The Paikin Podcast - Everything Political: Did Danielle Smith Just Pull a Brexit?

Episode Date: May 29, 2026

Everything Political panel with former MPs Martha Hall Findlay and Tony Clement discusses Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s approach to separatism and a potential referendum, why she is being criticized from all sides, why Tony thinks she can’t squash a referendum right now, the tightrope she is walking, if she is fanning the flames of separatism, and if it could backfire and become another Brexit situation. They then discuss the 14 Liberal MPs questioning Carney’s stance on the environment, MP Steven Guilbeault’s announcement that he is resigning, if Canada is “backsliding” on climate, and the usual round of “Good on Yas.”   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] 

Hey, you two. I know we have a bit of a tradition here whereby we start the program by reading off some emails from people who can't stand Tony. And we'll never watch the show again unless we get rid of Tony. But we're going to mix it up a bit this week because Martha, we didn't want you to feel left out of this love fest as well. And we have some, well, we have some thoughts from somebody who's got a bit of a bone to pick with you. I'm teasing that now. We'll hear from that viewer later in the show. And I just want to ask, Tony, aren't you glad you're off the not. list this. I'm very happy. Thank you, audience. You've been great. Thank you. Yeah, it won't last. I can assure you. Where are you incidentally? I'm in Gatno and just outside of Ottawa for the, but in Ottawa is the CanSec, the Canadian Security and Defense Conference, which is a big jamboree. That's for sure this year. The prime minister was there. He's the first prime minister to attend. I'm just wondering,

Martha, are you in the market for a tank or an RPG? Because Tony could probably score a good deal for you. Tony, you and I can talk later, okay. Guys, I should let you know as well. I was at a thing last night. It was a small little dinner, maybe 20 people in the room, and the star of the show was a guy named Stephen Harper. And it was a kind of an off-the-record chat, so I'm afraid I cannot share what was discussed.

But outside the room, after it was over, I went up to this guy, the former Prime Minister of Canada. That guy. That guy. That guy. And I said to him, you've been a lifelong, Toronto Maple Leaf fan, yes. And you represented Alberta in the Parliament of Canada.

Yes. So tell me, who are you cheering right now for the Stanley Cup? What was his answer to me? Shout it out. Montreal. Montreal. Yes. And I said to him, you have no idea how disappointed I am right now.

Because I don't know how lifelong Leaf fans can cheer for the Montreal Canadians, even if they're the last team standing in the Stanley Cup playoffs, which they're still alive, the last Canadian team standing. Yeah, still alive. I don't get it. Yeah, well, there's a lot of these fans that are with us right now, and we're very welcoming. No, you're not. You troll me after every Canadians win.

Well, that's true. That's just so not true. I do troll. I do send a text to Mr. Paken with my thoughts when the Canadians win. That is true. Because you're appalling. And with that, let's get to everything political. Delighted to welcome back, Tony Clement, the former Ontario and federal conservative cabinet,

and Martha Hall-Finley, the former Liberal MP, now head of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary. Hello, you too. Hello. And, of course, Alberta is front and center in our country this past week because the Premier of Alberta is asking Albertans in a referendum that will ask many, many questions. What are we up to? Ten questions right now?

Later this year in October, one of the questions will be, should we have a future referendum in the province of Alberta to negotiate terms of sovereignty with the government of Canada, or do you want to remain one of ten provinces in Canada? That's the, essentially, that's the question. Martha, what do you think of this approach by Premier Danielle Smith? Look, she is in a very tough spot. There's no question there are people in her own party who are advocating for separation I think the leader of one of the leaders of the separatist movement has come out and said,

oh yeah, the majority of the UCP. This is a tough time for the premier. I'm not, you know, I'm not here to defend or promote. I just, it's a lot more complicated for her than I think people realize.

I mean, let's not forget her predecessor, Jason Kenney was in effect put put out to pasture by the same party. And so she knows that that's possible. And so I think she's, really trying to find a way. By all accounts, it's not resonating very well because she's being criticized from all sides. I think that the people like me who are very much federalist, very much worried about this, are worried that this is just, this is prolonging this challenge.

And what's worrying about that is that it's starting to feel more. you know, I mean, even a couple months ago, I was one of the ones saying, no, no, you know, lots of people wanted to sign the petition, but, you know, most people are not going to say yes in a referendum. But it feels like this is getting a little, it's getting a little bit more concerning on the ground. So any prolongation, I think, is a challenge. A very long-winded answer. I do not relish the situation that the Premier finds herself in. No, there's no question. She's walking a terrible tightrope. white right now. And Tony, I think the poll Martha was referring to, showed that 57%, no, let me back up, while maybe 25% of Albertans generally favor sovereignty at the moment, 57% of members of the United Conservative Party favor separation from Canada. If you're the leader of that party and the

premier of Alberta, what do you possibly do with a number like that? And with the court, case that tossed out the preferred referendum wording of the separatists. I will repeat what Martha said. She's in a tough spot, the Premier of Alberta. I go back to my Shakespeare, as you know I want to do. And there's a lovely line in Macbeth, if it were done when tis done, then twere well, it were done quickly. So in this case, let's get this, you know, I want to get this over with.

I have, but it's not going to be over soon. We got another five months of this. Yeah, that's five months. I agree. That's not optimal, but it's better than five years or better than, you know, 10 months or 15 months. And I just think, I think every, you know, a lot of things start to go on hold after a while.

It hasn't happened so far. The Alberta economy is on fire right now. It's doing so well. I think the 2.7% GDP growth or something amazing like that. So it hasn't hit. and I hope it doesn't. But I think if the premier were to squash the idea of a referendum right now, that would be very bad, very, very bad.

Well, and I think if I can jump in, when I was saying, and I love how Shakespeare said what I was trying to say so much better. But not to not to, like I worry when I was saying that her tightrope is just between her and her party and her party fortunes. Because I think what Tony just said is, is potentially very worrisome. If she tried to do something quickly now, it could actually fan the flames.

And that's not what we want to have happened. And so that's, to me, that's very much, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I just, there are a lot of us quite worried now about what might make this worse and what might, help and it's not at all clear. It's not clear. Well, I can think I just go ahead, just let me finish the thought I was going to say and I'm respectful of Martha. She made a good

point on top of mine. But the one other thing I want to say is that, you know, I know a lot of Ontarians that I talked to say, why are we going through this? You know, what's wrong with Albertans that they have to do this? And I would just say, it's easy to blame Albertans or Alberta or a mentality, but it goes further than that. And I want to, this is just Tony Clement talking, but I really think that this is a manifestation of a bigger problem we have in Canadian democracy. And I'm doing this not as sour grapes. I want to make this clear.

But we don't really have a lot of political alternation in our federal politics. Liberals win 80% of the time. Once in a generation, you might have a conservative prime minister. and they go off into the sunset and then it's liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal again. And for parts of our- Can I challenge you a bit on that? Well, can I finish my thought and then you can challenge away? Finish the thought, then I'm going to challenge. You know, it's frustrating for regions of our country that don't necessarily like voting liberal

to be out, you know, in the past year land, wondering, you know, who's actually running the country for them. And so I would just like to say that none of this ever came up when Steve, Stephen Harper was prime minister with a lot of liberal, a lot of conservative MPs who are part of government. And obviously he was a, he was an Alberta MPs, part of government. Excuse me. So, so I think that, that that's, that's one of the underlying issues. I don't know how to solve that. I just think that we just elect a lot of liberals, a lot of the time in this country. And at some point, you got to pay the piper. And that's what we're doing now. Okay, two things in response to that.

Number one, I don't think I would be betraying confidences if I said Stephen Harper made the same point in our private meeting last night that you just made, which is to say that when he was the Prime Minister of Canada, the forces in favor of separation in the province of Alberta were zero. So that's number one. I think it's beyond debate that many of the policies of the last, well, how far back do we want to go? Let's say during the Justin Trudeau years in Ottawa, account for the increasing antipathy that

some Albertans have for being part of our Federation right now. So that's number one. Number two, I want to do a bit of the math here. And look, tell me I'm wrong if I'm wrong about this. But I do hear this from conservatives from time to time, which is to say that there's not enough alternation here and that liberals are in power 80% of the time. And Tony, you just said it. I note that the liberals right now have been in power for 11 years.

but before that it was Stephen Harper for nine or ten. And before that, it was Jean-Cretchen for nine or ten. And before that, it was Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell for nine. And before that, you know, there does seem to be at least in the last half century some pretty decent alternation between liberals and conservatives, would you not say? Yeah. In the 20th century, I think the number is 80% liberal. So, and then you tack on the 21st century and conservatives did a little bit. better, courtesy of Stephen Harper.

But who knows how long the current liberal overlords will rule for, I don't know. So, yeah, it's an open question. Well, I think, Steve, your numbers are the most appropriate because they do reflect the last 50 years, right? And I think those are the ones that are relevant. That said, so I don't, I struggle with the same. Oh, it's always a liberal government. I struggle with that a little bit because I just don't think that's been true and you've highlighted that. All of that said, though, there is a really big problem with our electoral system that the government gets elected before people in Alberta are even casting their votes.

Like, we do have a problem in how we are represented. I don't know the answer. There have been lots of, you know, things floated, but I've been in Alberta for time. 10 years, over 10 years. I don't feel as though my, like, the federal elections are decided before, you know, it even gets to counting Albertan ridings. So I, I do think Tony has a point that people are upset here. They're more upset when it's been a liberal government that was really challenging, no question in the last 10 years. But it isn't just whining about liberals. There is really a fundamental problem with, are we actually being represented? Do our votes actually count?

Hey folks, you know that Ottawa loves a great debate, competition, innovation, affordability, and if there's a policy angle and a panel attached to it, even better. But here's one thing that's really not up for debate. Canada's banking sector is anything but static. Banks are competing every day on service, speed, security, and innovation. That competition pushes banks to keep improving how they serve Canadians. And because none of that matters without security, Canada's banks are investing heavily in technology, in AI and cybersecurity to help protect Canadians' information and money. It's no wonder that nearly nine and ten Canadians trust their bank to protect their personal information. That kind of confidence is earned. And it's one more reason

to believe Canada's banks are on your side. For all the essential information, head over to this special website. CBA.ca.ca. forward slash trust. That's CBA.coma. forward slash trust. And now back to the show. Let me try this here. And we have all acknowledged the tightrope that Daniel Smith is walking right now and how difficult it must be to try to be a federalist at a time when the majority of the members of your own party seem to want to vote to leave. Having said that, there is a view out there, and I'd like both of you to comment on it, Martha, you first, that at some point, Daniel Smith simply should have said to the wing of her party that is really gung-ho for separation, you know what?

You guys want independence. You're out of my party. I'm the leader of the party. Go start your own party if you want to be independent. But the United Conservative Party believes in a strong sovereign Alberta within a united Canada. If you don't like it, lump it, take it down the road and dump it, as Archie Bunker used to say. What do you think that? There are a lot of people who would like to have seen that for sure. I did mention earlier, she also knows what happened to her predecessor, Jason Kenney, with the same party

and some of the challenges that he had. But fundamentally, we elect our political leaders to lead. And I, I wonder now if she herself is wondering whether she might have been tougher earlier on this point. I'm, I'm convinced that she. Do you have any reason to believe that? I don't. I, but I'm, I'm, I absolutely firmly believe that she herself is a federalist. She is, you know, when she says, she repeats that it may not sound strong enough for some, but I'm, I'm, I'm confident that she herself is. but she's in a tough spot now. I can't help but think that maybe she's she's looking backward and a little bit in saying, you know, maybe I should have nipped this in the bud.

Tony, what do you think? She did run on a more sovereign Alberta, that there are things that you could do within our federation that could give Alberta more levers of power, whether it's having its provincial police force or having its own pension plan. You know, you can go down the list. But not its own country. She didn't run on that or on a referendum.

No, no, I know. No, and the party, the party itself, the documents of the party are within a united Canada. Right. Right. But I'm just saying that she, you know, to those, and I know you're not saying it, Steve, but to those who would say that she didn't run on this, she did run on sovereignty, not separation. I get the difference in distinction. But absolutely. But she did raise these issues because I think she knew that.

it would be popular, you know, that there is an audience for that, both within her own party and perhaps more broadly as well. So I think that everybody is commenting on how this is like Brexit and, you know, David Cameron lost control of the Brexit debate when he called the referendum in the UK. Well, you got to admit there's some parallels here, right? Yeah, but yes and no. Well, yes, let's say there are, but there's all. also lessons to be learned for the remain side. I can use that terminology because they did a, in the UK, they did a whole thing that became characterized as project fear, right? You can't vote for Brexit because everything is going to be a shambles and cats will be sleeping with dogs and,

you know, it's going to be horrible. Right. And that actually drove more votes to Brexit because people looked at these established elites in their country and saying they're full of, Yeah, they didn't believe the fearmongering. They did not believe the fear mongering. And so I just, I'm praying that Mark Carney and others in leadership do not fall for that trap either because I can see it having a boomerang effect in Alberta. Well, let's talk boomerang effects for a second. Martha, we heard the prime minister the other day come out and say, you know, 50% plus one is not going to be good enough for either Quebec or Alberta to leave the federation if it comes down to that. and he pointed out there is a law in place.

It's called the Clarity Act, and I kind of like this line. He said the Clarity Act is pretty clear, as the name of the act would indicate. Is the math here as compelling in Alberta as it appears to be in some of the rest of the country? Oh, listen, Tony, Tony's so right on this that if you only go with fear, it could backfire the way it did with Brexit. And I think that's back to my earlier point. I think the Premier is worried that if she comes out too strongly, it might fan the flames, right? So there's all these complications. The fact is that it would be terrible economically for the province.

I mean, fundamentally, it's going to help you build a pipeline through British Columbia by separating from Canada. How exactly? I mean, it makes absolutely no sense economically. it's turning away investment already. Like this is a really big economic problem, a very big problem from an Alberta prosperity perspective. But if we only talk about how bad it would be, we do risk what happened with Brexit. From my perspective, I made a conscious decision to move to Alberta because I love it here.

And I love it here because of all of the opportunities that it has as part of kids. Canada, right? I don't, I don't want to give those up. And there are lots of things that we can do that are positive. And so I really think Tony's point is an important one. We have to learn, we have to, I hope we've learned, I hope we will have learned from the mistakes that were made by the Remain side, as you called it, in Brexit, and really, really go hard on why it's so fantastic to be a part of this country. And we'll be back right after this. I want to do one more round with you to on this issue. And I think, Martha, you raised the notion earlier of what, you know, what could potentially be this, you didn't use these words, but it's essentially the same idea,

the skunk at the garden party here. What could really be a kind of last minute haymaker that could, who knows what, upset the apple card. I'm not sure how many metaphors I want to mix here. And I'm going to put something on the table here and then let me get you both on this. Tony, do you first? A couple of weeks before the questions in the Alberta referendum, referenda, go to the people of that province, there's going to be an election in Quebec. And there's every possibility, admittedly, polls today tell you what people thought yesterday. They do not predict what people will do five months from now. But if the polls remain the same, the Pacti-Chebecois will be the next government of Quebec,

and they've already pledged to have a referendum on Quebec sovereignty in, what is it? Certainly their first term, maybe even their first year in power. Tony, how can we imagine what impact that might have the election of a separatist government in Quebec on the outcome of the referendum questions being asked in Alberta? Well, I could go one of two ways on that. Either it compels it forward or it reduces it. It compels it forward because Albertaans say, well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, or it can reduce it because Albertans say, well, those Quebecers are crazy.

Why would we listen to what they're doing in their arguments? So, you know, I don't really know. But I do know that, well, first of all, I think the polls are a little bit better in Quebec than they were when Francois Lago was Premier. And Frasette, Premier Frachette is competitive. So hopefully things transpire to make that issue go away. But if they don't and the Pratsi Quebecois is successful, I think there, I think the mood in Quebec is this is not the right time to have a secession referendum with Trump and the US and you know, maybe let sleeping dogs lie for at least a little while. I think there's the latest

poll I saw in Quebec was 25% in favor of independence. That's all. You know, for Quebec, that's a low number. Yeah. So, yeah, I think we might dodge a bullet there. I guess we'll see what happens. But, you know, when I look back, you know, Steve, you and I were around for the 1995 referendum in Quebec. And, you know, that was scary. That was really scary because as it turned out later, and we didn't have a clarity act. The clarity act was in response to the 95 referendum. So it was 50% plus one vote. that would have created a problem. And what transpired after that vote is that it became clear that the separatists had a plan

for a unilateral declaration of independence. They were going to go to the Van Dues and other military bases in Quebec and say, these are now under the control of the government of Quebec. And, you know, all the liberal cabinet, Tony, had already, The liberal cabinet had made plans to dump Jean-Cretchen because, of course, if Quebec was leaving, you couldn't have a Quebecer as the Prime Minister of Canada. We came this 50,000 votes close to absolute chaos and mayhem and perhaps civil war. And so I just, I'm sorry, I don't get that vibe in the province of Alberta right now. I was in Calgary last week.

I know I'm an observer. I'm not a, I'm not a citizen who lives in Alberta, but I just don't get that vibe. So I'm really hopeful we can, I trust in Alberta, what it comes down to for me as an Ontarians, I trust Albertans, I trust that they'll make the right decision, and I trust we can move forward to do some really great things in this country and Alberta leading the way in this country, which they should, quite frankly, on many, many different issues. they should lead this country. And that's what I'm praying for because I trust Albertans.

Martha. Well, let's just, I thank you for that, Tony. And I agree, of course, with certainly that last part about Alberta being in an incredible position to lead this country. I think a lot of people felt that that was being held back by the federal government that we'd had in a while. and so that clearly added to the frustration. But it is such a great and compelling narrative for Alberta now that there is this opportunity, not just to be part of Canada, but to lead in so many ways.

And certainly there will be many of us who are, who will be who are and will continue to be taking that message to the street. I think in a way, if there is a referendum in Quebec, it might actually be the let's have a referendum it's likely to lose the polls are very strong and then it might that might actually finally put that issue to bed um people have been frustrated with lego not necessarily frustrated with you know enough to leave canada that those are different issues so so different reasons for that for wanting to have a referendum um i would also point out though, Quebec has access to a big ocean, right? It has big ports. Alberta doesn't.

And Alberta is landlocked. And to me, there is a real worry that if Alberta separates from Canada, its only option is then to become, I hate to say it, but the 51st state. And that's a, that's an alternative that is very different from what my, might be the conversations being had in Quebec. And so I think, you know, that I don't want to go down the fear factor, Tony, but I do think sometimes it's important to make people, remind people of some of these sort of fundamental geographical limitations. And if the scenario you've just laid out comes to pass, Martha, I don't think there's,

and maybe you guys can weigh in on this if you want, I don't think there's any doubt, but that there would be elements in the United States that would be financing the independence movement in Alberta in order to bring Alberta on as a 51st state. I know we're going down the road here, but I totally see that happening. There's no question. Anyway, anybody I've talked to who has some understanding of some of the conversations being had in the states, everybody says, do not believe for a minute that that isn't already happening, that there is there already is real worry that, and whether it's

official, you know, U.S. administration or not, there is, we need to be concerned about it. Put it that way, Steve. Can I just throw in some U.S. politics in all of this? Maybe this will help clarify the issue for some people on this 51st state of Alberta thing. This is Tony Clements Clarity Act. It's my own clarity act. You know, they still can't get the Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico as states because they're both democratically leaning entities.

and so the Republicans stonewall it year after year, decade after decade. Do you think that the Democrats are going to allow Alberta to be a 51st state if it is perceived to be conservative, which by the way, I don't think it is in the U.S. context, but that's another issue. So this is, you know, this whole thing about 51st state, it's just a pipe dream. Oh, they could be some Commonwealth association with the United States like Puerto Rico, but you won't get the representation in Congress, which is surely one of the things that you want to have. If you want political sovereignty and independence, you want to at least have a say in another entity. So this is so wacky this whole thing.

I'm sorry, but it's not ever going to happen. I just wanted to, I was fuzzing with my phone here because somebody sent me something recently that they made up. And I'm going to show it to you guys here if I can figure this out. It says, hashtag proud Albertan, Prouder, Canadian. And it's a, I don't know if you can see that, but it's a logo that somebody made up and wants to kind of get out there on social media. But they sent it to me and they wanted e-blast it all over the place. And I'm showing it here because they asked me to. You know what?

You know what the most patriotic place in the country is every year, Steve? Tell us. Calgary Stampede. Oh, yeah. Calgary Stampede. They have recognition of Canadian veterans every single Stampede day. They have the horses racing around with the Canadian flag fluttering away. They robustly sing, Oh, Canada, almost as well as they do at the Bell Center in Montreal all these days.

I had to get that point in. In Buffalo, New York. That's right in Buffalo, New York. But the point is, when people ask, you know, where's patriotism in our country? I say it's in Calgary, Alberta during the Stampede. Beautiful. Why would that ever change? For goodness sakes.

Well said. Okay, folks, we got to raise a little money here to keep the lights on. So to that end, I'm going to do an ad read. And we have a quick word here from a company you've all no doubt heard of. It's called Anthropic. And they are the team behind Claude. Every story here starts with someone wanting a deeper understanding of the world. So should the AI you turn to.

That's why conversations with Claude are ad-free. No sponsored answers. No third-party deciding what Claude shows you. Claude is built to expand your thinking, not hold your attention. Try Claude for free at, here's the website, clod.aI, and see why problem solvers choose Claude as their thinking partner. And I wonder if it's pronounced Claude in a belle province of Quebec.

I'm not sure. Bon question. Bon question. Okay. All right-in'allé, too, moment. That's the end of block one. Let's go to block two here. We want to talk about the liberals,

not and Mark Carney, but the liberals versus Mark Carney. And to get us started in this second block here, Martha, now's where we get to the point where somebody's not in love with you. This is a note from Rick Monroe who wanted to comment

on the occasionally difficult exchange you had in our last show with Burlington Liberal MP Karina Gould. Here's what he writes in. This is Rick Monroe writing. Rick says, I saw no basis for Martha Hall-Findley's claim that she was subjected to disrespect or condescension by Karina Gould. She was closer to the mark when she conceded her sensitivity to prior portrayals of her as being insufficiently concerned about climate change, weak regarding environmental protections,

and supportive of oil and gas expansion. As for, quote, things that some of us have known for a long time, close quote, her comment reminded me of the warnings of Dr. James Black and other Exxon scientists regarding global warming a half century ago. If Martha Hall-Finley has been aware of those warnings and of the confirming evidence, why does she promote ever more production and combustion? Okay, Martha, over to you. Well, first, a shout out to Rick for listening, watching.

I think that's fantastic. That's exactly what Steve, you know, you're trying to do and we're trying to do is to foster participation and engagement. So thank you. I think last time I said we hadn't, you know, people were dumping on Tony and I was saying, well, maybe it's just because I'm crushingly boring. Apparently I'm not. So you. Apparently not. But in all seriousness, Rick, I do appreciate the comment.

And I, one, I. have known about climate change, look at the color of my hair, I've known about climate change and the warnings for a very long time now, and have heated them. And I do think that the world needs to do more in terms of addressing it. Where I encourage more production is specifically with respect to Canada. So when we know, when the International Energy Agency has finally come around to realizing demand for oil and gas globally is not going down. It continues to go up. That this is a path the world is on that that Canada alone is not going to change. So my point was also, for example, in reference to the Pathways Carbon Capture Project, would reduce global emissions by a whopping

0.02%. If we were when we started that project, if we were part of a global consensus that was everybody was in fact doing their part and all these countries around the world were in fact all collaborating to reduce our emissions well heck that's why i was so involved in getting the pathways project off the ground that's not the case anymore the world has changed dramatically and so yes if in our reality the world is still using and continues to use more and more oil and gas globally. We're not going to stop that. I'm not going to stop that, but I sure would prefer Canada to displace production from countries like Russia and Iran. And that was my point about encouraging more Canadian production, encouraging a pipeline to the West Coast, is that we're,

you know, I sometimes talk about Canada's faults, arrogance. We're, we just don't contribute that much. But we could, in fact, play a significantly better role. role in terms of responsible production that does adhere to significant environmental labor, rule of law concerns. So I'm actually very proud of Canada's production of oil and gas. And like I said, I think there's a real opportunity now. Our allies are clamoring for our energy. Other countries around the world are looking to us to help provide energy security. So no, do I take any pleasure in the fact that the world continues to emit more and more? No, I think that's a challenge because climate change is a problem.

Where I focus, though, is I am a Canadian. And right now, I believe that we have a role that we can play that would be very significant that would, in fact, involve more Canadian production and export of those products. So I hope that addresses the nuance of my recommending more production in Canada. I think we will hear back from Rick one way or the other. to how satisfied with that answer he is. And if he's got something else to say, I may come back at you next time again, Martha.

I love the engagement. Fantastic. Beautiful. Yeah, Rick, thanks. And by all means, this is an invitation to everybody, actually. Keep the cards and letters coming because we're happy to put them to our two ex-parliamentarians here. Rick got some sustenance for his side of the argument this past week in the nation's capital, of course, because it has emerged that 14 liberal MP backbenchers in the government caucus

are deeply concerned and have apparently written a letter, although at the moment the names are mostly anonymous, have written a letter to the Prime Minister complaining about his so-called environmental backsliding from the standards that were put in place when Justin Trudeau was the Prime Minister. We've also seen the specter, just as we sit here taping this today,

of Monsieur Guibo de la Belle Provence de Quebec, announcing that he is resigning, not only from the government caucus, but his seat entirely, and he wants to fight for a less polluted environment outside of the political arena. These, Tony, are the first kind of significant rumbling since Mark Carney became Prime Minister that there is unhappiness on the back benches. What do you make of it? I don't want to overplay it, Steve, as much as my partisan side would love to. But I think Mark Carney has a pretty good level of control in his.

government and his caucus for the time being. Is it significant? I'm not sure how significant, but it is noteworthy. I'll go as far as to say noteworthy that this is happening. And to me, it's it is a price of leadership. You know, when you're prime minister, you've got to make decisions. And some of those decisions are not going to be, if they're sort of off the beaten path of the culture of your political party, they're tougher to make than the usual ones

that slide into the obvious tradition and culture of a political party. And, you know, the liberal party is not used to in the last 10 years promoting pipelines and critical minerals and all the other things that we've got to do to be part of the world economy and to show that we've got sovereignty. So, yeah, you know, being prime minister, being government, is making choices. sometimes they're tough choices. Sometimes there's going to be some blowback. I think this this qualifies as that. Does it mean the beginning and the end of Mark Carney? I sure as heck wish it does, but it doesn't. Let's let's be honest. Sorry, Tony. I don't think so. But I do wonder, Martha, I do wonder what it does to a caucus and to kind of the sense of trust and collegiality in a caucus when, you know, I mean, 14 out of 170 is not necessarily, as Tony points out, disastrous, but it's something, I mean, it is noeworthy that this many people are prepared to sort of, although they haven't put their names on it, but they're prepared to let it be known out there,

that they're unhappy with the leadership, Mr. Carney, is showing on issues of the environment and climate change. How big a deal do you see it as? Well, first off, I'm not a big fan of anonymity. I think it would be much stronger if the people signing this letter would actually be open about who they are. In terms of caucus, there's virtually no topic that will engender unanimity in a caucus, especially not a caucus that big. And Tony, you can speak to that too. Behind closed doors, when you have those open meetings, there will always, and should always be people who are willing to speak their minds, willing to raise their concerns if they have them. Sometimes you require you know, unanimity out front or in voting.

But I can't think of a single issue when I was there that everybody agreed on all the time. But fundamentally, it's leadership. And caucus, you know, there's a joke running around. Somebody should remind those 14 people why they still have jobs. Because if it weren't for Mark Carney coming in, not knowing who they are, it's hard to know whether they would still be elected or not. but chances are pretty good. A lot of them would have, would not have been elected. And so, you know, Mark Carney presented an opportunity, an image of leadership to the country.

The country responded. Mark Carney knows what this country has to do. We have to spend way more money on national defense. Tony mentioned sovereignty, national security, our economic prosperity. And just finally, if I can, a message to those 14. would be exactly what I just said to Rick, who wrote in his concerns to the show. Lose this false arrogance that somehow Canada in 2026, without the rest of the world's consensus, which we did see for the most part in 2020, 21, there was an effort that Canada do its part.

Mark Carney is smart enough to realize that the world has changed, Canada's needs have changed, and that Canada has a role to play that is important. Somehow, you know, cutting off our oil and gas production in Canada would do virtually nothing to global emissions right now, but could, in fact, accomplish some very much more significant things, both for Canada, but also for like-minded countries and our allies. And so, you know, I think Mark Carney just carry on showing that leadership and that will have more power over your caucus than any.

anything else. Show that leadership because that's what the country needs. Gotcha. All right. Let's go to block three. And for this block, I thought, you know, we pointed out already that we do get quite a number of emails, letters, et cetera, to this show that people want you folks to comment on. So let's do that in this block here. And I'm going to start with a viewer named Tyler Firth. He's from the wonderful city of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Here here. And Tony, we did not. Yeah. Tony, you and I are both from Hamilton. But I don't know whether you're going to like Tyler. And here's why.

Tyler's writing, I'm still waiting for Tony to defend his flippant remark that we should all thank Jean Cretchen for his, quote, harsh, brutal austerity from the 1990s. I am genuinely curious, Tyler writes, about how he'd account for this position. I'm not looking for a futile political fight. The obsession with balanced budgets so often cited by conservatives can be directed. can be directly linked to the existential wealth and income inequality crisis we face today. Consequently, the idea that public debt is a threat to our prosperity is a myth, says Tyler, and he has in brackets here, the deficit myth.

Stephanie Kelton, Public Affairs Press 2020, a book he's recommending. It's been used by people of Tony's ilk to ravage our once secure social safety net, and look where it's got us. Okay, Tony, your turn to respond to Tyler. Tyler, thanks for that. I mean, that is an alternative worldview. And it's great that we can have these discussions. I'm glad I'm in Jean-Cretchen's camp with viewing deficits as potentially over time

and existential threat. When Jean-Cretchen had to tackle that with his finance minister, Paul Martin, it was because, you know, world agencies were saying, we're not going to give you credit anymore, Canada. You know, if you keep going on this path, you're on your own. And the dollar would crash and people's incomes would crash and there'd be mass on it. It was really that kind of threat to the economy. And to Jean-Cretchen's credit, he took it very, very seriously.

And so, yeah, I think that when you look at cumulative deficits over time, look, it's, it is, it's hard to measure year on year, but I think over time you have the issues that Canada has. Our GDP per capita is declining. Our wealth is declining as government borrows more. It crowds out other cheap borrowing for businesses to grow and flourish and to start up in this country. So now, if you were to say, well, the U.S. is even in worse, shape it is, but they have one thing that we do not have, and that is a reserve currency. Everybody, as of this date, could change tomorrow, but everybody around the world, not everybody, oh, 90% of the world uses the American dollar to settle payments.

And until and unless that changes, it gives the United States the ability to deficit finance to a degree and extent that countries like Canada, that do. not have a reserve currency, do not have. So that's why I think it's still important. I appreciate the counter argument, but I stand by my conviction on that one. I wonder, Martha, whether I could get you to speak to that issue that Tony just raised. And that is, I don't have to tell you, there is a community of economists out there that believes that the United States is on the verge of a cataclysmic economic downturn because, well, thanks to the overspending by the Trump administration, supported by a Republican-led Congress, where deficit financing and debt are massively, in the view of this

group, out of control, which could lead to a worldwide depression. What do you see when you look at the numbers? I share a lot of that concern. Tony, Tony, I agree with everything Tony just said. Because, you know, Taylor, I might have been a liberal, but I'm very much a fiscal conservative. and feel very strongly that deficit, some debt, you know, some deficit financing is okay, but if it gets too high, then you see the problems that Tony just outlined. Just it's like your house, right? It actually makes a lot of sense if you own a house to have a mortgage that you can use to do renovations, that you can use to enhance the value of your house for a number of

reasons, but it's not a hard stretch to imagine that if you have way too big of a mortgage and you're spending way too much every month to actually pay the interest on that, then your fiscal situation, your financial situation becomes untenable. A country is actually not that much different. And so we do have to be worried about the level, which is why I think, Steve, to your point, I do worry about the United States. I don't know how far they can rely on. having that reserve currency to cover up or to manage the utter mismanagement that we're seeing. And I, so yeah, I'm actually very, for now, yes, all of the things that Tony just described about why the American situation is, is manageable technically.

I'm just not sure how far that can be pushed. So I'm worried too. Gotcha. I also want to put on the record here a response that we got. from a viewer or listener to something, Tony, you said last, I think last time we were together, when you were talking about the impact that petitions have in the House of Commons, that members of Parliament often read petitions from their constituents, and your view was they have zero impact.

And here's Carrie Lynn Freebird, who is responding to your comment, saying, I'm both grateful for the discussion and also left feeling slightly disheartened by Tony's reply. As a person who does their best to participate in our democracy, it's unfortunate to find out that petitions in the House of Commons have little to no effect. There's no guarantee that communication with our elected representatives has an effect either. So I am left wondering how to know that our voices have been heard.

Tony apologized to the parliamentarians who bring forward these petitions, but what about the thousands of Canadians who participate in the petition process thinking they are contributing to their voices to a cause? Either way, she concludes, I'm grateful for the discussion and appreciate your attentiveness. So there we go. Can I just offer a piece of advice because it is, it is sad that that is the reality, but it doesn't change the reality, unfortunately.

But I would say to the writer, is it Sherry, is that her name? Kerry. I would say to Carrie that don't stop buttonholing your member parliament. If you want to know exactly how to pierce through things, get a hold of your member of parliament, sit down with them or have a phone call with them or whatever it takes and express your point of view because cumulatively, believe me, a member of parliament, all members of parliament that I knew and certainly I acted this way, when someone in my constituency approached me passionately and vehemently about something, it made an impact. Believe me, it made an impact. And over time on a particular

issue, it would alter my behavior. And I can just give you an example, if I could, you know, in the 2015 election, the one issue which I really, really underplayed when I was going to door to door was Justin Trudeau's promise to legalize pot. Because I knew in my riding, that was popular. So whenever anyone wanted to say to me, are you against legalizing pot? I said, no, I'm not against that. I want to talk about jobs and the future of the economy. But I never was on record as saying, let's keep pot illegal because I knew my constituency

and I knew what they thought. So it does have an impact. Gotcha. Martha, can you think of any subject upon which you changed your mind? Because enough constituency said to you, we want it this way. We don't like the fact that you want it that way. I would not say because of a number of constituents. There's a real danger in that.

I know so many times, you know, the media would thrust a microphone in your faces. What do your constituents think? And my answer every time was, I have 136,000 constituents. And so it's pretty much impossible for me to know what they think. And their voice is heard every time there's a general election. Did I change my mind because of input that, allowed me to see facts differently? Yes. And I hope that that's true for most people, right? Like, you know, even my view on carbon capture and storage in Canada right now, I put a lot of effort

into that. And now I've said, I think we should postpone it. That's circumstances, that's conversations with people. But I do caution that about what do your constituents think, because we don't govern by way of referenda in this country for the most part. So there's that. If I can, though, and I think Carrie, Carrie Lynn, when somebody is actually presenting a petition in the House of Commons, if there's an issue and there are thousands and thousands of people who've signed it, it may not have effect in terms of legislation in particular. And I think, Tony, you made that point clear. But it's not lost on people. If there are thousands of people who are willing to sign a petition, that actually, that actually,

actually does say something. And so I don't, I don't share the view that there's absolutely no effect. I think anytime a large number of people weigh in on something, it, it is heard. It is heard by people who are there to be made aware of the petition having been done. So it is one way. It's not perhaps the most effective. I totally agree with Tony. Pigeonhole, you're a member of parliament, whether they be a him or her. But I just, I don't want it to be too depressing. I think petitions have a place. Well, at the risk of stating the obvious,

300,000 people signed a petition in Alberta wanting a referendum, and they're getting a referendum. So, or at least they're getting a referendum to have a referendum. One step at a time. Enough a lot of other people have signed something saying they don't, but. Yeah, that's true too. That's true too. So, okay, maybe we, we may have to. re-evaluate our thoughts about the relevance or not of these petitions. This is the part of the show

where we want to thank the people who shell out a few bucks out of their pockets to help keep the lights on here. And we're always going to have this podcast be free, but we do love it when people support us and help, you know, help us to fray some of the costs associated with putting it on. So now this first one, this is hilarious. Tony, you got into such a flame war with a guy named Vince to Luca, who said, I'm never watching this again, unless you get rid of Tony. And I said, I can't get rid of them. I don't want to get rid of him. But Vince, give us another chance. And you two had a very civil exchange on our show last time. And Vince now is a supporter. He's on Patreon and he's supporting us. So there you go. Well done. Yay.

And Martha, you're not the only one from the province of Alberta, who's also helping us out. Jay Winters from Calgary is also part of our Patreon community. So thank you, Jay. Big Jake Trelor in Angus, west of Berry, Ontario said to me here, I had the pleasure of meeting you once briefly. You were Chancellor at Laurentian University at the time. That's me. And I was there, and I received my bachelor's degree at the satellite campus in Barry back in 2015. So we met 11 years ago. And now our pal Big Jake is helping keep us on the air.

Nice. Ted Quinn from Coburg, Ontario, says, I love your thought-provoking, insightful, and unbiased podcast. Ted, we like to hear that. Longtime family friends in Hamilton, Ontario, Harvey and Mona Levinstein, we thank you for your supporting this venture as well. And somebody who wanted to be anonymous, but who has known my dad for 70-plus years. And if I can put this on the record, I think actually dated my mother before my dad did. And boy, am I glad my mom picked my dad and not him. Not that he's a bad guy, but, you know, easy there.

You're talking to somebody else right now. Anyway, that's right. Anyway, this guy, a pal of my dad's at University of Western Ontario, as it was then called 70-plus years ago. And he knows who he is and I want to thank him as well. Now before we leave, we always like to do something called Good On You, where our pals here, our ex-parliamentarians, look at something that transpired over the past couple of weeks and thought, you know, that's not death and destruction. That's great. Good on you for doing that. Martha, get us started.

easy Stephen Gilbo he clearly is not of the same mind as the current prime minister and you know we've had this conversation a few times on this on this show about you know acting based on your principles and and he is doing just that and so my shout out good on you goes to Stephen Gilbo Tony I want to give a shout out to the honorable David McGinty who's the minister of National Defense. I saw him earlier today at the Kansack Conference. And, you know, he's having a bit of a moment as, as defense minister, 20,000 people are attending Kansack this year, which is a by far a record. And, you know, he is part of the reassessing and rebooting our defense structure in this country, our security, our impact in NATO, impact in the Arctic Circle.

And, you know, this is a guy, Steve, you'd know, you know the McGinty family better than most. He kind of toiled in obscurity for a long time in the Liberal Party. Well, his older brother Dalton sucked up a lot of the oxygen in the political room. And he was kind of toiling in the backbench for a long time before he got a shot at being in cabinet. And now he's having a bit of a day. So I say, I tip my hat to you, sir. Well, I tip my hat to both of you guys, because what I like about this segment is that you both are prepared to offer praise to people who may not share your either party stripe or ideological convictions. And we like that here, because every now and then you got to just say good on you to somebody on the other team.

So good stuff. Now, let's remind everybody that if they want to be supporters of this podcast, they can go to the website, patreon.com forward slash the Paken podcast. and if you'll give us permission, we'll thank you publicly on the show. All of our shows are archived at stevepaken.com. Kids, did I forget anything this week? I don't think so. I don't think so. Like and subscribe.

Yeah. Like and subscribe is always a good way to end. Yeah. As are my two favorite words. Peace and love, everybody. Until next time.