The Paikin Podcast - Everything Political: Is Carney Turning His Back on Climate Change?

Episode Date: May 14, 2026

Liberal MP Karina Gould joins the Everything Political panel with former MPs Martha Hall Findlay and Tony Clement to discuss the meeting between Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and PM Mark Carney, respecting environmental law and Indigenous rights, if Carney is letting the pro-environment side of the Liberals down, meeting both our environmental commitments and utilizing our oil resources, and if we have too many regulations in Canada that inhibit us from building big things. They also discuss Brexit and separatism in Alberta, if a referendum “spreads the poison,” as Bob Rae said, partisan vs. independent Senate appointments, the census, and Tony’s decision to end the mandatory long-form census back in 2011. 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] 

Tony, have you ever heard of a guy named Vince DeLuca? Rings a bell? Rings a bell? Okay, the reason I ask is because he just sent me an email, which said, I love your work, Steve. The books, the podcasts, and your written pieces are all excellent. However, I can no longer listen to any podcast featuring Tony Clement. I have tried to keep an open mind, but this past week's episode,

where he basically tried to blame the left for the assassination attempt on the president was the last straw. I felt like I was listening to one of the president's acolytes. there are many fine people on the right. Unfortunately, Mr. Clement isn't one of them. Now, Tony, I want you to know, I went to bat for you here, pal. I want you to know, I wrote Vince back and I said, please give us another chance. It's important to listen to people with whom you disagree.

And Tony, he's agreed. So my hunch is he's probably watching this right now. So how about say something nice to Vince to make sure we don't lose them? Well, Vince, welcome back to the program. And I'll try to live up to your standards. Obviously, he did not succeed in the last day. episode but I'm going to keep trying for you buddy just hang in there good stuff good stuff Tony now martha I'm going to ask you how come you how do I put this I want to be diplomatic about this

why do you think I don't get any emails at all asking why are you having Martha Hall Findlay on that show and if you keep her on I'm not going to watch anymore I don't get any of those emails why do you think maybe I'm just crushingly boring I don't know no that's not it that is not it at all That's not it at all. Maybe you're just crushingly sane. Is that possible? I don't know it. But if I'm crushingly sane and people don't like that, then we have a bigger problem.

I just think, you know, to Vince, it is so, this show, we are having so much fun on this show because we clearly do disagree on stuff. But we're, you know, it's respectful. And we're having an awful lot of fun engaging in the debate. And we don't see enough of that. So I'm hoping you're watching because I think more and more people should witness. people debating and having fun at the same time. Martha,

did you know in the past couple of weeks you've become a meme on the internet? No. Oh, no, don't. This is when you were in question period attacking Vic Taves for saying nasty things about Louise Arbor. Do you remember this? Oh my gosh. I do remember.

I'd forgotten until you just mentioned it. Yeah. And so it's all been clipped about you going after Taves saying, take it back. You shouldn't say nasty things about Louise Arbor. and the big stance up says, I'm not taking it back. So that's been repeated endlessly on the interweb. Louise Arbor was one of my profs at law school.

And one of the things that I found so cool about her, because law people can get kind of hoity-to-oity. She stood out because she had, you know, drawings from her kids, like drawings that her kids had done all over her door. And I just thought, oh, I like that. Besides that, she was an outstanding professor. You know what? I'm going to make a bold prediction here.

and say that i'm guessing martha hall finley's about to get a dinner invitation the number one sussex drive before long and with that let's talk everything political delighted to welcome back to our program tony clement the former conservative cabinet minister both federally and in the province of ontario martha hall finley the former liberal member of parliament now the head of the school of public policy at the university of calgary and our special guest this week carina gould the liberal m for burlington

former candidate for the leadership of the liberal party of canada and korena were delighted to have you aboard. How's things today? Oh, they're good. Thanks for having me. I'm really excited to be here. You think, is this going to require elbows up to get a word in with these two on the show? What do you think? Well, I think I can manage, so. I think you can. I think I'm doing the House of Commons. I know how to elbow my way into things. Yes, you do. Well, let's put you to work right away because I guess I want us all to weigh in, first of all, on what seems to be an increasing entente between Prime Minister Mark Carney and the Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith. They had a face-to-face meeting. They both emerged. Premier Smith being, I don't want to say giddy,

but certainly unanticipatingly happy about the nature of the meeting. Karina, I want to find out how you and your colleagues in the Liberal Caucus are reacting to the fact that peace seems to be breaking out between the PM and the Premier. Well, yeah. Okay. So I'll say, a couple of things there. I mean, I think first of all, national unity is really important. And we're all very preoccupied by the emerging separatist movement in Alberta. I would say that, you know, we understand from the rest of the country, you know, that it's not a majority of Albertans. It's not even close to a majority of Albertans, but they are, you know, about vocal minority and they are active. And I think for our perspective as a federal government, we want to

make sure that the country stays together. That is a top priority. And we want to make sure that Alberta feels and Albertans feel and are a valued and important part of the Federation. Why don't I sense a butt coming? Well, because what I was going to say is that I think there are some big questions about what this MOU with Alberta will actually deliver. There's some nervousness about the discussion paper that was released on Friday afternoon that would essentially override a lot of our environmental regulations. You know, I think there's a lot of support for getting our oil to tidewater and getting it to market.

I just think when it comes to liberal values, we feel that we can do that by respecting our environmental laws and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples. And some of the elements in the discussion paper that were released on Friday don't really enable either of those things to happen. I mean, especially around the Species at Risk Act, I think there's some big concerns there. So my feeling has always been that we can get big projects done in Canada. In fact, we have gotten lots of big projects done with environmental regulations in place while respecting indigenous rights. And I don't really see a need to overturn that.

I think we all agree there's ways to speed it up, but we should get the fundamentals right. Can I jump in with a fast follow-up here, which is to say, do you think the PM is letting the pro-environment side down? in his approach with Premier Smith? I've heard from a lot of people who are very concerned about this. I've heard from a lot of folks who really believed that he was someone who cared deeply about climate change and protecting the environment. And we just announced a big nature strategy. We've announced important protections when it comes to conservation. But at the same time, people are saying, okay, but what does this?

mean for all of those things as well. And so I think there's there's a lot of questions that are circling. I think people want to, they want to believe him and they want to trust that, you know, he really does care about the environment and he really does care about fighting climate change. But there's a lot of questions. And I would say that, you know, there's a moment right now where there is broad public support to ensure that we have energy security and energy sovereignty that we are, you know, exporting our oil. We see what's happening, you know, in the world right now. We see that there is a demand for Canadian energy. But I think the environmental side of it, the side that a lot of Canadians expect is that we uphold those environmental rules and those environmental

protections while we do that. Martha, come on in. Well, first, and maybe this will counter my crushingly boring thing. I find it deeply offensive to be, to have it suggested that I am not pro environment and that I am not worried about climate change because I am 100% supportive of an MOU between the federal government and Alberta. I'm 100% supportive of building a pipeline to the west coast. In fact, I remember running against a certain person who became prime minister in a leadership and one of my key planks was that we needed to have built Northern Gateway. But that does not mean I'm not pro environment. I don't think the pro environment side. and this is to you, Steve, because you referred to the pro-environment side.

I don't think that's how this should be characterized. I think it should be that on some of the environmental regulations that we have, the pendulum swung way too far. There's a famous story about, you know, we all know how much over budget the Trans Mountain Expansion became. There's a pretty famous story about, you know, an awful lot of money, close to a billion dollars for a bird's nest. So what we find is that we have rules and regulations,

but in the implementation, sometimes there's a lack of reality and a lack of common sense. So we have to find where that pendulum should be. I'm also on record as saying some of the environmental rules that we implemented, a lot of the Impact Assessment Act, for example, included way too much political discretion, so that politicians could ultimately say we should or shouldn't do that. And at the time, there were quite a few politicians who were very much not what you just said, Karina, not supportive of an oil pipeline or selling more of our oil to the rest of the world. There were quite a few who were actively wanting to shut it all down.

So when you have political discretion in that environment, stuff tends to get shut down. So I'm hoping that what we see with the effort between the federal and provincial governments, And this should not just be Alberta, by the way. Like the oil and gas industry is a huge industry. It's the biggest single industry for Canada, not just Alberta. And it's extremely important for our Canadian economy, which is one of the reasons you're seeing more support. What I would love to see is what Karina just said, we need to do this with respect for environment, with respect for what we can do as a country.

but at the same time encouraging the export of significant Canadian resources. So I just obviously I'm a little sensitive to this because I've lived enough years being told, you know, you're a climate change denier, you're anti the environment. There is nothing further from the truth. But I do think it's really important that we find where we can do all of the above appropriately and efficiently. Yeah, a couple things. I won't repeat what's already been said. But it is going to be interesting.

to get, assuming there is an MOU deal here that moves forward to the next phase, it will be interesting to see what the tradeoffs are, if I put it that way. If there is going to be a pipeline, what does that mean for indigenous? What does it mean for tanker bans? What does it mean in terms of the general net zero approach of the federal government to these things? you know it is obviously as a political person that's interesting to see the liberal party swallow itself whole on some of the things that Trudeau decided were the most important things for the future of civilization and Mark Carney has a somewhat different approach it appears so we'll see I agree with Karina 100% that anything that that is important for Canada Canada's development and also important for Alberta being part of our federation, that's a good news cycle.

That's a good thing. I just saw a video of Premier Smith being interviewed and she was asked point blank, you know, what does this mean for Alberta separation? She said, well, look, you know, I think any time Albertans are getting good paying jobs, that's a good day for Alberta in Canada. She said it's not the whole story, but it's a, you know, it's a big part of the story. story. And, you know, I think there will always be detractors in Alberta who want to, want to leave Canada, but it's a question of the quantum, right? And anything we can do to show

the federal and provincial government working together for a big project. That's going to mean lots of jobs, lots of economic opportunity, lots of ways to pay for health care and education and the other things that provincial governments provide. That's a good day. So I'm waiting with baited breath as we all are and hopefully it'll be good news. Okay, I'm going to come back to the separatism issue in a second, but Karina, I want to find out from you whether you think it's possible to be pro-environment and pro-Martha, this is the word I would use, but you tell me whether it's the wrong word to use, pro-environment and yet pro-exploitation of the potential windfall from the oil and gas business as you have described it.

Karina, can you be both? Well, I mean, I think it's a great question. And I would say that, you know, I've been elected for almost 11 years now. And I was part of the first and all three Trudeau governments. But it's why the Trudeau government bought and built TMX. Because there was a recognition that we needed to get our oil to Tidewater to market. But to do it in a way that was respectful of the environment. that respected indigenous rights.

So it can be done, you're saying? I think it absolutely can. And I mean, look at the LNG projects in in BC, some of the biggest natural resource projects that we've had in Canadian history. So I think this myth about like you actually have to like completely railroad environmental laws and environmental regulations to exploit resources is completely false. And I think you can do both at the same time.

But what I will say is that there are things in the discussion paper from Friday that give me a lot of pause, you know, especially when it comes to navigable waters, especially when it comes to, you know, Martha, you talked about political discretion. That discussion paper, if that were to become law, we already have it in C5. But to a certain extent, it would give so much political discretion to a cabinet or cabinet ministers to approve projects even before they go through. an initial assessment period. And I don't think we want to give cabinet that kind of authority. It really limits the role of Parliament. And I think Parliament should and must play an important role. So there are some really concerning things in there.

And no offense, Tony. But I ran in 2015 because Harper was doing a lot of these things. And so I have some significant concerns with that. And I actually just don't think it's necessary. I think that the prime minister using existing environmental laws can actually get big things done. I think, you know, one of the differences, and you know, you mentioned it, or Martha, I think, is that there's a different moment right now. In 2015, there were people who were really opposed to building a pipeline. There still are people who are really opposed to building a pipeline.

Don't get me wrong. And I think the pipeline route will have a big impact on that. You know, I think there's going to be people who could say, who are pragmatic and would say, you know, something along the southern route, TMX optimization, you know, there's probably a lot of support for that. A whole new route through Northern Gateway, through, you know, that area will be a lot more controversial than something else. So, like, I think there is generally more of an acceptance from the public that we need to do something here. Yeah, public opinion's moved on this for sure.

The Commission is moved quite dramatically, actually. Yeah, but it has, right? But I think people still expect that we do this the right way. Okay, Martha, come on in. Oh, just, yeah, but doing the right way, I would love, that sounds great, Karina, but right now it takes forever to build anything in Canada. And so I think there's a really strong recognition that we have to, let me back up for a second.

I am not one to say we have, we have to get rid of regulation. I do not agree with that. I in fact think that Canada, in fact, stands very high in the world and rightly so because we have good regulation in a lot of places, environmental, labor, all sorts of things, rule of law. I'm one of those who feels that good regulation is in fact a comparative advantage. What I really have seen over the last few decades, and frankly, you know, color the hair, I've been around for a few decades. We've allowed a regulatory overburden to really. really, really take hold in Canada, which, you know, it's overlapping, it's, it's minutia, it's not necessarily always based in reality. And frankly, we have people implementing some of those regulations who, to your point, are still the, you know, anti-pipeline people. And when you have people like that, given the task of implementing some of these regulations, a lack of reality takes place and things can take so, so long. We can't continue to do that in this country. So we have to find how we can respect the environment, how we can respect indigenous rights in a way

that continues to get things built. Let me just be really clear. The original Northern Gateway, there were an awful lot of indigenous communities who were pretty upset when that was canceled. Not every indigenous community is against this kind of infrastructure. And And to respect consultation and engagement, a awful lot of people when that was canceled said, you know what, it's not appropriate to just consult with those who are against this kind of infrastructure. You need to actually consult with all of us. And I will say I think the industry, certainly in the last 20, 25 years, has led the way, not just in Canada, but globally in terms of partnering with indigenous communities,

moving to full equity equity participation. The industry, frankly, has done a hell of a lot better job than the government. And I think that's an example that sets the stage for doing it really, really well. And that's what I think we all want to do. Can I just add one thing. Martha just mentioned the industry. And that's a key part of this to the private sector and what the private sector needs. So this is not just public money going into these projects.

I don't think anybody wants to see 100% federal contributions. for these projects. They would bankrupt us. We would have rather not, we would rather have not had the government have to buy TMX. So there were lot of reasons for that. So I guess my point is like what, what,

what the private sector needs is certainty, a path forward that is certain, that is obvious, that is, in a sense, there is going to be regulation, of course, but I think Martha's point is we've,

we've overregulated. So let's, let's dial it back a little bit. All of these things are going to be important to attract, private capital from Canada and around the world to make this a go. It's one thing for Mr. Carney and Madame Smith to say it's a go. It's another thing to get private sector involvement so it actually happens.

No, for sure. Private sector partners is essential here. Can I just jump in because I think it's really important? If you don't get the indigenous piece right, though, you're not getting anything built, right? Yeah, but Karina, with all due respect. Right. Because it'll be tied up in the courts. And so with all do you respect, we, there are some of us who have been living that for, you know, a decade or more.

Nobody understands that better than the people who have been involved in that for years. To have somebody from Southern Ontario say, you have to get it right. Is, is, is, is, is, is, is disrespectful in the sense of so many people who have lived that. I was a cabinet minister. And so we had to deal with that on a whole wide range of projects. I'm just saying, there's an awful lot of people who actually already get that. I'm from Southern Ontario. I have people who work in manufacturing on pipelines. Like, I understand this. I don't think it's fair for you to suggest that I don't.

But what I'm saying is that from a governance point of view, if you don't get the indigenous piece right, you're not getting anything built. All I'm saying is that some of us have already known that for a long time. Well, I know. But what I'm saying is if you don't get that right, and in the discussion paper that was released on Friday, they have a concept of having an indigenous consultation hub, as if that is like, you know, something that can be managed off the side of a desk as opposed to something that's integral to the project. And I'm not disagreeing with you in terms of the role the private sector has played. I'm just saying that if you don't get that piece right, we're not getting anything

built. And the objective is to get it built. It's a specific condescending to be told that. I get you. Let me jump in here because I do want to have all three, if you speak to the issue of separation. because certainly one of the cards that Danielle Smith has been playing in her meetings with Mark Carney, and he seems to be very aware of this as well, is that if significant changes in the way Ottawa deals with Alberta aren't in the offing, it will merely stoke the flames of separation. And I talked about this on last week's show with Bob Ray, did a one-on-one with the former UN ambassador, former Premier of Ontario, in which we sort of compared what Prime Minister David Cameron tried to do in the UK,

Brexit as in you know potentially allowing this vote in hopes of taking steam out of the issue and asking whether or not that was comparable to what's going on in Alberta right now namely allowing this vote on separation to take place in the hopes of taking the steam out of the issue and Bob Ray's view was it doesn't take the steam out of the issue it spreads the poison wider that was the quote he used Martha you're in Alberta tell us where you are on this there's an awful lot of us felt that there were going to be an awful lot of people signing the petition because a lot of anger, a lot of frustration, certainly from the 10 years before, but longer than that. And that even though a lot of people would sign a position, there weren't going to be that many that would actually say yes to a referendum.

People would sign just to send a message because they're angry. Look, there's no question. Cameron was taken completely by surprise at just how much that poison spread to use Bob's description. I'm confident that, and as you know, Steve, I'm pretty familiar with an awful lot of what went into the history of Quebec separation. It's very different here. And we're all just hoping, and I, kudos to my colleague, Jason Kenney. he's now really speaking up about this and we need albertans to be like him to be speaking up about it um

what's interesting now is if you talk if you use brexit and we recognize that mistake might have been made in that in that moment to allow the the this to take on more um air more oxygen is to look at what's happened as a result and the numbers that i've seen more recently on honestly pretty devastating effects to the United Kingdom, to the, to Great Britain's economy and GDP have been shocking, like just how badly. Yeah. Exactly. And so if anything, that can help us in Alberta and in Canada to say, this is, this just has

a whole lot of other effects. You might be angry. Let's deal with that. But let's actually understand that this is not helping anybody, least of all Albertans, but certainly not. Let me get Tony in on this. Tony, I remember back, well, we're going to go back three and a half decades now when you were in Ontario politics. You were a big fan of referendums, and I think you actually promoted some legislation offering that under certain circumstances for Ontario.

Initiative referendum, indeed. There you go. There you go. Okay. So in your view, and I'd like your take on Bob Ray's view, that this doesn't take the steam out of those kinds of movements, it actually spreads the poison wider? I mean, we're trying to predict the future right now. So that's a that's a Mug's game.

But I think that if you try to keep it bottled up as well, that there is an impact of that as well. So we have to be careful here. If the attitude of the ruling elites is there's going to be no referendum, we're going to disallow every single referendum, I'm not sure that's going to take the steam out either. So we're in this position. You can say the genie's out of the bottle or whatever,

but we're in a position where a referendum could happen if it conforms to the rules. And we're going to have to deal with that. I think that if I can draw the analogy, everybody is drawing the analogy with David Cameron and Brexit. The interesting thing about Brexit, to me at least, was that the reason why Brexit happened in terms of voters agreeing 52 or 54% for Brexit, was that it wasn't the economic issues per se. It was the open border issues.

It was immigration issues. Cultural immigration. So interestingly, Daniel Smith has a referendum question coming up on Albertans taking more control over their immigration policy. So I find that interesting. You know, in the game of chess that all this is, that's an interesting move by the Alberta Premier. Let's just put it that way.

So I think that I don't think that. I don't think the right approach is to try to shut down a debate. I think we have to have the debate. Jason Kenney is a former Alberta Premier is saying some things about this debate, as he has the right to do. And other Albertans are going to get engaged and involved, it appears. And so that's all good. I think, you know, let that debate happen.

I'm pretty confident that Canada is going to survive, that good sense will prevail. But that's not for me to say as an Ontario. that's for Albertans to judge and decide. Sure. Okay. Karina Gould, come on in. Yeah, look, I mean, I guess my take on referendums is that the way people vote in them

isn't often directly associated to the question that is being asked. It's about feelings in the moment or frustrations. And so there's always a risk with a referendum that people kind of share their frustrations in their vote, and I think that's what you saw in the UK. There were a lot of frustrations about how people were feeling in their country, and they kind of put that on the fact that that was related to being a member of the EU. You know, when it comes to this question, so I mean, personally, I'm not a huge fan of referendums in that regard, but look, it's a question for Albertans to decide my position is I hope they stay in Canada,

I hope that there is a great majority of Albertans who see the benefit of being part of this country. And I think for the rest of us around the country, we want Alberta to stay. And we value Alberta and Albertans. And so I think that's my position on all of this. And we'll be back right after this. Hey, folks, if you're listening to this show or watching us online, you already know that politics moves fast. Headlines change, narratives shift, and sometimes it can feel as if everything is up for debate. But there is one thing about which you can be absolutely certain, and that's what your bank will

never ask you for. Your bank will never call, never email, or text or ask you for a password, or ask you for a pin or one-time passcodes. And they will never ask you to move money to a so-called safe account. In fact, if someone tells you to do that, watch out. It's a scam. Fraudsters are getting more sophisticated. Fishing texts, fake investment offers, phone calls that sound surprisingly convincing, and unfortunately, they work hard at it. Well, maybe not as hard as Tony Clement, but you get the idea. The good news is Canada's banks are on your side. They offer free tools and practical tips to help you spot the warning signs and collaborate with cross-sector partners from the Canadian Anti-S scam Coalition to help stop these criminals. Banks know how hard Canadians work for their money and protecting it matters. For all the essential information, visit this website.

CBA.ca.ca.for-slash scams. That's cba.ca.4.coms. And now, back to the show. Here with Tony Clement, Martha Hull-Finley, and Karina Gould. And how do I set this up? I don't want to pretend for a second. This is the most burning issue in the country today. However, I think you all know a guy named Duff Conacher, who runs a group called Democracy Watch,

and every now and then he sends out a press release with a view of something that's going on in the country right now. And this past week, he put out a press release in which he, I guess, challenged the prime minister to come up with a better way of appointing senators because there is a huge number of vacancies in the Senate right now that require filling by law, and yet the prime minister has not filled any of them. As we know, back in the day, prime ministers used to fill Senate vacancies by essentially most of the time putting partisan supporters in their party bag men and women and so on.

And then Justin Trudeau tried to change it by taking partisanship, like pure partisanship out of it, and appointing a sort of a council of elders, if I can put it that way, although critics would say many of them still had small illiberal views. Connaker's view is we need to get a much more rigorous, nonpartisan, truly independent way of appointing senators. And I don't know. I think obviously the conservative's view is we should go back to the way it was where they're fully partisan participants in parliament. Where is everybody on this?

Karina, start us off. Yeah, well, full disclosure. I mean, I set up the independent appointments process when I was Minister of Democratic institutions. so I have a particular or in the water on this. But I guess I would say that I would be very cautious about Duff's approach. I think it merits a question of how much power do you want to give the Senate and senators who are appointed. And what is the role that we view for senators? I mean, it's the Chamber of Sober Second Thought.

They do actually have extraordinary power. already, but they usually limit themselves in that because they recognize that they need to defer to the elected House. But we've had moments where, you know, they've sent things back to the house with changes and we've had that, you know, kind of dance back and forth. And that's their job. And that's their job, right? I think the question is, and this is a question for Canadian society, like do we want senators to kind of be deferred and equal to the House of Commons and elected representatives? And then if that's the case, then we should be talking about having an elected upper chamber, I think, as opposed to something that's completely removed from the political

hands. I think it requires constitutional change as well if we were to do that. So it's a broader question. I think that this is still new. I mean, it's 10 years in. I think it's working fairly well. You know, I've had interesting conversations with senators who would like to have more authority, but, you know, they recognize and they defer often to the elected house and the will of the chamber. And so I personally think that that is important, but this is a conversation that we should be having. I don't support a Duff's proposal. I must say I have enjoyed in the past, and this will tell you how boring I am, watching Senate hearings when liberal cabinet ministers come before the Senate and they think they're going to get a nice warm welcome from whom they assume are liberal allies. And the senators actually give them a good grilling.

They grill them. Yeah. Yeah. And that's all, I think, in the interest of democracy that they don't get a free ride there. Okay, Tony, come on in. What do you want to see happen? I would like to see us back to partisan appointments. So I'm the other extreme from Mr. Conacher in that sense.

Look, you know, the thing about the way I guess Karina and Justin Trudeau set things up, it has the veneer of impartiality while still appointing a whole boatload of progressives to support the government agenda on issues of importance. So to me, it's kind of pulling the wall a little bit. I'd rather have the prime minister of the country who is by virtue of his or her position, elected to be prime minister, make those appointments and make them directly. And get the heat as Prime Minister Harper did. Prime Minister Harper did get the heat for some of those Senate appointments.

And there's lots of cases where they don't all have to be partisan political party of the same stripe. you know, who appointed Hugh Siegel to the Senate? Was Paul Martin? A liberal prime minister appointed a progressive conservative. So these things, I think Norm Atkins was appointed. Who appointed Normat? Maybe that was Moorne. But there was somebody that Kretchen appointed that was not from that ilk.

I love that you have like one example. I do. I do. Because that, of course, you know, you know how politics works. That cleanses all. all the other partisan appointment. Well, we appointed, you know, Hugh Siegel, so everything's fine. You know, I get that. I get that.

But I think overall, if you want political accountability for these appointments, you got to leave it on the lap of the prime minister. That's what I'd like to see. Okay. Martha Hall-Finley, what say you? Just saying Hugh Siegel was actually pretty awesome. So, you know, whoever appointed him, it was a good appointment. He was a stalwart Canadian and contributed an awful.

Can I tell a little fast story there? Because I asked you, Siegel, why did a liberal prime minister put you a well-known Bill Davis loyalist progressive conservative into the Senate? And Mr. Siegel said, I got the phone call from him. I said to him, you realize, Prime Minister, I'm going to use every waking hour in the Senate to defeat your agenda. And the prime minister apparently said, yep, but you're a smart guy, you're a good guy, your heart's in the right place. You love Canada. I'm appointing you.

And that's how it went down. But huge amount of respect. He was like heavy on the progressive side of the conservatives, right? Like, you know, also true. He did support me for leader. Can't be that progressive. He's judgment was obviously questionable from time to time. I'm trying to be nice to Tony and Paken takes it right away.

There you go. Listen, I agree with Tony when he says there's a veneer of independence there. I don't think that's what we've seen. But I actually, I mean, look, with the provinces don't have sentence, right? And they manage. There was talk about do we even need a Senate at all. I personally love at the federal level the idea of sober second thought. And if I can, a shout out to Senator Peter Beam and Senator Peter Harder,

who have been co-chairs of the International Trade Committee, who have done over the last few years absolutely yeoman's work in doing what they are supposed to do. There were a couple of bills, the famous 282, which died when the government, when prerogation, but then it came back. They did, they, they basically said the House committee involved did not do its homework. They were much more diplomatic than that. And put a ton of effort into really questioning the premise of certainly that bill, but they've done an awful lot in other areas. That's what the Senate's for. and to the extent that they actually do really good work and really dive into these issues

because the House committees frankly, although, you know, 10, 20 years ago, committees of the House of Commons actually often did really good work. I don't see that anymore. They've become massively partisan. So, yes, we need a Senate. I strongly support the independent approach. At the time, I, you know, wanted to engage in the discussion of should it be more like the appointments to the order of Canada?

should it be more like, you know, Tony, you might question my saying more like the appointment of judges. But there are areas in Canada where we have tried very hard to recognize and include people regardless of their partisan stripe. I actually think the system that Karina and her and her gang put together was a good one. I just would much rather see it actually be implemented in the spirit of true independence. I do think that's possible. You get the prime minister to get a group of people from a variety of different political backgrounds to help opine on who should be the candidates. There are ways to do this.

I just, so I'm agreeing with both Tony and Karina, and I want the record to show that. I just think that we could do it better. I want to see not only Cool and the gang do a concert this summer, but Karina and the gang as well. That's apparently a new group that I was unaware of. and we'll be back right after this. Let's move to Block 3, friends. And for this segment, I want to ask all three of you off the top here. And I'm going to look at my screen just to see.

I filled out my census form last night. I got it in on time. Martha Hall, you did it as well. And Karina Gold. And Tony, did you do your census? I did last week. Of course you did. Tony, I'm betting you let your wife do it.

Well, remember we have two households. So I think I'm responsible for the misconstitutional. a household. Oh, and did you do the census for that one? I have one of these things called in rural Canada, you know, a separate mailbox that's not at my house. So I just check it once or once every two weeks or so, see what's in there. Well, you better get there, Tony.

You're going to get thrown in jail for not filling out the census properly. Yeah. Well, this is why I wanted to talk about this subject this week because it's good. And Tony, you didn't know this question was coming or maybe you did. You should have if you didn't think it wasn't. But when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and Tony Clement was in charge of reforming the census in this country, boy, was there ever a big stink bomb dropped in the middle of Ottawa back then when the prime minister said it's too invasive. It asks too many questions of people's lives.

Tony, go fix this. What happened next? All hell broke loose. We gave a ready issue to the Trudeau Liberals to beat us over the head for several years. That was in the summer of 2010. As an aside, let me say that after that, which took all the summer and all of the fall, it just took all the oxygen. It was the long form census. Let me make that clear, not the short form, the long form census.

Which you ended. I made it voluntary. I didn't end it. I made it voluntary. Not mandatory. Anyway, I learned this one. Karina may have learned this lesson intuitively. I had to learn the hard way.

But I made that decision in July, no, late June of 2010 to make the long form census voluntary, not mandatory. And I've suffered over the whole summer and end of the fall because I'm a city. So I said to myself and my staff, I stopped making decisions as a minister mid-June. I'm not going to make another effing decision until the fall. Some other poor schmo of a cabinet minister is going to make a stupid decision late June, and they will have to wear it all summer. It ain't going to be me.

So I just want to make that. That's a true story. Anyway, so to remind. There was reaction. I do remember. It started with the genealogical society. It started with a genealogical society. And I thought, well, who cares about them?

Then it became Harper and Clement are anti-science and the rest of it. So, I mean, it's 16 years ago, you know, maybe we still remember one guy on Twitter. I said, dude, that was 16 years ago. Get over it. But the intent was because if you don't fill out a mandatory census, one of the penalties available to the government is to throw you in jail. we felt not just me the cabinet and the prime minister not just tony clement felt that that was way too harsh or a way too intrusive method of collecting statistics we also felt that there are many other ways to collect statistics now you don't need a mandatory long form to get the kind of data

quality data that statistics Canada needs uh but what followed was a revolt at Statscan where the former, the former head of Statscan, who had been there for 30 years, mounted a coup d'etat against the whole idea. The chief statistician resigned. Then he got a cushy job at Queen's University. You know, so it just steamrolled. And, you know, we call that in my world? We call that a great story.

So I don't know what to tell you that. Also, like, you failed to view how much Canadians love filling out forms. Well, there are not all Canadians. And indeed, and indeed, the Karina, one of the groups, one of the groups that did not fill out the form. And this may surprise you were certain indigenous groups who found it very intrusive and said, you know what? This is a government we don't even recognize. F you guys, we're not going to fill out the forms. So I felt that one of the reasons why a voluntary form might be better would be that indigenous groups would be more apt to.

to fill it out. That's a story that never really got out there. But shame on me. But anyway, here we are. But it, but, but, but it was also, I personally, I'm a huge fan of as much data as we can get, not, you know, invasion of privacy, but data. And because, you know, political leaders, decision makers need data to make the best decisions possible.

And I remember so vividly one of the concerns at the time, Tony, and I, putting people in jail, I totally disagree with. But there are other ways to encourage. filling out the forms. And so I didn't disagree with that. Putting somebody in jail for that was over the top. But encouraging people to provide as much data as possible is really important, especially for those who may not have the linguistic capability,

may find forms intimidating Karena. There are lots of particularly newer Canadians who actually don't like filling forms. And we found that very much at the time. And so needed to be encouraged. because if they weren't actually completing the census, then they would disappear from the discourse of policy of decision making. And we did not want people who were otherwise worried about, you know, some, a lot of Canadians have come from, new Canadians have come from jurisdictions where the last thing you want is for your authoritarian government to know information about you.

Luckily, that's not the case here. But we really have. to encourage those people to recognize filling out the census and providing that data in Canada is safe and in fact is extremely important to have your communities involved and counted for important policies that can benefit you. So I'm a big fan of data. Karina, last word do you on this? Yeah, no, I mean, me too. And I think I think the point is that I think Canadians actually generally understand how important data is, which is why there was such a big backlash, because they understand how vital it is for making decisions about, you know, where the school is going to be, where the hospital is going to be, how services are provided.

And one of my like favorite moments post-2015 was, you know, the first decision that the prime minister in Napdip Bain said after the election was we're bringing back. the long form census. Same day they were sworn in. And yeah, and it makes census was trending on Twitter. Like, you know, like people, people just loved it. And I'll tell you as a sitting MP right now, the amount of people who have called because they want the long form census is actually astounding to me. So, you know, it's, it's been, it's kind of funny. But, no, I, like, again, there's, I think there's some misinformation out there because,

you know, I don't think anyone wants to throw anybody in jail for not filling out the census. And that is very much like a very, you know, end of the line because there's so much engagement that would happen before that to really encourage people to do it. And I think your point, Martha, is absolutely right. It's about making sure people feel safe and confident in how that data is being used. And I'll just maybe make one more brief comment is that, you know, one of Canada's strong. And, you know, the strengths is Statistics Canada and is our vital statistics that we have. And we actually train countries around the world on how to collect and manage this data so that they can provide better services to their citizens and do it in a way where their

citizens also feel safe. So I actually think this is a story we should be really proud of. Could I just add one thing? Gotcha. First of all, two things. First of all, I'm not anti-data. I was just anti-coercion. But I put that aside.

Gotcha. Statistics Canada has a reputation for being one of the premier statistics agencies in the world. I think that that was true up until the early 2000s. And actually now, people don't realize this, but there is growing evidence that other countries are modernizing. their statistics gathering and data gathering. And Stats can is kind of set in amber because they don't want to change. They don't want to do anything different because we're the best in the world,

so why would we change? So I would really like to see, and I had this conversation with Nav Baines, actually, when he was industry minister. You know, I really would like to see a real review of Statscan to see what can be done to modernize the institution,

not diminish it, modernize it, use the tools that are available in the tech world in which we inhabit now. And I would bet you that we would find lots of ways to gather data that is less intrusive and less coercive than we do now. Okay, thanks for that, Tony. Let's move on to Block 4, in which we ask our three participants here today to give a good on you to somebody in public life who did something that they kind of liked over the last. couple of weeks and even better if it's somebody from a party that they don't represent. So how about let's get our, let's get our guest to go first. Karina Gould, who did something over the last couple of weeks that you'd like to say, good on you to?

Yeah. So I actually thought it had to be someone from a different political party. It does. Yeah, we like that. Yeah, so I was thinking about this. And I'm not going to say one person in particular, but I'm actually going to give a shout out to the Block Quebequa for their opposition day last week in Parliament because it was about what more we can do as a country to support sectors that are affected by 232 tariffs.

And it was actually a very constructive debate and conversation. And I was really happy to participate in that as someone who's from an area that has a lot of jobs that are affected by the 232 tariffs. And one idea that came out that I think is worth exploration. And this came from Jean de Nijal, the finance critic for the block, was to consider a wage subsidy program. for companies that are experiencing 232 tariffs, especially since the change on April 6th from the U.S. government. So that's my shoutout.

Excellent. Karina Gould with a shoutout and a good eye to the block Quebecois. Martha Hall-Findley, who gets yours this week? So it's not a different party, but it is a different country or the people of a different country with whom we're having some significant challenges. So I've had a number of Americans say to me, look, we're really sorry, right?

We're really sorry about all that's happening. And a few have said, we, you know, look, we understand why Canadians hate Americans now. And I every time say, look, it's no, no, no, we don't hate Americans. There are longstanding relationships, economic, cultural, family ties, all sorts of sorts. We don't hate Americans. Not particularly thrilled with your government right now. I tend to be more diplomatic and not go on to say it, but half you voted for the guy and you knew what you were getting.

So there's a bit of a problem there. But the Americans in the Americans in Buffalo at the game where they sang, Oh, Canada. What a treat to have that happen. You should just explain, Martha, for those who missed it, right? Like the microphone went out for the singer who was supposed to do, Oh, Canada. and the crowd just took it up and sang it themselves. The whole crowd.

Not just the Canadians in the crowd. It was clear. It was the whole crowd. Hands over heart too. Yeah. And so that was heartwarming. And so a shout out to a shout out to Americans right now. Because I think an awful lot are challenged as well with the strained relationship that we have.

And so good on them. And how about a good, listen, by the time this airs, I'm not sure where the things are going to be. But I know Tony Clements in Montreal, Canadian. fans so I will say good on you Buffalo Sabres and I hope you kick those Habs asses all the way back. Anyway, sorry, leave fans can't cheer for the Habs. I don't care. Yeah, right. Leafs arrangement syndrome.

Leaf fans just cannot, cannot, cannot cheer for the Montreal Canadians even if they're the only team from Canada left in the playoffs. No, I will cheer for every Canadian team in the playoffs. Okay, well, you and I are different. I respect your right to be wrong, Karina. That's okay. Well, as Steve knows, as Steve knows, I went to game too. in Buffalo at Cheer on the Habs and the fans they won.

But the important thing is the Buffalo fans were terrific. They were just very welcoming and engaging. And there was no awkwardness there just because I was wearing a Habs jersey, Steve. So there's still hope for you yet. I still hold out hope. When we're in the finals against an American team, you know, maybe you'll just quietly in your heart of hearts, go Canadian. Go le glory.

No. No. No, it ain't going to happen. No. So my good on you, though, is to do with what else can be said about Nathaniel Erskine Smith that hasn't already been said. But unwittingly, perhaps, we don't know how this is going to play out. But maybe, and Karina as a Democratic reformer yourself, the idea of maybe just getting a better handle on nomination meetings in our political system. you know, I resisted it as a party militant myself, but maybe, just maybe it's time to, to review how things are done in our nominations process because this, I don't know what's going to happen in his appeal.

I don't know the facts, but the very thing, things that are being asserted about that nomination meeting are unsettling. and so maybe it's a good thing that we kind of have this review as a society and come up with a better way where there's maybe more shared responsibility between the political party and elections Canada or something to make sure that we have nominations, processes that we can all be proud of. So good on you, Nate. I know this isn't the way you wanted to have a good on you, but maybe that'll be the impact of what's going on. there. No, that's very fair. And I should just actually get Karina to comment on this, because

for those who haven't followed the story as carefully as the rest of us, this is Karina's liberal MP colleague from Beaches East York and Toronto, Nate Erskine Smith, who decided to stand for a liberal Ontario nomination to a seat in Scarborough for Queens Park and lost by 19 votes on the third ballot in a ranked ballot system. and alleged after the fact significant irregularities that he says cost his campaign numerous votes

and allowed people who should not have been allowed to vote for the guy who ended up winning Osama al-Fees. So the Liberal Party is going to investigate all that and Tony, you're right. If the ultimate impact of all of this is that nomination meetings get cleaned up,

that would be a good thing because they are they are probably one of the, I'm trying to be real careful how I say this here. They are right with corruption. There you go. Okay, Martha. I'm glad you said it. I'm glad you said it.

They're messy. Go ahead, Karina. Why don't you take a last word on this? Yeah, no. Look, I mean, I think there's always a pushback from political parties to, for any outside body to get involved in the nomination process. My experience with nominations has been that they are all. always messy. They are always messy. I mean, it's a fight inside the family. And so it there's,

the emotions are higher and different than they are, I would say, in a general election. And I think some of the issues that Nate has raised are really concerning. And so I hope that the OLP takes this seriously. I think it's interesting that he has decided that whatever the outcome, he's removing himself from the next. Yeah. Yeah, he's not going to run there regardless. He's not going to run that regardless. And he also announced yesterday, that he's going to be resigning his seat federally as well. So I think that's a mature thing to do. But it is going to be an interesting conversation and one that all of the political parties

are generally vehemently opposed to. But I think there is something to be said. And like as parties, we should want to have clean nomination races, right? Like I think we should want that. I remember the provincial progressive, sorry, the federal conservative nomination in Burlington for the 2019 election. Like they had to call the police in because it, you know, there was so much going on at the time, right? And like, I think that's just not what we want in general. And so I think there should also just be this onus on each of the political parties to say, like let's just make sure that this is done.

well. And I would say, you know, like in our federal liberal leadership race, I mean, the party took such pains to ensure that it was, you know, well done, clean, and really made sure that everything was above board. And so I think that that's really important for all of us, whether it's a nomination in a riding or whether it's a leadership race. Great. We're going to do a little bit of housekeeping before we sign off here and we're going to start with something that was raised on this show a couple of weeks ago when we had Michael Bonner the author and historian on and Tony we established then that you apparently had met Michael when he was in a stroller at the age of two during a campaign but no one could remember which campaign it was well I did some investigative journalism here and discovered that it was the 1984 Canadian federal election in which Tony I guess you were door knocking for a guy named Dan Lacaprera who was a progressive conservative candidate in that federal election. He was defeated by what looks like about three points by a liberal member of parliament. Roland de Corny named Roland de Corny.

That's right. Oh, wow. Who wore his collar in parliament. He was called. Wow. Anglican minister who wore his nickname. I won't agree with his nickname. But anyway, we'll go on from there.

No, we'll, I don't even want to know. Let's do, we're going to move on. I remember it, but I'm, I say nothing. Okay, good, good. But anyway, that was, how long ago? That was 42 years ago that your little contact with Michael Bonner took place, which I know you remember like it was yesterday. Great story. Now we know. Now we know. Ladies and gentlemen, we would encourage you to become members of our Patreon community. There are costs associated with doing this little show. And we love the fact that many of you have decided to chip in a couple of bucks a month to help us to fray those costs because we want to keep this show free. to everybody forever. Patreon.com forward slash the Paken podcast.

You'll find web exclusive videos there. We respond to your show ideas and your guest ideas there and keep them coming. All of our shows are available at the website, Stevepakin.com. Any last words, gang?

It was great having Karina. Great to see you, Karina. Thanks for being here. Karina Gold, MP for Burlington. Thanks for pinch hitting this week. Tony, Martha, great to see you again. Peace and love, as always, folks.

And we'll see you next time. Peace and love.