The Paikin Podcast - Everything Political: Does Anyone Care About Free Speech Anymore?

Episode Date: September 25, 2025

On this episode of “Everything Political,” Steve Paikin and former MPs Martha Hall Findlay and Tony Clement discuss the fallout from the Charlie Kirk assassination, the rise of political violence, free speech in America, Jimmy Kimmel, Chrystia Freeland’s exit from cabinet, and Carney’s trip to Mexico. Follow The Paikin Podcast: YOUTUBEhttps://www.youtube.com/@ThePaikinPodcastTWITTERx.com/ThePaikinPodINSTAGRAMinstagram.com/thepaikinpodcastBLUESKYbsky.app/profile/thepaikinpodcast.bsky.social

Well, and I think it's very dangerous that people are being shut down because of what they believe as well, Tony. And having a free speech, having that ability, that freedom of speech is a fundamental pillar of democracy. And so Donald Trump simply cannot talk about the American democracy while shutting people up. It's just unfortunate that Democrats in the United States didn't agree with that when it was their opponents. You know, so this is part of the problem. Everybody wants their freedom of speech, but nobody wants somebody else's freedom of speech. Everything Political, presented by the Canadian Bankers Association. Welcoming back, former members of Parliament, Martha Hall-Finley and Tony Clement to the Pagan podcast.

And I think we've got to start with what has been certainly a story that has preoccupied much of North America over the last week to 10 days. And that is the assassination of Charlie Kirk. in the United States, and the fallout from that, we have really, I guess, seen reemphasized the two different Americas in how so many people have reacted to this news. So why don't we start there? Tony, I'd like your view on how you gauge the reaction to Charlie Kirk's death. Yeah, I have to rewind a little bit, Steve, because to answer that question, you have to know something about Charlie Kirk. And I had the honor of meeting him once very fleetingly

and having a very brief conversation with him. But you cannot, it's hard for people who are not part of the conservative movement to understand it, but you cannot underestimate his impact and the movement that he started from scratch and the ongoing impact. It has. in America and therefore around the world in the conservative ecosystem. Just before you go any further, tell me the circumstances under which you two met and you know, where it happened all this time. It was at a conference. He was walking down the hall and somebody we both knew said, oh, you know, you should

meet Tony Clement. And so we shook hands. And I think I mentioned something about being a faith person, a Christian, as well. well. And that was the nature of it. It was very offhand. I'm sure he would never remember it. But, you know, I knew who he was. And when he was assassinated, a couple of Canadian conservatives asked me, who is this guy? And I said, this guy is so important to conservatism. You know, you have no idea. And of course, the outpouring of affection for him and grieving and loss, which culminated in Glendale on Sunday illustrate that point.

And first of all, the impacts in America, I think there was a certain amount of, I saw on social media a certain amount of juxtaposition that when Charlie Kirk died, the reaction of people who knew and loved Charlie Kirk was to pray. It wasn't to burn down buildings or engage in riots. It was to have prayer circles, which is. is not necessarily the norm in America these days. And I think that the other stat I heard, Steve, was that since his assassination,

there have been 54,000 applications to start a Turning Point America chapter in high schools and campuses across the United States, 54,000. So I don't think you can underestimate the impact that he has already had. and what he's going to have in the future. He really was young Americans, Billy Graham. For those of us a little bit older, you know, the impact of Billy Graham was huge.

As an evangelical Christian and using television for the first time really to advance the Christian message, that's what Billy Graham was the expert at. And he had a lot of impact for U.S. presidents, president after president after president. So Charlie Kirk would have had that impact with at least Republican presidents. Who knows where his trajectory would have gone. But he was considered a likely candidate for president at some point in the future. So this is a huge loss. 31 years old.

Yeah. No, yeah, clearly for conservatism, a huge loss. And at 31 years old, he certainly appeared to have a. bright political future, should he have chosen it or were he able to choose it? Martha, what about you? Your reaction to the reaction that we've seen since his death? Well, so first, I'm not a person of faith like that. I'm not religious and I completely disagreed with so much of what Charlie Kirk said.

That is irrelevant and it should be irrelevant. But what's really shocking to me is how people have. have responded not because of a young man who was shot down in his prime or even before, which should have been, as Tony described, prayer circles or people who were similarly of faith actually, you know, responding peacefully. But the reaction of so many people in the United States for and against what Charlie Kirk stood for is to, me really rather appalling. And so when Tony talks about people responding with prayer circles and grief, but then you have the President of the United States vowing to target political

groups that disagree with him. And then, of course, the canceling of the Jimmy Kimmel show, I'm not normally speechless, as you know, Steve, it's pretty rare. but I find this almost breathtaking and very, very worrisome. But what I also find really interesting is that I and so many Canadians are so surprised, right? We're so surprised at the level of the passion, the vitriol, the depth of anger, the depth of feeling on both sides. And I go back to when the Liberal Caucus, or at least the cabinet, recently had invited the head of the Heritage Foundation. And there were all sorts of people here to come to the cabinet meeting. And there were all sorts of people.

Oh, how dare we bring somebody like that? We disagree with them. And my immediate reaction was, we should have had this guy up here years ago. You did say that. Yes. We will not understand what's happening in the United States. If we continue to just, you know, who, don't want to listen, don't want to hear, I find that extremely dangerous to simply say, no, we don't want to hear these people.

There is stuff going on in the United States that is really deep. It's troubling to me. And it's something I just don't think we understand very well at this point. Tony, I do want to take you back to that Glendale, Arizona Memorial Service that was held for Charlie Kirk on the Sunday. And I don't know what your thought was, but I certainly thought that the most extraordinary moment in the whole thing was when his now widow went before the microphones and said, I forgive the man who did this to my husband. I mean, that was a moment. and to juxtapose that, apropos of what Martha just said, with the president of the United States who said, well, I'd never do that. In fact, I hate my enemies and I could never forgive my enemies. And in fact, I want to hurt my enemies even more. I just wonder if that is, is that the spirit that Erica Kirk was calling for on this occasion? Well, regardless of what Erica Kirk was calling for, that's what Jesus Christ calls for. That's kind of the more important issue. You know,

there's a there's the the bible no no i'm saying what donald trumps okay i'll get to that i mean i will get to that okay that's pretty not what's jesus christ's teaching i have the floor uh so so let me just outline this a little bit you know a lot of people look at the bible and say love your neighbor right uh you know jesus went further love your enemy that is the toughest thing for human beings to do to love your enemy. But that is what Jesus wanted us to do. And we'd have a lot fewer problems in the world, believe me, if we all listened to that edict. But of course, humans are hypocrites. And although they claim to follow this otherworldly advice, we don't do it very well very often. And that's the problem with humanity, or one of the problems. So yeah, I'm not surprised Erica said that

because that's exactly what Jesus wanted for all of us, whether you're a Christian or not a Christian. What Trump said is what most human beings would say. Or a lot of, they may not say it out loud, but believe me, if somebody killed your spouse, you'd want harm to that person for sure. So, yeah, I think we saw the whole range of humanity in those two clips. I'm not surprised what Donald Trump says. Donald Trump says a lot of stuff, Steve. and I only take half of it seriously, to be honest with you. But Tony, he is the president of the United States.

So you're grown up enough. We all know this. You're perfectly capable of saying, I only listen to half of what he says. I listen to less than half. Well, I have to listen to what he says, but I don't take it seriously, except that one has to take him seriously. And he is an example for millions and millions of people. And my worry is that he, when he says things like that, he is giving license to so many people to not just say those things when their religion, their faith might have kept them from saying, but then even worse acting on it.

And so I think it's dangerous. Well, you know, I think the bigger tragedy of the last few days is that Charlie Kirk was murdered. That's the biggest tragedy. Let's not, let's focus on that. I don't give a rat to, you know what about what Jimmy Kimball said or didn't say or what Donald Trump said. or didn't say, I care about the fact that a man was murdered for his political beliefs and his religious beliefs. And that should be a reckoning for America to be on a different path. That's what I would say. Well, and I think it's very dangerous that people are being

shut down because of what they believe as well, Tony. And having a free speech, having that ability, that freedom of speech is a fundamental pillar of democracy. And so Donald Trump simply cannot talk about the American democracy while shutting people up. It's just unfortunate that Democrats in the United States didn't agree with that when it was their opponents, you know. So this is part of the problem. Everybody wants their freedom of speech, but nobody wants somebody else's freedom of speech. That's a problem.

Okay. Here's where I jump in and I say, Tony, I, you know, I really do appreciate the fact that you described meeting Charlie Kirk as a great honor, which I think you did. And I have certainly talked to enough young people in their 20s, young, conservative thinking Canadians in their 20s who watched a lot of Charlie Kirk's videos and were I think deeply influenced by some of the things that he had to say and they liked the fact that he went to university and college campuses and he put himself sort of in the eye of the hurricane and took on all comers one on one and had these debates with people and and made university

campuses I think I think what they're supposed to be which is unsafe spaces for intellectual combat as opposed to utterly safe spaces where you don't learn anything and you just have educated group thing to you. So I appreciate his position on all of those things. However, Cama, Charlie Kirk did say some things that made it very difficult for all Americans and Canadians to mourn his passing in the way that it may have merited. Some of the stuff he said about giving Joe Biden the death penalty. Some of the stuff he said about gender affirming doctors being subject to Nuremberg trials. Some of the stuff he said about trans people. We could make a long list about some of the things that he said that you could characterize Tony as beyond

just free speech, but actually hateful speech and harmful speech. And I sort of wonder how we negotiate all of this while we mourn for this appalling way in which he died, how do we negotiate? Clearly, the family's minister in Manitoba didn't figure out how to negotiate that within her own head and put out that pretty bad, pretty awful tweet, which she had to apologize for. Anyway, sorry, throwing a lot at you there, but take it if you were. Yeah, and look, I didn't agree with everything you said either. And some of it was pretty noxious. But that's, that's the nature of free speech. You know, a person says something that's not noxious doesn't give you the right to shoot him in the neck.

And so that's where we are. And by the way, there is no definition of hate speech in America. There is in Canada, but there isn't in America. So, you know, people start talking about hate speech in America. There is technically and legally is no hate speech in America, you know. But you know when you hear it. Yeah, that's right. You know, sure, sure.

But that's the debate that they are willing to have in America. So, yeah, you know, if you're asking me whether I agree with everything that Charlie Kirk said, the answer is clearly, clearly no. But you know what? Going on to campus, famous phrase, prove me wrong, telling men to step up, which is part of his message to young men, I agree with that message. And so, yeah, you know, he was a mixed bag on some things, but he was important to the dialogue, for sure. but if part of the reaction is shutting someone else's freedom of speech down then i think the united states is in deep trouble martha can i just get your view on how you think i'm interested first of all in the original tweet that the family's minister in manitoba put out there

in which she did not demonstrate any empathy whatsoever for the fact that a man had just been assassinated and in fact went the other way didn't didn't quite say he had it coming to him but wasn't that far away and then how premier wab canoe of manitoba handled the whole thing your view? Um, well, it, it, one, um, if I can just say, no one deserves to be shot in the neck for something. I mean, that, that was in and of itself appalling and should be, uh, criticized dramatically all around. Whether you have hate speech laws or not, um, that kind of violence. that it just is simply wrong, and we should, regardless of political stripe, should be able to say that was wrong, right? I think we all need to rise above and be able to say that.

The Premier Canoe is, I think he's doing a pretty good job, and I think he's trying to manage some, you know, different perspectives. But, no, I think he's doing all right. And just for those who missed it, he asked his minister, to apologize, which she did. He was asked by the opposition to fire the minister, which he did not do. He said, that'd be the easy thing to do. The harder thing is to sort of do the heavy work required to bring everybody together. And that's what he says he is doing. So there we go. But to the, to the very point that you might have found what she said noxious, but it's, if you would agree that that freedom of speech is really, really, really.

important. You can't say, well, I'm going to fire her, but, you know, Jimmy Kimmel should keep his job. Or you can't say Jimmy Kimmel should be canceled, but she, like, we're reacting in, in so many ways that forget the underlying principles of we are better off as a democracy if we allow ourselves to debate, to challenge. I mean, look, I'm at a university. I'm so proud to be a part of a place where we mean, we bring controversial people and very clearly we're not here to endorse. We're not here to promote particular points of view. But our job at a university is to be able to have that kind of debate. That should be true in society at large. It should be true in our political environment. So no, I support Premier Cano's approach on on both, you know,

asking for an apology, but not, but not asking her to resign. Yeah, the first thing he said was, I don't believe in cancel culture. So he didn't fire for that reason. Can I just jump in for one second on this? Please. As a conservative, one of the things that is troubling about the reaction and the reaction to the reaction is that different standards are applied. Again, human beings are hypocritical. Let's just put that on the table.

But it seems to us as conservatives that all of a sudden liberals are running around saying we need free speech. therefore, Jimmy Kimmel shouldn't be fired, are the same people who are willing to fire and cancel people who had a different point of view on vaccines, for instance, just five years ago. So, you know, as conservative, if you look at this, we look at the society and culture and say to ourselves, yeah, what's good for you when you want to make a point isn't good for us when we want to make a point. And that's how division metastasizes in society, Steve, when a group feels that the rules are different for the ruling class than they are for others who might want to dissent. Yeah, and I think it's fair to say that conservatives for decades in Canada have felt like

there are two standards in this country, and that if you're part of the so-called Laurentian elite, you get away with a lot more than you can if you're part of the conservative minority. And yeah, I mean, sometimes me thinks that doth protest too much, but other times, fair point, right on. Yeah, okay. And finger wagging, finger wagging, which we've also. seen an awful lot of, just never goes over very well. Yeah. I want to change the subject now and move on to our second topic, which is about Christa Freeland. And Christian Freeland, Tony, I guess I'm going

to start with you because your term in the House of Commons overlapped with hers. So you were, I guess you were maybe three or four years in opposition while she was there as a minister of the crown. She has announced that she's not going to seek re-election whenever that next election happens. she has been appointed by the prime minister to be his sort of number one advisor on the reconstruction of Ukraine when that hopefully sooner than later begins to happen and i want to start with this tony what was what was she like to deal with let's just start there yes so i liked her as a person and in fact when i was a foreign affairs critic in opposition for a brief period i defended her much to her surprise, when the Russians were circulating all sorts of noxious accusations that she was

somehow a Ukrainian fascist. I don't know if you remember that, period. Yeah, because her grandfather was involved in some stuff during the war, too. During the war. Yeah. And I had a bunch of microphones stuck in my face as the Foreign Affairs critic and saying, you know, what do you think about Christia Freeland being a fascist? And I said she's not a fascist. She is a great Canadian, and I wish her well.

And I don't agree. I don't think this is true. So she really appreciated that. And she saw that, you know, that was the way politics should work. Like, we'll disagree on other. Did you hear from her on that? Did you hear from her on that? Like she said you a note or something like that?

No, she went up to me at one point and said, thanks for not being a jerk, basically. So, you know, we had that kind of relationship. I also have to be honest with you, I don't think your track record in government was particularly good as Minister of Finance or as the minister responsible for negotiating USMCA. She did a decent job on the ladder, but that's all being dissolved into nothingness now. So in terms of a legacy, there is no legacy there. I mean, we're all running around trying to save what we can out of use MACCA, as I call it. And as finance minister, I think she was an absolute disaster. But, you know, in her new role, I think she's probably capable of doing a good job there.

And hopefully there is a job to reconstruct Ukraine after this terrible situation is satisfactorily dealt with. Martha, let me get you on, first, two things. Number one, how well did you know her? And number two, did you think she had a more difficult road to hoe because she's the first female finance minister in Canadian history. We had to wait more than 150 years for our first female finance minister in Canadian history. It was her. Speak to that, if you would.

Well, no, I mean, we met a bunch of times and had a number of dealings, but I wouldn't say that we know each other well. I think it's unfortunate because whoever you are in cabinet, ultimately, you don't have your own voice necessarily. And it depends, you know, whether the prime minister's office is very closed. We've had situations, you know, Mr. Kretchen, when he was prime minister, was very much, I'm relying on my ministers. We know that in the most recent Trudeau government, there was very little reliance on other ministers. We know that virtually everything was really dictated from the center. So I think Christopher Rilin's record, I would prefer to say the Trudeau government's record on spending, on finance, was actually pretty awful.

So Tony, you just point being made here. I think we're agreeing on that. I think it wasn't good. How much of that was Christia Freeland's doing or how much of that was the prime minister's office doing? I suspect it was by far the latter. And so it was probably very difficult for her. You know, she made those comments when she resigned

about gimmicks, et cetera. But I will say, she made those comments after she was about to be fired from that role. She had already been told by Prime Minister Trudeau that he was removing her from that. He was going to be removing her from that role. Up until a couple of hours before, she was about to go into the House of Commons and defend those very gimmicky efforts. And so I don't know that her record is strong. I'm being diplomatic here, of course, but I also would make the point that I think it was the

government's record that was really challenging. I don't think anybody is going to be able to say that the last 10 years have been particularly successful for the Canadian country. It's interesting. She did two things, both of which we've mentioned here, that would, under normal circumstances, really give her a place in the history books, right? I mean, the first female finance minister and the role she played in the role she played in, in the first United States, Mexico, Canada trade agreement. Those are big deals for the history books. And yet, Tony, my hunch is she's going to be most remembered

as the person who sort of put the shiv in Justin Trudeau's back and enabled liberals to sort of muse out loud about the need for the prime minister to stand down so that a new leader could take over and the brand could be refreshed and ultimately, obviously successfully so, because Mark Carney came in and won. So how much of a thank you do you think liberals owe her for having the guts to come forward and take on the prime minister the way she did? Well, I really wish she hadn't done that.

I bet you do. Come on, Tony. Rise above. Rise above. It took a lot of courage. I'll give her that much. I mean, Martha, you know, she was already on the way out. But, you know, most of the pressure in Ottawa is to go out quietly, right? And she didn't, she was yet another female in the Trudeau cabinet who was badly done to by Mr. Trudeau. She was like the fifth or the sixth that had a terrible, at a terrible exit because of Justin Trudeau. But anyway, yeah, I mean, she, yet that, that's going to be part of her story. No question about it.

I do want to ask both of you because you both ran for the leaderships of your respective parties. and so did she. And again, well, I don't have to be a diplomat here. I can just tell it like it is. She didn't have a strong showing at all. Now, that was Carney's convention, and he, you know, mopped the floor with everybody, winning more than 90% of the votes on the occasion. So it didn't matter who you were running against him. You weren't going to do very well. But considering Christian Freeland's resume, she did particularly not well. And Martha Finley, I'm just wondering if you think, think that in hindsight, maybe she shouldn't have run for the big job? Oh, I don't think she should have. If I had been advising her at the time, I would have strongly recommended not to do that.

I think the writing was on the wall. The other thing, too, is that yes, in her criticism of the Prime Minister as she was leaving, maybe she gave more license to more of the caucus members to speak out loud. But that had been going on for a couple of years already. There was a very strong movement to have a new leader in the party. And frankly, I think not just a new person as leader, but a new approach. I think people were getting very frustrated with a prime minister's office that was basically run by, you know, one or two people. A lot of talented people in that caucus and they weren't, their talents weren't being used. And I think that frustration was building. So it was going to happen at some point, yes, perhaps accelerated by her actions at that point in time.

but it was going to happen. But it was also going to be a Kearney convention. I think people knew that. But she had had a long track record in a government that was not popular. She had had, and it's so frustrating, you know, the first female finance minister, but I think the finance department was one of the areas where that government did, like, the worst job. It's not, they have not left the country in good shape. And she has to wear that, unfortunately.

And I will also say, Steve, it's a personality thing. Like, these leaderships, I don't know about you, Tony, but there's an awful lot of, you know, if you're not popular. Talk about when you ask this, when you come back to when the house sits again, is it like, you know, the first day of high school. Sometimes it feels a little high schoolish when it's, these leaderships and these, candidacies rely a great deal on if people like you, if you're popular. And I don't think that was necessarily Christensen. I was going to say, Martha, she wasn't very popular in the liberal caucus, was she? No, not really.

And that's why I'm saying that it's frustrating when you know that that's a big part of it. But fundamentally, everybody knew that the country was desperate for change. and it needed to be significant. And look, history has shown us that that's what happened. Tony, I'll get a last comment from you on this in as much as you ran twice for the leadership of your respective parties, once for the Federal Conservative Party, once for the provincial Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. In neither case, were you the frontrunner going in?

I'm not sure that you had any expectation of winning in either situation. I suspect when Christian Freeland ran for the leadership of the Federal Liberal Party, She did so knowing she wasn't going to win, but thought that she had something to contribute to the race. Can you just help us understand why somebody seeks the leadership of a party when they probably have a pretty solid understanding that they're not going to win, but they do it anyway. That's untrue. Steve, okay. You always. Oh, that was actually true for me in my second time, but anyway.

That the stars are going to align and you're surrounded by people. oh, it's going to be great. You know, you're going to thread the needle. And you have to go in thinking there's a path to victory, Steve. Otherwise, you're spending other people's money on a fool's errand. So, no, I'm sure she ran against Justin Trudeau. I'm sure, Christia thought that she had a path to victory. I'm sure she thought that.

And she had a rude awakening like we all, politics is a tough game, man. And there's always a winner, but then there's 15 losers compared to the one winner, right? Like, the odds are not that great, but you always tell yourself, I'm what is needed right now. And that's why I'm running for leader, always. Yeah, it reminds me of Brian Mulroney's great line on this, which is if you didn't have a healthy dose of self-delusion going into politics, you'd never get out of bed every morning. That's right. So, which is quite the case. okay here's what we do our little ad read now folks so the canadian bankers association have been good

enough to sponsor this podcast and as a result i got a little message coming from them so let's do that for the next minute or so parliament as we have been discussing is back in session most of the provincial legislatures ontario a notable exception not back yet but ontario back next month if you're watching or listening to this there's a darn good chance you've just done the back-to-school ritual as well packing lunches new shoes the works it's that time of year when everything starts up again the routines may be back, but so are the risks, and some of them never really left, and we're talking about scammers here, for one. From fishing texts and fake job offers to investment fraud, the threats are more sophisticated, and they are more relentless than ever.

And that is why Canada's banks take scam prevention seriously. They know how hard Canadians work to build their savings, to grow a business, or put money aside for their families, and they are committed to protecting that. Banks are working closely with law enforcement. they are among more than 50 organizations across the public and private sectors to protect Canadians from scams. And banks also offer free, easy to understand resources to help people recognize the warning signs before it's too late. So whether you're trying to protect your parents or your kids or yourself, education. Education is the first line of defense, and you can get that education, that essential information on how to spot scams and stay safe online at this bankers.

Association website, it's CBA.ca forward slash scams. Once again, CBA.ca.4s slash scams. There's our message from the Canadian Bankers Association. Okay. Third topic for you, too, and this one is the agreement that Prime Minister Carney and the head of Mexico signed just the other day, deepening ties, creating what they call, I guess, a more strategic alignment on shared interests going forward. Tony had lots of responsibilities in the international trading sphere. So I want to start with you on this one. I guess I want to know how much of this stuff is showbiz. You know, everybody wants a good photo op and how much of this is really important. Sign on the dotted line. It's going to be meaningful and we'll get stuff done. What's your view on that?

It will not be meaningful and it will not get stuff done. So it's like 90% show business. Stephen Harper was of the view that whenever we were talking to Mexico, no offense to Mexico, a great country, love going there, love the Lucha Libre and other cultural amenities. But really, our focus has got to be the United States and our relationship with them. And this is just a distraction. It's not going to advance anything in terms of Canadian interests. listen, when push came to shove, when Mr. Harper was in power, and there was a disagreement with us, do you think the Mexicans backed us up? No, they went away somewhere. There was no

affinity where we were going to back each other up in tough circumstances or negotiations with the United States. Well, on the other hand, the United States was not an adversary to Canada back then as it is today. So have the situation changed enough to make this a more warranted agreement? I don't think it's going to amount to anything. I think this is a distraction and Mr. Carney is good at flying places and getting sort of documents signed. I will, I am waiting for actual results. Martha, your view on this. I disagree. I think this is actually important and I do think that it might get things done. Just to be really, you know, stress the point, both leaders made it very clear and their talking points, their messaging has all been

very, very clear. This is not a gang up against the United States. They are both still absolutely working in their respective ways with the United States. I mean, remember, the USMCA, as Tony calls it, the USMCA is all three countries together. It is something that we actually do have. It's the law right now. And there are really important reasons why there should be these discussions happening. Look, discussions are better than not. Really important not to be seen to be, you know, two against one. I think they've really taken pains to make that clear. So hopefully that will keep that but that this is also part of concentrating on the relationship with the united states right so i don't think i don't think this is putting the the concerns or the discussions with the united states to the side i

think it's all part and part part part of the same thing i will also say canada has more than one trade agreement canada is party not just to the us mcaa canada is also party to the trans pacific partnership. And if Canada and Mexico, for example, can collaborate on certain manufacturing goods that could be then exported to Japan, which is another party to the TPP, that could actually be really useful, right? Canada is not a low-cost labor jurisdiction and should never be. In some ways, Mexico is. And so if the two countries can actually collaborate on taking advantage of of all of the different members' parties to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that could actually be a really important way for Canada to diversify its trade.

Let's not forget, that's a huge issue for the Canadian government, for Mark Carney, very big pressure to diversify our trade so that we're less dependent on the United States. So I actually think this is a, I'm crossing fingers, I'm really hoping this will in fact show results. I think that argument was so persuasive. Tony's about to tell us that he's completely. changed his mind on the subject. What do you think, Tony? Well, here's hoping, I guess, but I do. Well, there, I'll take that. There you go. Well, put it this way. Do you think whatever Canada and Mexico can achieve together, and let's, let's blue sky for a second, and let's assume there's

something here and that something good can come from this? Can it, can it compensate for the deteriorating relationship we're experiencing with the United States right now? Absolutely not. that's hoping for too much. But I don't know what, I mean, it's so volatile and it's so unpredictable that I'm not sure anything would actually help or make worse other than, you know, I could think there's something that could make it worse. Can I just jump in on one of Martha's points about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is, you know, a case in point as well. And I wonder whether the Trans-Pacific Partnership is still alive and well. Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Shindig in China a couple of weeks ago,

I think things are shifting markedly in Asia right now, away from the United States. A couple of exceptions, Japan, Korea. But generally, you know, you look at Indonesia, you look at Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia. I can go through the list. Vietnam. They're all tilting to China right now. So I don't know what options. Oh, and that's another point, Steve.

We really haven't come back to the canola versus, you know, China, China cars issue again. But Mr. Carney's in a tough spot here. You know, do you keep the U.S. demanded tariffs on China cars and lose our canola market? or do you take the interests of Saskatchewan and other farmers seriously and dial back the tariffs? And then there's another brouhaha with the Americans. That's going to be interesting to watch. Let's just put it that way, what Mr. Carney does with that over the next few weeks and months. It's a great reminder to people.

Sorry, go ahead, Martha. Sorry, go ahead, Steve. No, go ahead. Well, I was just going to say it's a great reminder of the fact that oftentimes in politics, You don't have a choice between a good decision and a bad decision. You have a choice between a bad decision and a worst decision. And that's one of the tough things about the business you two used to play. But it's a good decision to be on your podcast.

And it's sometimes hard to know which is which. Yeah. And it's sometimes hard to know which is which. That's exactly right. You didn't even get my compliment there. Sorry, I missed it. Say it again. Let's make sure everybody hears it.

It's always a good choice to be on your podcast, Steve. Oh, there you go. Yes, I agree. That was lovely. Okay. On that, we have unanimity. Terrific. Okay. Friends, you know how we like to end off this podcast. We like to do something we call Good On You, in which the two of you are asked to get past all of the negative headlines of the past week and find something somewhere where somebody did something that you thought, hey, that was great. Good on you. Martha, go ahead. Start us off. I don't know if it's a really positive headline, but it's kudos to somebody who politically exhibited significant courage.

And I'm not normally a big fan of Ted Cruz's, but when Ted Cruz came out after the Jimmy Kimmel show was canceled and was very critical of that on the basis of, you know, democracy requires that freedom of speech, I think that showed a lot of courage for a prominent Republican. And so my good on you goes to Ted Cruz. Prominent Republican and Canadian-born Ted Cruz. Oh, this is true. He always loved being reminded of that, Steve. Not when he was running for president. He didn't. No, not at all.

Okay, Tony, who gets your good on you this week? Well, I'm cribbing from you a little bit, Steve. But I want to send out a shout out to Bonnie Cromby, who stepped up to the plate for a couple of years. And unfortunately, there were too many swings and misses. She was the Ontario liberal leader, of course, who decided after a leadership review vote that maybe it was time to pack it in. But, you know, as you would say, Steve, there's nothing wrong with trying to do something in politics, stepping up to the plate, even in dire circumstances. And I certainly wish her well in her future endeavors. Well, I should just, I guess, put a little note of explanation around that because I presume you're referring.

to the column I wrote, which people can read on my website, stevepeakin.com, which essentially said Bonnie Cromby feels terrible right now. There's no liberal anywhere in the province of Ontario, maybe even in the country, that feels worse right now about the fact that she got one shot to beat Doug Ford. It didn't happen for a whole bunch of reasons, but that my suspicion was that somewhere down the road, she would at least feel good about the fact that she gave it a shot, even if it didn't work out. And I guess I can, you know what, why don't we finish up on this? because I could ask both of you, since you have both had the experience of having run for something unsuccessfully, and now you have a bunch of hindsight to be able to say whether it was worth doing

even though you didn't prevail. Martha, what about it? Was it worth running for leadership? Was it worth running for election those times when you didn't get in? Absolutely. And I think for anybody, and this is, for anybody listening to the podcast, deep, you were all hearing who would go into politics. these days. It's awful. Who would want to put themselves out there? Who would want to, you know, expose themselves to all of the stuff that you see on social media? All of that stuff, it's awful. I have not met anybody I know. Maybe there are some, but nobody I know that was in politics has ever said, boy, do I wish I hadn't done that? Or do I regret having done it? It, on the

contrary, I've still run into people who it's been ages, but they'll recognize me and they'll say, Thank you for your service. It is something that's really important to do, and we need good people to do it. So, no, I don't regret a single bit of it. I mean, will I say I enjoyed it? A lot of it? No, not so much.

But do I feel really good about having done it? Absolutely. Tony, give Bonnie Crombie a hint of how she might feel two or three or four or five years down the road, if your experience is any indication. Well, she stepped up. She was leader. Not everybody has that opportunity.

So I think that she'll say, I fought the good fight. There'll be enough in Doug Ford's legacy that people will say, gee, if we only had Bonnie Cromby, then none of this would have happened. You know, she'll have those moments or conversations. So, no, I think she'll look back. I look back at my two tilts at leader, one provincial, one federal, and I didn't win. But I'm glad I did it. met some really amazing Canadians and had some amazing experiences. So, no, no regrets at all.

You can't have regrets in this business. Well, it's something that I get told by a lot of politicians, which is I don't regret the decisions I make to do something. I only ever regret the decisions I made not to do something and then wonder down the road, should I have? And those kind of regrets you don't want to live with, according to the people that I talk to anyway. I want to thank my two friends here, these ex-parliamentarians, Tony Clement and Martha

Hall Findlay, for joining me this week on everything political. And as I like to say at the end of every show, peace and love, everybody. And I like to say, like and subscribe. And I just say, I really enjoyed doing this with you guys. Thanks, Steve. Thanks, Tony. And I guess I should also say, if you have any comments, you can write us an email at the Paken podcast at gmail.com. That's the Paken podcast at gmail.com. There we go. Until next time.

You got it all in.