The Paikin Podcast - Everything Political: Carney’s Pipeline, Guilbeault's Gone, & Canada’s New Climate Consensus

Episode Date: December 4, 2025

The Everything Political panel with former MPs Martha Hall Findlay and Tony Clement discuss Steven Guilbeault’s resignation from Carney’s cabinet, the pipeline MOU, how close we actually are to building a new pipeline, if the Carney Liberals are governing like conservatives, the new climate change consensus in Canadian politics, and if Canadians still care about climate change. Follow The Paikin Podcast: YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/@ThePaikinPodcastX: x.com/ThePaikinPodINSTAGRAM: instagram.com/thepaikinpodcastBLUESKY: bsky.app/profile/thepaikinpodcast.bsky.socialEmail us at: [e-mail]

Tony, how long have I known you for? I believe it is at least since 1986. Yeah, long time. So we're going on almost 40 years here, and it just occurred to me the other day. There's one question I've never asked you, and it's particularly a timely question, given what we're going to talk about today. Have you or did you ever consider resigning from cabinet on a point of principle at any time in your either federal or provincial cabinet experience? I had a very adept ability of coming to the conclusion that I could live in principle with a decision that I did not like. So, no, I never came close to resigning because somehow my mind worked in a survivalist mentality.

No, that really wasn't a matter of principle worth dying for. Gotcha. Martha, how about for you? Ever an episode come up where you thought, I can't. I can't sit in this liberal caucus anymore if this is what we believe in. I chose not to run in 2015. Ah, okay. 100%.

For that reason. Yep, couldn't do it. Okay. So you definitely know what Stephen Gebo is facing and feeling right now. And Tony, you don't because you never managed to find an episode that rose to the level of principle. What does that say about our friend, Tony? I was going to ask you the same question. I had 10 years in the federal cabinet.

That's what it says. Well, he does have that over you, Martha. You got to admit. Yes, he does indeed. Okay, kids, let's get going. Time to talk everything political. Happy to welcome back, Tony Clement, the former cabinet minister, member of parliament, and Martha Hall-Finley, the former member of parliament and wishes she got to cabinet so she could have had that existential

question asked of herself, do I resign over a point of principle, but alas, that never came. Anyway, it's great to see you two again. We want to, we're going to talk about the deal that the federal government has struck with Alberta, of course, but I'm really fascinated by sort of what goes on behind closed doors when a minister falls on his sword the way that Stephen Gebo did over this agreement. So, Martha, why don't you start? us off here by just saying, what did you think about the fact that he did decide to resign over this agreement to begin with? First off, a bit of being impressed that he was willing to do that

based on principle. There's no question in this. We can talk about whether one agrees with his position on what Canada should be doing in terms of climate, which I don't. And frankly, not have never have but the issue here is did somebody act on their own principle based on their own principles and and i find it really hard not to respect that actually i think it was really important um it'll be interesting to see how some of the others in that caucus i don't think cabinet but others in caucus who who might feel strongly as well we'll see the rumblings we'll see what happens but i also think it's worth noting that daniel smith was booed by her own UCP Not all of them, but some of her own party booed her having done this deal as well.

And, you know, there's a part of me that says, well, you know, if Mark Carney did something and not everybody in his group feels supportive, Danielle Smith did something and not everybody agrees with her, there is that old saying that maybe actually did something that was good. Not everybody was happy about. We'll come back to the booing later. That's definitely something we should follow up on. But Tony, since you've been there, give us a sense of what happens to a cabinet when a minister, and I guess you were in cabinet when Michael Chong resigned. I was going to raise that. Yes, yes, definitely.

So maybe just for those who don't remember, tell us what the issue was, the fact that he resigned on a point of principle because of it, and what that did to the rest of the team after he did so. Well, in that particular case, Mike Chong did resign on principle. I had a very hard conversation with him. I thought it was the absolute wrong thing to do, but he felt that the parliament recognizing la nation Quebec was, the Quebec nation, was a wrong move during the Harper years

and quit on principle as a result of that. I went up to Mike and I said, Mike, you realize, of course, that conservatives form government. once every 20 years maximum, like maximum, and you are resigning from a cabinet that will not come around again for another 20 years, which has proved to, prescient when I said that. Yep.

So, you know, make sure this is really what you want to resign for. He did. And, you know, I think back to an adage attributed to Henry Kissinger in these sort of situations. You know, one should resign based on principle, never resign based on pecking order or, you know, things like that. You imagine slights. And I think for Gibo, I think that he, I think this was building for a while. He saw the writing on the wall in terms of the direction of Carney, Prime Minister Carney at his cabinet that was not as, you know, forceful. on climate change issues, as was Mr. Trudeau.

So I think this was— But I'm going to come back at you on this. Yeah. I want to come back at you because I—you know, we can only imagine right now, because not too many people are talking about it, we can imagine what Giebo's resignation is doing to the liberal cabinet and caucus right now. Right. But you've been in there and you've seen what happens.

It's destabilizing. It's destabilizing. It's destabilizing. Okay. Yeah, absolutely. And don't forget, Gibbo— Just go a little further. What does that mean?

Yeah, for Giebo, it's not just his position. as environment minister and the conscience of the Liberal Party caucus on climate change and environment after McKenna left. But it's also, he was Quebec lieutenant for that party. Let's not forget that role that he played. So the Prime Minister Carney has to replace two important roles within the Liberal Party. And I would say heritage minister is important, definitely. But Quebec lieutenant is very important. in our country as well. So I think that immediately that is destabilizing.

There are probably others who feel the same way in the Liberal Caucus as he does, that Carney is bending over too much backwards to accommodate fossil fuels and carbon and oil and gas. And so I think that that, you know, I got to say, you know, I think Carney knew that going into this, MOU with Alberta, but was willing to do that regardless of some choppy waters in his own cabinet and caucus as a result of that. I would argue that Stephen Gilbo, having been kept in cabinet, might have actually been destabilized. And what's really interesting to me is that poll after poll after pool, and not just since Carney arrived as Prime Minister, poll after poll after poll, pick your company, pick your polling company, has shown that by far the majority of Canadians

actually do support this kind of infrastructure. They actually do support our energy industry, partly because, and especially since Donald Trump's election, there's a heck of a lot more attention being paid to the fact that the Canadian economy isn't doing very well. You know, our productivity numbers suck. We're not, we're just not doing well and we're getting works relative to the American prosperity, relative to the other OECD countries. And I have actually been surprised at just how strong all of this polling has been. Climate is now, and this comes from somebody who feels really strongly about climate change. Like, we need to deal with this.

But, you know, Canada could shut down our oil and gas industry tomorrow, which is something Catherine McKenna was advocating for, and fundamentally not actually make a dent in global climate change. This is not a Canadian problem. It's a global problem. We're just not big enough. We're just not that big. You know, we produce 1.20th of the world's oil, for goodness sake, right? Like, shutting this down is not going to make a difference. That I think has been an irresponsible message from the last 10 years of politicians that somehow we could sacrifice our economy for the benefit of climate. It simply hasn't been true. And, Now, I mean, the pipeline and the Pathways project are completely intertwined.

Pathways, the goal of Pathways, is net zero production of our oil by 2050. Isn't that exactly what the environmental movement has been asking for? So you have a federal government, a provincial government, and six major companies all prepared to spend billions of dollars to actually reduce emissions. And the reaction has been, I think frankly, a little. little surprising. And I don't think most Canadians, I think most Canadians will be supportive of what Carney and Smith are doing. I want to ask about reaction, but I'm not ready to, I'm not ready to leave the cabinet reservation. Sorry, sorry. That's cool. That's cool. And of course, I guess I should say parenthetically, what you say is accurate in as much as if Canada shut down its oil and gas business

tomorrow, it would barely make a dent in anything having to do with climate change. But of course, the environmental argument is how do we get off telling anybody else to clean up their backyards if we're not prepared to show an example first anyway we can get to that in a bit we can get to that in a bit but i want to tony i'm still interested in in the reaction to gebo's standing down and and one of the things that has fascinated me as i watch all this take place is that usually well let me put it this way i suspect that if we were in other circumstances maybe with a different prime minister at a different time in our history and a senior minister like this resigned the the the apocalyptic reaction from media from social media from all kinds of

commentators would be something to behold and i don't unless i'm missing it i think the reaction to this has been well of course he resigned and now we're moving on have you been surprised at how little cataclysmic reaction there has been to all this well surprised and infuriated perhaps is why inferior well because the conservative party had a had a defection that we've talked about was d'antramal and that that that held a news cycle for days and what felt like days and days and days oh it was days and then a major a major cabinet force he has been for 10 years, Stephen Gilbeau, resigns, and it's like, oh, okay, what do we talk about next? Yeah, we saw that coming.

But Tony, that defection was tied inextricably to whether the budget was going to pass or not. Gilbo is left cabinet. He hasn't left office. But I think the dynamics were much more tied not to the individual defecting or the individual leaving. The dynamics were completely tied to a pretty fundamental question about whether this budget was going to pass. okay but allow me an opportunity martha to to strike at the windmills you know why why are we treated

one way and then the governing liberal party treat another but i take your point you think it's a double standard or you don't think martha makes a point you really think double standards are i think there are ways to make this cataclysmic for the liberal party but everybody's moved on you're quite right okay and i guess we will too then in which case uh here's something uh I want to tackle a little bit with you, too. And that is, you know, this is obviously a very different liberal party from the one that was led by Justin Trudeau. And in fact, I think many people make the observation, Martha, that this is more a kind of classic Ontario-style progressive conservative government rather than a federal liberal government. And I wonder whether you'd weigh in on that.

Oh, listen, having watched the effort that the Kraychan government after the Mulroney government, after Brian Mulrooney and Mike Wilson implemented the GST, which we have to remember was fundamental to the subsequent liberal governments being able to get our financial fiscal house in order. I have a huge amount of respect for those people. I mean, it was, you know, John Manley, I tell you, he had to cut his department by 50 percent. You know, people like John Manley and McClellan under Jean-Cretchen with Paul Martin's finance minister, they, I was just at a conference on the weekend and John Baird was publicly saying the best work that was done in that regard for the country was during that time under a liberal leadership. It was what they did that was more important than the

color. And, you know, I would say, you know, Mark Carney is an awful lot more like Peter Lockheed, who is a progressive conservative, conservative premier. I'm much more interested in what they're doing as opposed to the color. And it was very interesting hearing so many conservatives and liberals of the, you know, I think of myself as having been a blue liberal red Tory, however you want to call them, seeing what happened with Mark Carney and Danielle Smith as being something really important for the country. It's like, I don't care what color they are. Well, we do have to remember, Tony. Yeah, we do have to remember that there was on the front page of every paper in the country, I'm guessing about 40 years ago, a picture of Pierre Elliott

Trudeau. No, more than 40 years ago, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Peter Laheed, the liberal prime minister and the progressive conservative premier of alberta clinking champagne glasses when they came to an agreement on the oil and gas sector so tony i'm i'm betting you kind of like this carne government because it's a lot more conservative than the last one no i reject the premise of your argument and i reject the analysis of both of you esteemed people um i go for i think that um this government is not so different from the trudeau years although the gloss is different uh we will see where this takes us. And I'm not convinced we're going to see an oil pipeline. So it was a very relatively easy promise for Cardin to make. And he did, he did pay some price for it. I give him

that. But ultimately, is it going to be helpful to the country to have a pipeline? We can get into what E.B. is saying in British Columbia and indigenous groups and so on. We're not anywhere close to a pipeline, folks. Not anywhere close. So that's the first point. The second point I would like to make is that, and I have had, I will concede this for your audience, Steve. I've had conservatives come up to me and say, wow, you know, Mark Carney, he's like a progressive conservative prime minister. And I have said, you're wrong. That is absolutely false. No progressive conservative would have had a 78 billion dollar deficit in his first budget. I just, that would never happen with a progressive conservative or a conservative government. So, no, I, I disagree with

the premise i don't think he's acting like a conservative he's not spending like a conservative he's not saving like a conservative so no we have a liberal here folks well he he merely took three planks of the poliof platform and implemented them so how exactly is he and they're costly and how is exactly i mean he he's done some things that conservatives have been advocating you got to yeah no he's stolen you know that's another thing that um makes me uh tilt at the windmills because uh you know there are some people somewhere in Canada saying, you know, Pierre didn't really have any policies. That's why he lost. And I'm saying, well, Carney stole big chunks of his policies and embraced them as his own. So that's frustrating too. But no, I think, yes, of course,

you're right. There are certain policies that ring true as a conservative. But that is overwhelmed by the fiscal course. And Martha is quite right. We have some problems in this country still that have, have to be addressed. We're not addressed in the budget, have to be addressed. And that is what Pierre Paulyev is still talking about even today. Martha, how do you see it? Well, I mean, Tony, you know I'm a fiscal hawk, right? Like, I just finished talking about how important it was under the liberal government in the 1990s.

And I will also, let's just remember, the 1994 budget, We all knew that the country was in some pretty deep trouble. And the 1994 budget was kind of, eh, po-hum, a little bit. Didn't address, for many of us, the really deep problems. But what, and I think in retrospect, in history suggests, that that 94 budget needed to be a little bit less drastic to continue to get the Canadian public on side with some really tough things that needed to be done, reduction of significant spending, being one of them. By the time they got to the 1995 budget, I would argue they had successfully brought an awful

lot of the Canadian public along to be able to do what was then a really tough budget. I will always bring up, but absolutely. It was tough on the provinces, right, Steve? But it was, it was tough on. It was pretty tough on everybody, Tony, but it was absolutely critical for the country. But let's not forget. We have two fundamental things that are different now than for any government in a very, very long time. We have Donald Trump and we have the threat to what we're seeing in terms of other sort of more general economic prosperity.

And we have the invasion by Russia of Ukraine for the second time, mind you, a few years ago. We have to think about national security. We cannot ride on the American coattails anymore. and we frankly can't write on our other NATO allies, which we've kind of done. And so, yes, that budget had to have been and has to continue to be significantly higher for a number of things that we absolutely do. And give Carney a bit of credit. He didn't steal policies.

These are policies that many of us in the public policy space have been advocating for years. Here probably have didn't come up with them and make them up and then they got stolen. We've been advocating for this kind of work that we're starting to see being done. I wouldn't be surprised if the next budget is a lot tougher. Well, I mean, again, we're still waiting for Christmas, I guess. But, you know, I don't know what. Well, you are. I can tell by your sweater. Yeah, exactly.

But no, I look, I get a little bit impatient with, we went through eight months of wait for the budget. you know, this is going to really show where Mark Carney is going. The budget comes out, and now the argument is, well, wait for the next budget. So allow me to be a bit impatient on that front. But I agree with your analysis, Mark. Yes, we have to do. Yeah, that's exactly what happened 31 years ago. Well, yeah.

It was the first budget that laid the groundwork for the second tougher one. Which, you know, massively transfer payments, and that's how they got to balance. Let's not. Well, also cut massive spending in the federal, in some of the federal departments. Yeah. Which this government is going to have to do. The industry department, which nobody really cares about. I'm sorry, but, you know, I'm sorry, but I was an industry minister.

It had a role in responsibility, but it's not like cutting health care, which they did do through transfer payments. But anyway, that's a 30-year-old debate. We're not going to get anywhere on that one. But, no, I, look, I want Canada to succeed. I was, I thought this getting back to the MOU with Alberta, that was a big win. I think for Daniel Smith, there's no question about that. So why was she booed? Oh, because of the people who showed up at a conference where there was no, you know,

you just show up, right? It was UCP people. Yeah, but it was a particular group of UCP people. Let's be clear. Right. So I'm sort of like Stephen Gilbo, it represents a certain group of the liberal party. So I'm not sure it's the mainstream of the UCP. Let's say that at least.

and she had some red meat for that crowd anyway on the justice front, which is good. So, no, I think that I want to give a tiny bit of credit, if you'll allow me, to Prime Minister Carney, because I think this was a risky decision to get that MOU done, to lift the emissions caps and make other changes. You know, I've got to give him credit for that. If the purpose is to get a pipeline, I'm still unconvinced, but I want to give him credit for at least trying to find a way to work with Alberta. I think that's important for our confederation. It's important for Western alienation to be reduced and so forth. So, yeah, I'm willing to give credit where it's due.

Is it going to solve all of our problems? No. And certainly on the pipeline front, he's kind of kicked the ball down the road a little bit. And as we were seeing Premier Eby responding in real time as we over the last few days and there have been certain indigenous groups that are not too happy. So there's still a lot of work to be done

before there's an actual pipeline, that's my point. I'm going to follow up on all of those things which are important to follow up on. But before we get there, I want to know whether this kind of seals the casket on whether there are any political leaders in positions of power in this country anymore who care about climate.

change. And I know, I know, Martha, you're dying to jump in and stand by and let me just make the case here. You know, Mark Kearney, before he got into politics, was considered one of the leading people in the private sector in terms of how much he cared about climate change and what he was prepared to do about it or what he thought businesses ought to do about it. And then he becomes prime minister. He gets rid of the consumer portion of the carbon tax. He makes this agreement with Premier Smith of Alberta. He certainly looked, I mean, he's lost the most significant an environmental voice in his cabinet, who think that the government clearly has lost its mojo when it comes to caring about climate change. So is this issue well and truly dead in this country

right now? I think it's... Who do you want to jump in? Yeah, Maria, I guess Martha, because I told you to chill for a second, I should give you the first kick at unchilling on this. So go ahead. Absolutely disagree. There are an awful lot of leaders who care very, very deeply. about climate change. There are people like me who in the policy world care deeply about climate change, but also cared deeply about the fact that Canada for 10 years has been told, Canadians have been told, that if only we shut down what we're producing, that we'll somehow solve global climate change, which is not true. And at the same time, we're significantly affecting our economic prosperity. There is nothing I've seen, and Mark Kearney, to believe

that he believes any less about climate change. He did, um, His Minister of Natural Resources, they continue to talk about net zero by 2050. They continue to talk about how this is so important, the Pathways Project. The goal is net zero by 2050 in terms of all of our production of oil. That's not backing down on climate change. There was an agreement. It's not backing down, but it's too late. Some people will say it's too late.

But it's too late for the globe, Steve. I mean, the International Energy Agency has finally acknowledged after pretending for the last number of years, global demand for oil and gas is in fact going up, and it's going to continue to go up for a while. Does that give some of us comfort about climate change? Absolutely not, but it's a reality of the world. And Canada has to play in the world, and so we have to stop doing this. I'm just going to pretend I'm not paying attention. And I think it's actually really irresponsible for us to really challenge our own economic prosperity.

This is, we're a country of resources. We should be proud of that. fact, there are people around the world who would literally kill to have access to our resources. This is something we can provide to the rest of the world. We can help our allies in providing it to the rest of the world. Oil and gas, good heavens. We can actually supplant Russian oil and gas.

I'm pretty sure that that's a really important contribution that Canada can make to global security, especially if we do it and reduce our emissions associated with it at the same time. I mean, I think this is, frankly, a moment for Canada to find that how do we address climate change in the best way we can, best ways we can, but still also take advantage of what we have been blessed to have in order to enhance our economic prosperity. I think this is a moment. And you're convinced we can do both those things at the same time. I am absolutely convinced and I'm actually really proud of what Mark Carney and Danielle Smith managed to do last week. Tony? Yeah, it reminds me of the age old

quip about the definition of a conservative, who's a liberal who has been mugged. And, you know, I think the world has woken up to the fact that we're making progress on climate issues. I believe this is the first year that renewables have exceeded coal as an energy, in terms of energy use, which is, I think, that great. Is that worldwide or Canada only? Worldwide, worldwide. Worldwide. I saw that stat, and I'm not sure, but. Yeah, but, so, so that, that's, I think that's progress, and I think that's good for dirty coal, if it can be, uh, affordably, uh, supplanted by renewables.

That's, that's, that's all good for everybody. Um, and, uh, there certainly is a market for renewables now. There's, and the market is getting better. Most of it is controlled by the Chinese. That's a different issue, but it's certainly is an issue. And, uh, but, so. So yes, progress has been made there. But I think the reality has set in that we have other issues globally and Canada has issues. Martha, you mentioned our security issues. You're absolutely right. And globally, we have these security issues with China and Russia and Iran and other countries

that want to destabilize the world institutions and world security. so so I think other things have taken precedence that that's that is the way it should work and to those governments that don't heed that in at least in the democratic world they're they're going to face they're going to face angry voters who are getting poor and can't afford to live in an environment where just the eco evangelists are making all of the decisions right So I think this is a nice balance we're back into. Let's, okay, I want to probe that a little bit because, and you've raised this already, Tony, so let's go there now. And that is, you know, I guess this is either the $64,000 question if you like the old game show, or maybe it's the $2 trillion question if you want to consider the potential impact on the economy.

And that is, okay, Carney and Smith have an agreement. Now, what are the chances that it's actually going to happen? What are the chances that there's a private sector partner out there that wants to build a pipeline? What are the chances that the First Nations in British Columbia are actually going to go for this? What are the chances that the government of British Columbia, David Eby, the premier there, will actually, not that he has a veto, but you'd certainly like to have his consent. You'd like to have him on side if you were going to undertake this kind of ambitious project. Martha, there's a lot of what-ifs associated with this. How do you see them playing out?

Well, first off, I think it's totally inappropriate for Premier Eby to pretend to purport to speak for indigenous communities. The original, he can speak for the province, of course, but there are an awful lot of indigenous communities who were extremely frustrated when the first Northern Gateway did not proceed. Well over 30 communities were, in fact, left high and dry, and we're looking forward to economic benefits. So there is an awful lot of support. And I would say the industry has done so much better in engaging with communities upfront, equity partnerships, full-on engagement that is, frankly, from some of the tough learnings from the original Northern Gateway. So I would say Premier Eby does not have a veto.

It's a little thing called Section 9210A of the Constitution. Exactly. Interprovincial infrastructure is 100% federal. jurisdiction. That said, Christy Clark was Premier of British Columbia. She also did not have a veto, but she came up with her five conditions. And many of us objected at the time based on the constitutional piece, but there are nuances. And I don't want to put words in Christy's mouth, but we had this discussion just the other day. She knew that there wasn't the social license for a pipeline at the time. And so she actually, you know, set up a number of conditions that

weren't necessarily to flaunt the constitutional piece, but we're to actually allow something to get built in a way that was collaborative. I absolutely feel that that can happen. I absolutely feel that there are opportunities with even the few indigenous communities that are publicly saying, you know, we object simply because that world has changed so much. And there are so many communities that are seeing massive benefits from these arrangements. But, you know, I will also say I had a conversation with a senior representative from Trans Mountain the other day. And when that was being built, the expansion, it wasn't clear, right? It wasn't going to a big port with big, big tankers. It was having to go down into Vancouver. What is the demand going to be? How are we

going to do this? And this person said to me, we have been absolutely blown away by the demand from China for petrochemical stock, for NAPTA, for example. The demand, the other other country, in the Asia-Pacific region that are reaching out to Canada now, will it be tough? Chicken and egg. You're not going to produce oil. If you don't know, you have a pipe for egress, and you're not going to build a pipe until the producers actually get together

to say, yes, we're going to produce. I am actually very confident there's so much wealth under the ground. I am actually very confident that this will happen. And especially when you tie in the Pathways project to reduce the emissions associated with it. Tony, what do you think? What are the odds? I think that Martha is correct that there will be private sector interest, subject to there being a certain amount of certainty that we've resolved some of the underlying issues with governments. So I don't think elections happen.

How do you guarantee certainty when there are things called elections? I think, you know, you look at the polling in British Columbia, 60% of British Columbians are okay with the pipeline, but 60% of new Democratic supporters are against. the pipeline right so so premier that's the premier's position that's the premier's position and i and i get that so there has to be a way around that i i think his latest uh chit chat on that was that well uh he's okay with the pipeline as long as there's still a tanker ban i'm not sure how that works what's the point of that exactly yeah yeah so there obviously has some ground to be made up somewhere along the line on that but no i i think if you're asking me is there a business case for a pipeline? Martha is correct. It's not the current demand, but it's future demand, particularly

driven by Asia that I think will fuel that demand, pardon the pun. So yes, I think that part is good. And I think there is a way to negotiate with indigenous peoples that can create a win-win situation. And again, I don't know whether Mark Kearney thinks that he's made the announcement, he's got the MOU, his job is done, good luck. I don't think, I don't, in Martha, you're shaking your head too. Like, I don't think it's going to work that way. I think he's going to have to continue to be part of this project to smooth out the rough edges to get it to get it good. going. Absolutely, he does. And I think, I think that's true for Premier Smith. I think they're both, they're both very well aware that this is going to take a lot of work. Witness the fact that

in her home world, she had some of her people boo. And in Mark Carney's world, he had the resignation of a cabinet minister. If those two aren't the, you know, really good examples of there is still a lot of work to do, my gut feeling is that Canadians are going to look at this and say, wow, it's a heck of a lot better to have a prime minister and a premier of Alberta actually collaborating than continuing to fight. Absolutely. Especially from different parties. That's really something.

No, it's important. Well, okay, let's do one more go-around on this. And that is, I'm quite fascinated by the politics of all of this in as much as it was clearly important to the prime minister to go some distance to satisfy the province of Alberta, where he has very few seats. at the expense, potentially, of British Columbia, where he has a lot of seats. And that's an interesting decision to make. It's a political gamble.

It's a political risk. Tony, why do you think he went there? Well, I think that he went there because at the moment, one of the two existential threats to our Confederation is coming from Alberta. So I think that, you know, one of the, you know, you can say that the Canadian prime minister has two jobs. You've got two jobs. One is keep the country together and the other one is figure out a way to work with the American. Those are the two jobs.

That's it. So this one is because of the. This helps job one. This helps job one. And it might, as Martha keeps saying, I keep agreeing with Martha. What the heck is going on here? But it helps with job. I don't know, Tony, but it's working for me.

I think this is good. But it also helps job, too. I do see that. So, yeah, I think that he sees that moment. He saw that there was a way to get to an MOU. And obviously, Premier Smith's subdued reaction to the budget and reaction to the list of projects before the budget. illustrated that there was a lot of talking going on. Hodgson, the minister, the energy minister was a key part of that as well. So, yeah, I think that this, I think both, the way you get

somewhere is both sides want to win, right? They want to win out of the situation, which is the problem, Russia, Ukraine, by the way. Putin wants to take it all. He doesn't want to compromise to get a win. He doesn't see any win other than winning, right? But here there was an opportunity to come to some sort of agreement. The MOU, as I say, has other aspects to it that remove certain irritants of the Trudeau era. So, you know, Daniel Smith can rightly say that she has done something for Alberta, which is great. And, you know, there's going to be other issues in the future. I get that. But I think the country needed that at this particular moment. I think I again, one last codicil on this and then I'll shut up, but I think Pierre

Paulia's point is like, you know, we, we actually need stuff actually to get done. Agreements are one thing and Amity is another thing and all of that sounds great, but let's not forget we actually have to make progress on these issues. That's his point. To his point to stick a pin in it for now, He's never going to win the argument that this was terrible, and he knows that. He's stuck a pin in it for now in anticipation that maybe things are not as rosy as they seem at this particular jump. I do wonder, though, Martha, when the prime minister was sitting around with some of his political advisors, and they said to them, you know, boss, you can do this, but it may cost us a bunch of seats in British Columbia that we really can't afford to lose, and you won't get any seats in Alberta because you do this deal for them.

How did that conversation go? Do you not think that's kind of the definition of leadership? I mean, we whine all the time. We need more leadership. We need our leaders to show leadership. We need, you know, we need principle. We started this conversation talking about principle. I do not get the impression that Mark Carney is here to be here for a long time.

Right? This is his thing is I, he's not here to say I was, I was Prime Minister longer than Stephen Harper, or I was Prime Minister longer. I don't think that's in his DNA at all. I think Mark Carney is extremely ambitious, but ambitious to be seen to have a legacy for the benefit of the country. I really do believe that. And I think this is exactly that. Now, maybe just maybe when people show leadership, people in the country respond.

And, you know, I think the other part, I totally agree with it. Tony, this was really important from a national unity perspective. We still have a lot to do in terms of the agreement and relationship with the United States. I will repeat our best allies in terms of the tariff wars are, in fact, Americans. And we're starting to see Trump pulling back on some because it's hurting his own people. But I don't care what color they are. I want to see this work as a Canadian for me, for my kids, my grandkids.

I think this is, there are times when we need to have Canadian voters say, hey, that actually took a lot of effort and some risks, some political risk, maybe we should reward it. Yeah, it does remind me of a line that Doug Ford, the Premier of Ontario, likes to use all the time, which is, I don't care if an idea is, you know, if it's from the blue team, the red team, the green team, the orange team, if it's a good idea, I'm prepared to do it. And, yeah, Canadians seem to be of that mindset as well.

Okay, friends. In our last few minutes here, let's do this part of the program, which is part of our regular feature called Good On You, where the two of you get an opportunity, in spite of all the death and destruction we see around us to find something in public life worth appreciating. So, Tony, fire away. Who gets your good on you this week? Well, it's repetitive. I was going to say Mr. Gidabo and, you know, for a principled stand. And I know how tough it is to leave Cabinet. I don't know. But I imagine. imagine how tough it is to leave cabinet. So that's a heart-wrenching decision and changes your life. And there's been a lot of these in the last 10 years that, you know, Judy Wilson-Ra-Bold and so on have done this thing, which it's very strange. Jane Philpott? Yeah, Jane Philpott.

It's very strange for a conservative who thinks that liberals have no principles to see the principled liberals leaving the cabinet. But my mind is blowing here. I don't know what to say. But good on, good on Mr. Gibbo for making a principal to see. Very good. Martha? I think we just saw something really pretty historical for the country.

So my good on you goes to actually Mark Carney and Danielle Smith. And for coming to an agreement. And the people around them for, as you said, Stephen, some of them might have been saying this might be politically really challenging, especially in that context for supporting something. that I do think might turn out to be really quite historical. And two different parties, I think that's a really important aspect. Gotcha. Great to be with you, too.

As always, we'll see you in a couple of weeks. And in the meantime, everybody, we always love getting your feedback at the Paken Podcast at gmail.com. That's the Paken podcast at gmail.com. Tell your friends and family about this. What do the kids say? Like and subscribe. And we'll see you next time. Peace and love, everybody.

Thanks. Thank you.