, the prime minister when he was a liberal leader, immediately went on a foreign before getting the sanction of the public in a general election. He went to, his first thing was foreign trips.

Let's not forget, that was just over a year ago for crying aloud. So don't talk to me about politics here because Mark Carney knows full well what he's doing when he's spending 20% of his time outside of the country. Well, right now he's prime minister, and I think he's actually doing a pretty good job. I think people are starting to notice that he likes being in London more than he likes being in Ottawa. Well, wouldn't you? Sorry, I didn't say that.

Oh, harsh. No. No, you like to be in Ottawa. Yes, I get it. To that end, we managed to get, we have a couple of comments here that came in on various social media channels. And apropos of what we're talking about right now, I thought I'd put those to you two. And we should just say to the viewers or listeners, you have not had a heads up on this, so you're going to get this hearing it now for the first time. Here's someone named Rebecca Winter, who says,

if the Conservative Party of Canada is going to gain a million more votes outside of the prairies, Pierre Pahliav is going to need to deliver more speeches like he did at the convention and fewer mega-inspired speeches. Likely won't be enough to get my vote. vote as I'm an NDP supporter, but I'd at least gain more respect for him and consider voting conservative. And here's someone else named Linda Cochran who says if Polly Evan's party would condemn the separatist movements trying to undermine our country and our sovereignty, they might be a bit more believable and perhaps more respected. Just like Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, you can't pander to the separatists and claim to want Canadian unity.

Those are not consistent statements. Well, since we ended with Alberta, I should go to Martha first. Discuss. Oh, my goodness. I think, I think the situation in Alberta is more nuanced than the headlines suggest. There's no question the Premier, that Premier Smith is treading a very fine line in managing her constituency for the voters in, in Alberta. She is not a separatist herself. I can vote for that. She, I know she's, she's said that public. but also privately. But she is also very conscious about making sure that people have a voice where needed. Look, there are an awful lot of people signing the petition to have a referendum,

guaranteed that by far the majority of the people signing the petition are not people who are going to vote yes in a referendum. There's a very strong desire to send a message because people are angry, especially at the last 10 years. of not being able to really pursue the prosperity that that that people felt was was um available to Alberta and frankly the whole country but um I do I do I will just say this for the premier it's it's significantly more nuanced um I don't I don't know how to really go further into it um well tell me this do you think they're going to attract enough signatures to get that referendum happening on independent I actually don't know that they'll even get enough signatures even though the legislation was passed to reduce a number of signatures required to have a referendum,

you know, we will have a, we will have a number of referenda all in one in the fall. This one will be added to it if enough petitions, enough signatures are added. But I would caution people to think from, I would caution people from thinking that because there might be a fair number of people signing the petition, that that automatically means that there's a viable separatist movement in Alberta. Look, it just, there are significant differences between this and the history of what happened in Quebec, significant differences between the people who are supporting this in Alberta, then from a very different part of society and culture that we're really working on, on separatist concerns in Quebec versus Alberta.

And fundamentally, so much of the Alberta, one is economic and you got to say so you're going to be more likely to build a pipeline across British Columbia by being not part of Canada it makes no economic sense and so some of that will come out more and more over the next little while and oh by the way investment is already turning away from Alberta just because of the concern so if you really want economic prosperity in this province that's not how you go. You know, so, so I think, I think this will work out. I just, I do think, it's more nuanced, I think, than the headlines suggest.

Tony, maybe I could get you to comment on the first part of Linda's comment, which was, you know, if Polly-Ev and his party would condemn the separatist movements trying to undermine the country, she's not hearing as full-throated, I guess, a defense of Canada. And we have to remember, Mr. Pollyev is now an Alberta MP. She's not hearing as much of what she feels she needs to hear. in order to, you know, feel good about Pierre Pahliav. What do you say on that? Yeah, I mean, obviously he wants a United Canada,

as does our entire Conservative Caucus. There's no doubt about that. I think the issue, and this is the kind of the, I almost say this with wonderment rather than a condemnation, but the Jedi mind trick of the Liberal Party is to say, they do this all the time throughout history, but in this specific instance, you in order to be a in order to be against separatism you have to buy into the entire liberal

agenda right and this is kind of what you you know these are traders and therefore if you're saying something that is defending Alberta in some way that is against what what carney is proposing then then you're being a traitor to this country i'm not i'm not saying it's gone that far but it's it's it's trending in that direction a little bit and and i i think that you can be pro-Canadian and pro-Albertan i don't think i'm i'm pro-canadian okay 100% okay but if i would say tony because i'm pro-albertan it actually feeds into my being pro-canadian because in my world and i think any economist any business person would say alberta's future prosperity is enhanced by being a part of Canada.

Mind you, with an Ottawa that understands more than we've seen in the last 10 years. I do think Carney is well on his way to improving that for sure, especially with Minister Hodgson. But you are like 100% pro-Alberta and pro-Canadian. I don't think there's any anybody that would say that that's not possible. Well, I'm hearing it sometimes. So anyway, my major point being you can do that. you can be pro-Albertan and have pro-Alberta policies which in turn help Canada.

And that's not being, that's not being a separatist, right? I agree. That's that's and and there can be grievances in our political system which don't make you a separatist. They're, they're just grievances. Yes. Okay. And Alberta has grievances and Quebec has grievances. I think Ontario should have grievances, you know, but doesn't mean we want the country destroyed.

Right. You know, we want the country to be better. That's why you're advancing these, these political ideas. is. So that's my only, that's my only point on that. Steve, just for the record, this is a hundred percent agreement between Martha and Tony. Okay. I think that's good. Lightning does strike every now and then. That's a good thing. That's a good thing. A blind squirrel, you know, can still gather nuts. Every now and then. Yeah. I think the penultimate point we want to make here is I know all three of us at one time, we're the youngest person wherever we worked, you know? And now, of course, we're not. And

the prime minister turning 61 this past week reminded me that the prime minister of the country is younger than the three of us and there was a time in our lives when we would not have said that we are all older than the prime minister of Canada yikes well i hope to be uh older than the prime minister of canada for many decades ahead uh well if if carney keeps winning you will be uh but that's not what you meant i know what you meant uh friends can i just uh before we head out here uh mention that we are establishing a bit of a community on the website, Patreon. Patreon is something where if you want to support what we're doing, you can. In exchange, we put some web-exclusive videos up there.

I did a housing symposium at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto a couple of weeks ago. We had nine housing experts talking all about how we can change housing policy in Canada in order to get more stuff built because there are people, the ages of our kids who think they're never going to be able to build a home. excuse me, to buy a home. And therefore, we've got some ideas happening on that. So you might want to become a Patreon member and check out videos like that. There's also a spot there where you can suggest some story ideas or guest ideas. And we do take you up on these.

And I'll have more to say on that a little bit later in the week. In the meantime, let me do some thank yous here. George Jenny supported us through Patreon. And he said, because we went back and forth on email a couple of times. And he said, please, try not to reply to this. I'm a retired lawyer with nothing better to do than annoy you with messages. But that's okay, George. I like getting your emails and I will respond.

Peter. Beercalund. Boy, Peter, I hope I got that Norwegian pronunciation of your last name correct. Anyway, thank you for supporting us. Robin Wong, can I wish you a happy 40th birthday as you support the Paken podcast? And Steve Hecht, who's a guy who looks great with a cigar in his mouth, also supported us here on the Paken podcast. And we're grateful, Steve, to your support as well. A reminder? Yes, go ahead, Tony. Who else signed up? I don't know. You tell me. Who else? Tony Clement. Oh my gosh. That is true. That is true. You actually, you went on Patreon and gave us your support as well. And I was going to do it last week. Damn it. I wished I'd done it so that we could have said it at the same time. I was trying to be on holiday a little bit so I was a bit distracted. So, okay, this coming week, darn. I was, that would have been really good if we'd done it at the same time, Tony.

It's not too late. That's true. It is not too late. Tony, forgive me. How could I possibly have forgotten to put your name on the list? No worries. Maybe it was that 12th meme you sent me about the Leafs losing that made me take your name off the list. Okay. Yeah. In any event, we remind everybody, patreon.com forward slash the Paken podcast in case. In case you want to get in there and check out what we've got happening there. All of our shows are archived at stevepaken.com. And until next time, everybody, peace and love. What about, what about? Our good aeneas. Are good anas. Oh my God. What am I doing here? How did I forget that? Okay.

I take back the peace of love. I forgot to mention it in my script here. Don't forget the good aeneas. Guys, thank you very much. Okay, Martha, give me your good ania for this week. So my good ania actually came from the floor crossing discussion because there was a moment in time when I was, I thought, I was up. Tony, I don't know if this was the case.

but the prime minister's office when stephen harper was prime minister was up above in the in center block it wasn't over in lounge van and um i was upstairs i had actually sent him a note i had my son was coaching a ski team that was at um uh at competitions in near ottawa and i sent a little note they said do you think we could meet the prime minister and i said well you know i can try but i'm like I'm not in his party. I'm not, you know, I'm not like pals. So I sent a note around during question period, saying there's a group of young athletes in the gallery

who would love to meet you after question period. And he looked over at me, read it. And he looked over at me, he said, nodded and, you know, whatever. So we went up. He came over, oh, that's even longer. He came over and said, come on upstairs after question period. So I went and I had this, my son and his team, of 12, 13 year olds, like just a bunch of ragamuffins, right?

We were sitting outside because you guys were all going into, were you there, Tony, everybody was going into a cabinet meeting that wasn't going to be very long. And the prime minister said, here, just park out on the couches out front. But we had a number of ministers going by like Chuck Stroll and Jim Prennis and they were all, Martha, what are you doing here? What are you doing here? And it was fun. I got to introduce the kids to a bunch of,

cabinet ministers who were friends at the time. But I think it was Peter Van Lone came scurrying out of the cabinet room saying, Martha, everybody's thinking you're about to cross the floor. My good on you. But that reminded me of a good on you that I was telling somebody just the other day. The prime minister didn't have to do that. He took all of these kids into his office. He shook each one of their hands.

He volunteered his photographer. if they wanted to have pictures. He was so magnanimous and he was so generous with his time for somebody who is not even a member of his party. I thought that's a good on you that's worth mentioning, even though it was quite a while ago.

So that took a long time, Steve, to tell that story, sorry, but I thought it was the one I really wanted to tell. And worth every second. No, I'm glad you put that on the record. That's terrific. Okay, Tony, you're good on you for this week. So I'm wearing green because, you know, it's around the same time as St. Patrick's Day.

We'll just leave it at that. So I wanted to add some St. Patrick's Day content and remind people that we have over four and a half million Canadians who claim Irish descent. I'm not one of them in any manner of form at all, but I do recognize that. And it's a great part of our heritage, Canadian heritage for sure. in terms of MPs, apparently James Maloney, who's the MP for Atopico Lake Shore, proposed a motion for Irish Heritage Month, so good on you to him. And Pierre Pollyev has Irish grandparents and has spoken about his Irish roots. And Mark Carney has Irish roots with his grandparents as well.

So good on you for all of the MPs and other Canadians who have those Irish roots in this week of festivities. Well, we do know this week there are only two kinds of people, right? those who are Irish and those who wish they were. Except the Scots, apparently. Except the Scots. Well, then did he have those of us who have both Scottish and Irish heritage? And it's just, well, we just, you know, it's a balancing act. Isn't life just like that?

Yes, indeed. Well, guys, since I blew the sign off already, do you want to help me do it? We'll all three do it together this time? Until next time, everybody. Peace and love. Peace and love. Yes, indeed.