The Paikin Podcast - Paik’s Takes: End of the Auto Industry in Canada, Rising Discontent, and the Tragically Hip

Episode Date: May 19, 2026

In our second edition of “Paik’s Takes,” Steve is joined by The Big Story’s Caryn Ceolin to share, well, a few takes and answer some listener questions. Should we stop subsidizing the auto industry in Canada? Should Canada start its own automaker? As Canadians are we obliged to cheer for the Montreal Canadiens – especially if we are Toronto Maple Leaf fans? They also discuss why trust in institutions is cratering, the future of Canadian identity, “Maple MAGA” and rising discontent, Mike Harris stepping down as Premier, and Tragically Hip Kawartha Lakes flavour due out on Canada Day.   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] 

Hi, everybody. Steve Paken here. Well, we tried this a few weeks ago, and enough of you seem to like it, so we're going to try this again. This is a segment we're calling Pakes Takes, and we're going to roll it out, oh, I don't know, every few weeks, every few months, something like that. And the idea is, well, stay tuned. Last time I was all by myself, this time I've got a partner in crime for this episode of Pakes takes, and it's somebody that I think you know. I actually spend six minutes and 30 seconds with her every weekday morning. on City TV. Stand by. Pakes Takes coming right up on the Paken podcast. I am beyond delighted to welcome Karen C-Olin to our little episode here of Pakes takes on the Paken podcast. Karen and I are on breakfast television on City TV Monday to Friday at 647 a.m. for a little six and a half minute chit-chat about what do we call the segment Karen. I forget what it's called. Oh, oh, let me think. Paken on politics. That's it. Paken on politics. And you know, when they put the first day I walked in there, Karen, and they put the thing on the big screen behind us, I mean, I thought I was making my debut on

Broadway. It was so big and so scary. I wanted to walk off the set right away. It was so petrifying. But anyway, great to see you and thank you for doing this little thing with us. We're really grateful. We love having you on BT and I'm so grateful for the opportunity. Thank you for inviting me into your house now. Not at all. We thought this would be more fun because, As I say, we get six and a half minutes when we chit chat in the morning, but this will be a little long. Or less, yes. It depends if Mike Epple goes long. If Epple goes long, we get less time.

But I think the idea was to just have us come here and hang out a little bit. And I'm going to share a couple of takes with you and our audience. And then you're going to put some questions to me of stuff that's come in. And, you know, by the time it's all said and done, theoretically, this will be a semi-watchable 40-minute or so of I was going to say television, but it's not really television. Content? I don't know. Whatever we want to call it. But the first

thing I want to do is I want to introduce Paken podcast listeners and viewers to the extent that they don't know you, to you. So Karen, tell me, let's get it all on the table here. Where are you from originally? Vaughn, Ontario, north of Toronto. I know everyone says Toronto, but I'm from Vaughn.

I'm going to put it on the record. You're from Vaughn. Okay. And how'd you end up at City, TV. You know what? My career to city TV was a long one. Honestly, after I graduated from university, I went to the first place that would hire me. And that was in Grand Prairie, Alberta. It was a small little daily newspaper called the Daily Herald Tribune. I covered City Hall there. I covered the local court. And I loved it. And then from there, I moved to Thunder Bay. And I swear I left a piece of my heart in Thunder Bay. It's such an incredible city. I don't know if you've ever been, Steve. Many times. I love looking at that sleeping giant. It's a gorgeous, gorgeous vista. Yeah.

Yeah, the marina is absolutely stunning. I made so many friends out there. I was there for two and a half years, I want to say, worked at a radio station out there, and then slowly moved my way back to Toronto, spent some time in Chatham, Kent, spent some time in Kitchener, Waterloo. And then eventually the good folks at City TV decided to give me a chance and I joined City News. I want to say for like six and a half years to seven years, I covered exclusively international news for the newscast. And then two years ago, I joined Breakfast Television. Okay, here's the big thing that people are going to freak out over.

I know the answer, but I want you to share this anyway. What time do you have to wake up every day to get on breakfast television? So because I come from north of the city, even though there's no traffic at that hour, it still takes me like a good 30, 35 minutes to get to the office. So I set a multiple alarms. My first alarm goes off at 2 a.m. I'm finally out of bed by like 2.30, 2.35 and out the door by like 315. Out the door by 315. It's hard, but I love it, to be honest.

I'm such a morning person. Yeah, but that's not being a morning person. That's being a my circadian rhythm has been exploded by nuclear weapons kind of a person. You know, Steve, though, we're all impressed that you haven't slept in. You've made it every morning on time. Karen, it's more impressive than that. I have yet to sleep into my alarm. I set the alarm for 5.30 every morning, but my body wakes me up at 5.30 every day.

And so, but still, the notion of getting out of bed at 2.30. in the morning is insane to me. And yet you, props to, what time you have to go to bed to get up that early? I go to bed very early, which I know would not agree with your lifestyle, because you're in bed by like 10, 11 o'clock.

I don't know how you do it. I'm in bed by like on a good day by like 7.30. It's my dream. I love it. You're in bed by 7.30 p.m. every night. Yep. And it's still light outside. Do you know what you're missing out there, Karen?

I don't care. Karen, let me explain something here. You're living in arguably the coolest city in the whole country. I know some people are going to say Montreal, but I do love Toronto, even though I'm not from Toronto. No, I do too. You know stuff goes on after 7.30 p.m. in Toronto that I think you would actually really enjoy. You know what?

I would if I lived in Toronto. The thing is that the commute is just too long, Steve. Because you got to remember, it's taking me like 30 more minutes after that something ends to get back home. I get it. Yeah, it's not convenient. It sounds painful. Have you ever slept through the alarm? No, knock on wood. But now you've just jinxed me. No, no, I don't think so. You're a very disciplined person. It happens at least once. It happens at least once to everyone on the show.

Hasn't happened to me yet in two years. But those are my famous last words now. Good on you. Good on you. And be honest here, when you heard that you were going to have to share an anchor desk with some guy named Paken to do six and a half minutes on politics every morning, how many times? did you threaten to resign from city before they finally said, look, you have to do this. There's just no choice. Steve, it was actually quite the opposite. I needed people to pinch me to make sure it was real because I was like, there's no way they're putting me at a desk with the icon, Steve Paken. The what?

No, truly, you are an icon. I watched you on TVO for many, many years. And I was so thrilled that you joined, like you were joining our team to be able to bring your perspective to our audience because not only have I learned so much from you, like, as a journalist, like on that side of things, but I've also learned such a ton from you just being a Canadian citizen and how to kind of navigate this world. And so I'm so happy, and I think it's such a privilege that we've got you on that desk to help our make, to help our viewers make sense of the world. It's incredible. No, truly. Please, Karen, please continue.

Please continue. No, I take direct deposit, just so you know. And I want to say, I obviously watched you on television before I actually met you. And I get asked about you all the time. It's a funny thing, you know. I remember the first week I was on breakfast television. Somebody came up to me at a diner. I was at downtown.

And they said to me, hey, I know you. Wait a second. I know you. You're that guy on breakfast television, right? And I said to them, you do know I've been on. TVO for 33 years, right? And the person apparently did not know that. But anyway, I inevitably get asked about you. And let me return the compliment. Karen, you are prepared every single morning. You do your research. I never have a second's worth of nerves when I get on the set that I'm not

quote unquote in good hands because I know you will lead us through the topics skillfully with expertise. You really know your stuff. And I've never heard a negative word about you said out there by the people who watch the show. So I think it's going pretty well so far. You just log online. Just ignore the comments there. Yeah, we don't want to do that. Online is a whole other world. We definitely don't want to do that. Okay. So that's, oh, I have one last question. I do need to ask you about this because your name, Karen, is spelled kind of oddly you are a C-A-R-Y-N there it's basically a story there no story it's just I'm thankful now because it's the only redeeming factor about my name is that it's not spelled with a K and

any no no story other than other than actually that both my mom and my sister have first names that started that start with the C so my parents love the name Karen so they wanted to incorporate the C other than that that's all I got. And did your parents do a lot of shrooms when they were younger? Or is that, does that explain the odd spelling or what's the story there? Um, I'll have to ask them, TBD on that. Okay. You'll get back to me. You'll get back to me on that. Okay. Well, let's, um, having gone through this and, and you know what? We've been doing this longer. Just the initial part of our show here has lasted much longer than our entire segment every

morning on BT. So I kind of like the fact that we can, we just, we don't have to be so yeah, we don't have to be so clipped here when we're on this program. But let's undertake our first pakes take, okay? You want to hit me with something? Yeah, because actually, I called in sick for like the first time in many years on Thursday. I was unwell in the morning. And so many thanks to my colleague, Tammy Sutherland, whom you had this conversation with. You were talking about news reports by Japanese media that Honda plans to put on ice permanently.

plans to build a $15 billion EV plant in Ontario. And you were talking about whether or not this is a political liability for the Carney government and its EV-centric auto strategy. And it was something you said that raised a few eyebrows. You questioned do we need to actually make cars

in this country? You said, we're subsidizing to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars per employee to have an auto manufacturing presence in Canada. I'm sure there are many people who want to hear you elaborate, Steve. What do you mean by that? Whether they want to hear it or not, I'm going to elaborate anyway. And just to be clear, I was not taking a position on this.

I was not saying, I believe we ought to get out of the car manufacturing business in Canada. That's not a decision for me to make. The take, if you like, that I was trying to advance was that I don't think it's a terrible thing to have a discussion or a debate at the highest levels in this country as to whether or not this is still a business we want to be in. And by that I mean, well, I'll give you an example. Australia used to make cars. They used to have a fairly vibrant auto manufacturing sector down under. And in the judgment of the decision makers, the political leadership of the country, they got to a point where they felt that the auto manufacturing companies were coming to them asking for billions more and billions more in subsidies to keep those jobs alive.

And one day the government in its wisdom just said, you know what, we're not going to do this anymore. And the car company said, well, then we're going to have to leave. And the Australian government said, okay. And they did. The auto manufacturers left. There is no more auto manufacturing in Australia. And the country, if you look at the gross domestic product of the country, didn't miss a beat. They did not suffer any kind of major recession.

GDP of the country didn't go down at all because of it. People found other jobs in other sectors. I'm not saying that's what would happen here. I'm not advocating. That's what we should do here. But I'm all for having a discussion about whether or not, at both levels of government, federal and provincial, we still believe it's a good idea to spend billions upon billions of dollars trying to subsidize the auto manufacturers in this province. I don't know if you have a view on it that you want to share or if you want to just weigh in on this at all, but that's my position. We should have a discussion and see whether we as a society still believe so much in this sector that we want to spend the kind of money we're spending as taxpayers to keep all these jobs here. Maybe we do. But if we don't, we should discuss.

Karen, over to you. I think, too, when we look to the Australian example, like when the auto industry contracted, others that could compete without subsidy essentially expanded. And again, we don't know if something like that would happen here. I wonder what you make, though, about the talk of converting, like, the auto industry into a defense industry. Because there's also precedent there. Like, during the Second World War, I think the auto industry became the defense industry. And we ended up making a pretty critical contribution to, like, the Allied war effort. And union officials at GM and Ingersoll, they've already proposed, like, switching to military manufacturing to maintain the facility there.

do you think it is practical in economic terms to make that switch? Well, I was going to say it's not only a great point, but we don't have to go back as far as World War II to talk about some kind of transition in the auto manufacturing sector, which was important for a national project. You can just go back a few years to COVID. I mean, we had some auto manufacturing plants that managed to re, I'm not sure what the word is, but retool or adjust their lines

so that they started making ventilators. and they made other products, which turned into very useful things to have during the COVID pandemic. So this is not unprecedented. Your example of having done this during the war is a good one. There is the example that I just gave as well. So, yeah, that's entirely a possibility. I'm merely, how do I put this? I put this discussion on the agenda.

Sorry, that was the old show I used to do. I put this subject forward for discussion just because I've talked to a lot of politicians over the years who say, yes, we love having these good-paying, high-tech auto manufacturing jobs in the province of Ontario. It's great to have. But then they go on to say, but you know what, the amount of money we have to spend subsidizing all of these jobs so that they exist. I mean, the car companies won't come here unless they get billions upon billions of subsidies.

And they started to ask questions about whether or not it was worth doing. anymore. I noticed, Karen, how long ago was this? Probably a few months ago. The former Minister of Finance for the province of Ontario, a guy named Greg Sorbara, who had the job when Dalton McGinty was premier. He did an op-ed in one of the newspapers in Toronto, in which he said, it's time to just shut off the spigot. If they want to stay, let them stay, but we're not going to subsidize him anymore. And if they want to go, they can go, and we won't miss them. will, you know, people will find other jobs and, you know, the world will go on. I, again, I'm not taking a position.

I don't want people to get mad at me saying, I'm advocating this because I'm not. It's just something to think about. That's how I'll put it. I do think, though, that there's a reason why governments, successive governments, have not let the auto industry fail. And that's because it's a huge part of our Canadian economy, right? Like, the impact of its demise would be huge. And so I think that's why to the people in Windsor, in Ingersoll, in Oshawa, to them, any amount of subsidy is justified.

I wonder, though, like the reverse argument could also be made that the auto industry is such a crucial cornerstone for advanced manufacturing in this country. It's directly and indirectly supports hundreds of thousands of jobs. And if we're in a period in this country where we're trying to prioritize economic sovereignty, like how could we just give up on the auto industry? like that. I totally take your point. And we should remember the auto assembly and manufacturing that goes on in this country goes back to, well, it goes back to the Auto Pact in the 1960s, where we've had, you know, very well thought through agreements between ourselves and the United States on how to handle all of this. But we have a president right now who says he doesn't need anything at all from Canada. And frankly, doesn't want the auto manufacturer spending another dime

investing in plants in Canada. He wants to repatriate all of those auto manufacturing companies and all of their assets back to the United States. And if that's what the future looks like, if the auto manufacturers are going to be so cowed by President Trump's admonition that they all have to quote unquote come home, we are likely to see a kind of slow drip, drip, drip of auto manufacturing jobs leaving Canada unless the federal and provincial governments are prepared to pony up numbers, the likes of which we haven't seen before, in order to keep a presence here. Look, I wouldn't want to be the decision maker on this. It's a really hard call. You're right. There are whole communities that will be devastated if the auto manufacturing sector leaves.

On the other hand, if the Australian example is any example to us, life will go on and people will find other work and entrepreneurship will come to the fore. But I agree with you. It's a, it's a nerve-wracking decision to have to be responsible for, but I think it's something worth debating. Did you want to debate Flavio Volpe's idea, Steve? Okay, hit me with his idea. He wants a maid in Canada car? He wants a maid in Canada car. Yeah, he's, well, I think what he's advocating for really is a feasibility study into what it would take to make a Canadian automaker viable. And I think his argument is like if governments can commit billions to subsidize foreign companies investments here, then they can, you know, invest a small fraction of that to kind of explore

the possibility of what would go into developing a Canadian automaker here. There are a number of questions, though, like around that. And I think the biggest one being the potential market, right? Like how much of the Canadian market could a Canadian carmaker actually reach is probably too small right now to support an assembly plant solely with domestic sales? And then the other question is like can we actually find overseas markets? Like the majority of vehicles here in Canada have obviously long been exported to the U.S., the ones that are assembled here. That would probably defeat the purpose. And then the European market is served by its domestic production.

and then supplemented by imports from China and Japan. But to his point, we don't actually know until we study it. You've put your finger on the biggest issues here. Absolutely right. If we don't get preferred access for that made-in-Canada car to the United States, where there are potentially, you know, 150 million consumers, I don't know what the point of it would be because we certainly don't have an adequate market in this country

in order to keep something like that afloat. Could we manage to find overseas markets that would pick up the slack of having lost 150 million consumers in the United States? Maybe. Not overnight. That's for darn sure. But it's a big, it's a big stew of different possibilities and different concerns at the moment. And a fascinating subject to study. I'd love to get together with you in 10 years and see, you know, what transpired over the course of the next decade as people had to figure this whole thing out. Yeah. And certainly I don't think we'll have any definitive answers any time. soon.

For sure. What this will look like. Steve, it was another thing that you mentioned in your chat with my colleague Tammy on Thursday.

I think this is your take number two. You said, as Canadians, we should not be obliged to cheer for the Montreal, Canadians,

especially if we are Toronto-A-belief fans. I mean, I'm just going to walk away. I know you don't agree with me on this one. I don't. But on the other hand,

Karen, I think you have to, how do I put this. Karen, how much sports do you watch on television? How many Leaf Games a year do you watch? Okay. I get this. It's I, I, this spoken like a true non-hockey fan here. You've called me out. I am not a hockey fan. Don't take offense to this though, Steve. Like, I think you probably take, like, have this take. It's, it's because you're probably old enough to remember a time when both teams were good at the same time. Like, that hasn't been the case in a very long time. Right across my

bow. What a shot. I'm sorry. Yes. I do remember, I do remember a time. You have to remember, Okay, let me set this up. When I was growing up in the province of Ontario, there were two teams in Canada. That's it. There were the Canadians and there were the Maple Leafs. And there were no jets or flames or Oilers or Canucks. None of that existed yet. And therefore, you either were a fan of one team or the other.

And you couldn't possibly cheer for the other team if you were, you know, if you're a fan of the Leafs, you can never cheer for the Habs. I don't care if they're the only team left in the playoffs. And if you're a Habs fan, and I check this out with a lot of the buddies I work with at TVO, okay? There are far too many Montreal Canadiens fans who work at TVO and whom I see on a regular basis. And I put this take to them when? Yesterday, I said to them, would you ever cheer for the Leafs if the Leafs were the only team left in the playoffs? And they looked at me like, what are you nuts? Of course not.

So this is just a bridge too far. If you're a Leafs fan, you cannot cheer for the Ottawa Senators, even if they're the only Canadian team left. You cannot cheer for the Montreal Canadians, even if they're the only team left. The Western teams, I have no problem with that. I didn't grow up hating them. I grew up hating the haves.

So you're going to have to give me this one. This is one pake take you're going to have to give me, Karen. Listen, I concede that I actually did receive a few messages and a few emails as well, telling me that I'm wrong. And that Steve was right. As a Leafs fan, you cannot cheer for the haves. I'm going to make this a little more serious, though, because I understand sports is supposed to be apolitical,

but I think that in this very movement of geopolitical uncertainty, it is okay to put aside your hockey rivalries and show some Canadian pride. I will tell you that yesterday, I did an interview with our former ambassador to the United Nations Bob Ray, in which I put this very question to him because I wanted to prep for you today,

knowing how you were going to try to make me feel guilty about this. And Bob Ray, who of course grew up, of course grew up a leaf fan, and said, absolutely, it's fine to cheer for the Montreal Canadiens in the interest of national unity. So let's put it this way. I'm sure you did not see this documentary because there's not a chance in H.E. Double Hockey sticks that Karen C. Olin will watch a 10-part series on the Montreal Canadiens called The Rebuild. Right. But I did watch it on Netflix. And I have to say, this team is kind of adorable.

Their head coach, Martin-San-Louille, was a wonderful hockey player back in the day. they've got a lot of players on the team that you kind of cheer for, the Cole Coffields and the Nick Suzuki's. They have some very nice players there that, you know, that I understand why people feel affection to the team. I just can't cheer for them. I just can't do it. It's not in me to do.

So that's that. You know, I respect that you're not changing your position. It's fine. I'll let you have this. Thank you. Steve, I've got to take. Can I share it? Please.

Okay. I've been thinking recently about what a post-American world could look like. And I think that came into focus for me this week again with the prime minister's trip to Armenia, which we discussed on breakfast television. You know, he was a special guest to European leaders. In his remarks to those European leaders and in a nod to his Davos speech about the end of the world order, as we know it today, he said the world order can be built, but it's going to to be rebuilt out of Europe. And I understand why the prime minister is emphasizing Canada's focus on

Europe as this country, of course, moves closer to our European partners. You know, the prime minister has firmly believed that domestic reliance and jobs is going to come from these overseas partnerships. This is at least how he's framed that argument for a domestic audience. But I'm not entirely convinced that Europe is going to set the rules for a new world order. There are few reasons why, but I'm going to give the floor to you first. Okay. Well, I would say, you know, unlike the last discussion where you were just clearly wrong, I would say on this one, you've got a lot of heft behind that argument.

It is, it is, and again, I'm going to sort of, you know, refer to the fact that I grew up in the 1960s in this country. And it is hard for me to imagine a world without American international leadership. That's just the case. You know, the U.S. has been at the forefront of in a good way and in a bad way of pretty much every significant international development over, well, certainly, you know, you could certainly say since World War II, and that encompasses all of my lifetime. And yes, I certainly understand the impulse of the Prime Minister of Canada to want to find a different way forward. I would hasten to add that I think Pierre Trudeau back in the 1960s and 70s tried the same

thing, trying to find, quote, unquote, a third way whereby the world didn't have to depend so much on American leadership. But they are the biggest economy in the world. They have more nukes than anybody else. They have the biggest military in the world bigger than the next, what, six, seven, eight countries combined. So it seems unlikely to me at the first. moment, you know, what's the expression? I'm from Missouri on this. Missouri's the show me state.

So someone's going to have to show me that we can make a lot of progress. I don't know if ignoring is too strong a word, but sidlining or not waiting for American leadership on a whole lot of things. Because frankly, that's the way the world has worked for almost the last hundred years. Yeah, I think if you look at defense at technology, like no one partner ordeal can supplant the role of the U.S. in not just our country, but also the EU's economy and security. But I wonder for Prime Minister Mark Carney,

do you think there are any risks in him saying, like Europe is where the future is? Like, is this good politics to be approaching what he calls this rupture with the U.S. by betting against it? It's great politics if you're Canadian. There's no question about it. I remember Jean-Cretchen

back in the days talking to Bill Clinton where he would say things like, you know, I'm going to say a bunch of nasty things about you. Don't take it personally. It's just great domestic politics for a Canadian prime minister to take the odd shot at the United States. Now, if that was true when there was a president who liked Canada as much as Bill Clinton likes Canada, you know, times 10, times 100, for nowadays, when there's a president of the United States who doesn't like us at all. So domestically, for sure, this is good stuff. The question is, can he actually do anything with it?

are the European leaders actually prepared to put their money where their mouth is? Now, a lot of them have, as it relates to, for example, Russia's illegal and immoral war on Ukraine. They have put their money where their mouth is. But that's one theater of war in a world where there are dozens. And America is in dozens of places because they can afford to be. I don't know that the Europeans can be, and I don't know that we can be. Well, I know, of course, we can't be. So lots to figure out.

And I tell you, let me put this out there as well. You know, one wonders what a post-Trump America is going to look like. You know, America is the way it is today because Donald Trump is the president. Would it be the same if J.D. Vance were the next Republican president? Would it be the same if there were a Democrat in the White House? Would it be the same if one of the two houses of Congress changed party? I don't know the answer to any of those questions, but I suspect, you know, we're going to find out before long. So maybe we don't panic yet. Maybe we don't have to kind of jettison the notion that we have to do

everything without the U.S. now because they're just so unreliable as a partner and looking so inwardly these days. It's tricky stuff, eh? If I could perhaps poke a hole in the argument that it's good politics domestically. Go for it. I wonder though, like the risk, though, is irritating our largest trading partner, right? Like, how is a statement like that that the future is going to be built in Europe? How is that internalized by President Donald Trump? I mean, it's a fine line to walk and conveying to the president that we're not indebted to him, but also we don't want to, like, enrage him. Agreed, but I'm just looking at facts. And the fact is, Doug Ford ran against Donald Trump and won an election on it. Mark Carney ran against Donald Trump and won an election on it. So certainly,

at this moment in our history, it seems to be pretty good politics to say that's the guy I'm against and marginalize, frankly, your political opposition in this country. Now, may it, will it always be that way? You can never say that in politics. Politics has a way of turning on a dime and leaving a nickel change. But at the moment, no first minister in this country has a better bogeyman to run against than Donald Trump. And we'll be back right after this. Where do we go now? You want to, you want to hit me with some of the questions and comments we've got from the public? Hit me with your best shot. This one, Steve, is from Facebook. This is from Nikki. Many institutions, government, media, corporations, universities appear to be facing declining public trust simultaneously. Do you believe

this is primarily a leadership failure, an information age consequence, or a sign that our institutions themselves were not billed for the pressures of the modern era. What was that, Nikki, who said that one? Yes. Nikki, boy, tough and really good question. I would say yes, yes, and yes. And I'm sure there are other reasons on top of that, to be sure. I think your question points to a bigger conundrum,

which is to say, I know that there are many Canadians who, from time to time, ask themselves, how could anybody, in the United States ever vote for Donald Trump. You know, he's been so tough on us. There are people in Canada. I know there are people in Canada who ask this question all the time. How could anybody in their right mind vote for Trump? The saying goes.

And I think we have to, apropos of Nikki's question, remember the fact that not everybody's had a great go over the last, whatever, 30, 40 years of globalization. And a lot of formerly thriving cities have been, hollowed out because the one industry that supported the town disappeared. And, you know, when you hear previous Democratic Party presidents talk about the values and the joys of globalization because the economy is going to get bigger, and it did get bigger, you do have to remember that not everybody shared in all of the benefits and wealth that was

created by globalization. And a guy like Donald Trump comes along and says, I'm going to reopen the coal mine, I'm going to get that manufacturing plant to come back to your town. You know, never mind that none of that's happening, but he's promised it. And, you know, if you're somebody who has seen your life or the life you knew disappear, that's very persuasive. And so I have a lot of empathy for people who voted for Trump because they thought he's going to get me my manufacturing job back. I'm a guy who used to make $30 an hour, you know, building air conditioners. and, you know, now I'm making seven bucks an hour as a security guard. I get that.

So for all of the reasons and more, Nikki, that you referenced in your letter there, I understand why we're in some difficulty now as it relates to confidence in our public institutions and in politicians. But I think it's just incumbent upon, you know, everybody to try to rebuild that confidence. And I think it can be done. So let's go. this one is also from Facebook. This comes from Colin, pardon me. He says George Grant said Canada was an economic cultural colony of the United States,

given Canada's proximity to the U.S., the disparity between our economic powers, and the high amount of economic resilient or reliance on the U.S., do you think it is possible for Canada long term to maintain a distinct cultural national identity, rather than just not being the U.S.? Before I answer, can I ask you how, because we're different generations, and I'm really curious as to about you got more future than I do. So I want to hear your answer on this. What do you think? I think absolutely. Canada can maintain a distinct cultural and national identity. Look, we're not going to, we can't change our geography. We can't change borders.

But I think Canada is already pretty distinct from the U.S. and that goes far beyond, you know, maybe just our affinity to say Thorey. What do you think, Steve? I'm so glad to hear that from you because I'm 110% in agreement with you on this one. And you know who else is in agreement? George Grant's nephew. Do you know who that is? No, I don't. He's a guy named Michael Ignatiof.

He used to be the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, now overseas at a Central European University. I do know who he is, yeah. Yeah. And, you know, if George Grant's nephew believes that we are able to maintain what, makes us distinctly Canadian, despite the influences of American culture and American finance and American military and American politics in Canada, if he thinks is possible, I'm with him. Okay. This one is from Michelle. The trucker convoy is openly linked to Alberta separatism. The new glossy convoy face will be in Ottawa, May 16th, with Smith and Pollyev's frontmen,

which means the pickups and flags in my small town will join. them or at least be rattling along our main street and concessions. This version of the convoy is being called Maple Mega. Steve Paken, we can't wish this would simply die off and go away. How do we handle this wave of odd discontent? I think the first thing we need to do is listen. I don't think Albertans, particularly those who think they're getting a raw deal out of Confederation, want to hear people from Central Canada say to them,

come on, don't break up our country. You don't know how good you've got it. You'd be crazy to leave. That's not going to get us anywhere. So the first thing we've got to do is listen to what the grievances are and see if there's anything we can do to address them. And I think you and I've talked about this on BT in the past, which is to say, we happen to have at this moment a prime minister in Canada who fancies himself a westerner. You know, he wasn't born in Alberta, but he was raised in Alberta, and he definitely has an understanding of the grievances of Western Canada right now. And, you know, I have heard from sources in Ottawa that when the issue of how do we handle industrial carbon pricing, how do we handle other issues about how to divvy up revenue from

natural resources, whether we can build pipelines, I'm told that Mark Carney is in cabinet explaining to his fellow ministers around the table, look at folks, I'm from there and you you need to understand how desperate things are right now. And that it could take one spark to ignite a fuse that could let the separatism genie out of the bottle in Alberta and then who knows what happens. So, I mean, the sources that I speak to tell me that he is very much aware of how potentially dangerous the current situation is and is determined not to let anything happen. Karen, I remember talking to Brian Mulroney.

This has got to be, I don't know, 20 years ago, where he said the first job, job one of every Canadian prime minister is keeping the country together. It's a hard country to keep together. It's a country that is extremely difficult to govern, right? It's so big. It's so vast. While most of the people, you know, live within two hours of the American border, the cultural and economic differences between some of the United States, the country is. somebody from Newfoundland and Labrador and somebody in British Columbia and Manitoba in the middle are really quite different. And to try to govern all of that in a way that keeps everybody feeling like they've got a stake in Confederation is not for the faint of heart.

It's tough. And we've got to, as a result, I think, be very attentive to what people in other parts of the country are saying. because, you know, for the first time in my lifetime, there's not only a sovereignous threat in Quebec, but there's one in Western Canada as well. And God forbid, but we don't want that to be double trouble. Could I just pick up on something that you said there? So you do think that this is for Albertans right now to figure out

for the Jason Kenneys and the Nehed Menchis to speak out about, like not for the rest of Canada to get involved. And I only ask because, you know, if Brexit taught us, anything. It's that these things can ignite very fast. And, and, you know, I do imagine, like, in the 1995 referendum, like, if you were from Ontario waving a Canadian flag in Montreal, you were probably told to get lost. But I just wonder, like, when should the federal government maybe launch a more forceful campaign to sell Canada to Albertans? Oh, now. I'm not saying the Fed

shouldn't get involved. And I'm not saying we should let Albertans figure this out and not try to influence them at all. No, no. But I think we've got, I mean, what's the old expression? We've got two ears and one mouth for a reason. We should do twice as much listening as we do talking. And as a result, yes, I heard Jason Kenney say the other day, the former Alberta Premier. I heard him say, you know, somebody better get off their duff and start from a national point of view, making the case as to why Alberta ought to remain in Canada. And who did I read the other day? Oh, gosh, so bad on names these days. But I read a, I read a piece in the Toronto Star by a columnist who was originally from Alberta and went out there and spoke to

one of the separatist leaders and went point by point by point by point through all of the contentions that he was putting forward and really put them under a microscope and discovered that 90% of what he had to say was complete another balderdash. And he has a huge platform right now in which he is trying to convince people that they're getting a hugely raw deal from the rest of Canada. And yeah, the rest of Canada has to make the case that, you know, we love you, Alberta. We want you to stay. If you need a better deal, let's talk. But we saw how miss and disinformation in the United Kingdom led to a result that now people are saying, oh my gosh, that Brexit was a terrible idea, wasn't it? And I don't, we don't want that in Canada.

We don't want to be disappointed after the fact that we made an emotional disdemeanor. decision based on complete fabricated facts and therefore we lost the country as we know it. Steve, this one comes from email. This is all you, my friend. It comes from Stephen. It says, hello, this one goes back a while, but why did Mike Harris step away as premier after only six years? Has the real story ever been told? I'm sure Steve has the answer or at least a hunch. Steve has both the answer and a hunch. And wait a second. Mike Harris, was around for more than six years, wasn't he? He was elected in 1995 and he didn't step down until 2000 and, well, Ernie Eves got picked in 2002.

So how long is that? My math, that's seven years. Nine to seven years. Yeah. That's seven years. So, okay. Six years. Six years.

Yeah. Seven years. All right. Well, okay. To me, the answer is obvious. Mike Harris had a very successful common sense revolution as it relates to getting reelected. He spent four years. saying that he wanted to completely change Ontario.

He did. He got an actually a bigger percentage of the total vote the second time around in 1999 when he went to the public for re-election. But by the end of seven years, the revolution was getting a little tired. And I wouldn't even say tired. I would say people were exhausted because it was such a dramatic time in the province of Ontario. And as a result, when Mike Harris made his decision, I think it was Thanksgiving weekend. 2002, when he made his announcement that he was going to step down, and then the PC party picked Ernie Eves to replace him. And Ernie Eves was kind of an experienced, steady as she goes, kind of

leader, not a guy who wanted to kind of gin things up, but a guy who actually wanted to be sort of more moderate on things. And he seemed like the right guy for that time, for that party. I think Mike Harris always went into office with the view that he was going to do what he thought he could achieve during the time in which he had the job as premier and then get out and go into the corporate world and try and make a great living in the corporate world and that's what he's done. I don't think there's anything more nefarious or, you know, unclear or any hidden agenda or any alternative explanations except for that. and I think he's, I interviewed him for a series I did for TVO about a year ago, a series called The Premier Files, and he's 80 years old now, and he's doing pretty well. And of course, his son is in the cabinet of Premier Doug Ford. So there is a second generation of Harris's in public life.

And, you know, I think that's the whole story. I don't think there's anything more to it than what I just said. This one's from Facebook from Tracy. She says, I'd love some insight as to. why and how the Toronto media is so brutal what the Toronto Maple Leafs and its players, why would anyone want to come to Toronto to play or coach? Okay, Tracy, Tracy, I'm going to, okay, I'm going to be a real diplomat here. Tracy has obviously never seen a scrum at Queens Park or on Parliament Hill because the treatment

that in the main, and I got to tell you, I wrote a book about her. hockey, oh, 15 years ago or so. It's called, was that, was it? No, 20 years ago. It was called the new game, how hockey saved itself. And it was about all the changes that took place in hockey after the players were locked out for a year. And there was no Stanley Cup that year. So I went all over North America, lots of games, lots of arenas, hung out with hockey players, was really a great thing. And Tracy, I'm telling you, the scrums, the press conferences, the stuff that hockey players go through is nothing compared to what any politician goes through on a daily basis. There's no comparison whatsoever. The vast, vast majority of reporters, even of the Toronto Maple Leafs,

are like just remarkably soft-spoken and diplomatic in their questioning. Now, I know you're going to talk to me about the general manager and Matt Sundee, the new GM and Matt Sundee being hired the other day. And there was one. Did you see that one, Karen? I did. I saw clips. the Toronto Sound reporter who went pretty hard. Steve Simmons. Yeah, he's known for that and I don't blame him. He's known for that and he was completely justified in asking the question. You know, it's hard to ask that kind of question when you've got Leaf Legends sitting in the room and the new general manager's family there and a whole bunch of employees from MLSE.

So I give him credit for going into the lion's den and asking a tough question. But you really have to just take it for me on this one. the scrums that hockey players or management go through are nothing compared to what politicians go through. And if people can't stand that little bit of heat, then they shouldn't come to Toronto. Because I'll tell you what, if and when, it won't happen in my lifetime, Karen,

but it might in yours. If in your lifetime, the Leafs win the Stanley Cup, it is going to be so fantastic. Anybody who came here to be part of it will be glad they had to put up with a couple of tough questions from a couple of reporters in order to enjoy the, immortality of winning the Stanley Cup in Toronto.

This is a good one from Jeff. He says, if you didn't end up becoming one of the most trusted faces of TVO, what might you have done otherwise as a career? I'm interested in that too. Well, I, of course, would have wanted to play defense for the Toronto Maple Leafs. Is that the position you play? It is. And, you know, I frankly, I'm 65 years old.

I don't know why they haven't called yet. I've been waiting for the call for such a long time. But if it couldn't be journalism, I was going to be a pro hockey player. Except there was one thing, gosh, what was missing? The one thing. Oh, yeah, talent. I still play, but I have no talent. So all I can say is I'm glad the journalism thing has kind of worked out because I have no idea what else I do.

There is nothing else I want to do. There's nothing else I'm capable of doing, particularly playing hockey. And this is a hard hitter from David. This is our last one, Steve. He asks, what are your thoughts on the tragically hip, Cortha Lake's flavor, due out on Canada Day? That is a very cool thing. I really like that.

And this gives me an opportunity to say that I'm going to be doing a little, I think and hope in the months ahead, hanging out with some of the tragically hip because I'm doing a documentary right now on the greatest, goal ever scored in Toronto Maple Leaf history, which was scored 75 years ago last month on the 21st of April, 1951, by a defenseman named Bill Barilco. He was a Ukrainian-Canadian kid from Timmons. He scored a goal in overtime that won the Leafs the Cup, as the tragically hips lyrics of 50 Mission Caps say. Four months later, he went on a fishing trip to celebrate.

they flew in northern Ontario and for reasons still not completely known. The plane crashed. Bill and his pilots' bodies were not found for 11 years, during which time the Leafs won no Stanley Cups, having won four cups in five years when Bill Barilco was alive, no Stanley Cups. Despite the biggest manhunt in Canadian history, they could not find where the plane crashed or the bodies.

for 11 years, in 1962, somebody accidentally saw something shining from the sky and called it in, and they found the wreckage. And in 1962, the Leafs won the cup. There's something kind of poetically beautiful about that. And the tragically hip captured it all in that song, 50 Mission Cap, and which the song will be in our documentary. We just had some talks with the Tragically Hips agent, and they've agreed to let us use the song. So that documentary will be coming out, Frozen in Time, the Bill Barilco story next spring. And it's a story that's fascinated me ever since I was a little kid, and I'm thrilled to

be able to finally with a couple of other guys who are Ronnie Schenel. Schuker, who was a great hockey guy, and Barry Averich, who is maybe this country's foremost documentary filmmaker, having made 70 movies in his time. We're working on this right now, and I look forward to seeing it on the big screen and little screens next spring. It is truly such a fascinating story. I didn't even know about it until you told me about it. You said next spring, it's coming out? Yeah. Yeah. I look forward to that. You might actually make me a Leafs fan after I watched that. Oh, heaven for fend. Wouldn't that? be a terrible thing. Actually, you're going to have to do BT a few, I think a few mornings in June

by yourself, because we are going to fly to Timmons. We are then going to grab a chopper to somewhere close to where the plane went down. You can't actually get there by transportation. We'll get to a chopper helipad. And then I think we've got about a three, four, five mile walk from there into the woods to find the spot where the wreckage actually was found all those years later, 11 years later. So I'm putting you on notice right now, Karen, for a few days in June, you're going to have to fly solo. For that, you're forgiven. That's incredible. That's great. Okay, I think, is that it? That's it. That's all I got. Wonderful. Okay. How do you think this went? I hope you'll have me back. Oh, come on. Are you kidding? I hope you didn't lose some listeners in the

process. I think it was a delay. First of all, the last time I did this, I did it alone, wasn't nearly as much fun. time having you aboard was fantastic. We're sitting here taping this actually on a Friday. So I will say Karen Cieland, thank you so much for joining us on the Pagan podcast. We also want to plug the fact that you do. Tell the folks about the other show that you're doing for Rogers. Yeah. So just this year, I joined the Big Story podcast. It's with the Frequency Podcast Network. I've joined as a host. We are a very small but mighty team. And we do essentially what the title suggests. We take one big story that's happening in the country or in the world. We go behind the headline. We help break it down. Make it easily digestible for the everyday Canadian and try to explain how this big story

is affecting your life. So you can listen to the big story podcast Monday to Friday, anywhere you get your podcasts. Beautiful. And we encourage people to subscribe to the Pagan podcast because besides this program and everything political with our ex-parliamentarian, and World on Edge with Janice Sign and a special guest, and now Pakes Takes with Paken and Cieland. If you subscribe, you will also get automatically into your inbox three times a week. Karen, yours and my breakfast television hit. So Monday, Wednesdays, and Fridays, people will automatically get that as well.

And then Tuesdays and Thursdays, they will get all of the other things I mentioned, plus the one-on-one interviews I do as well. So this has suddenly turned from a weekly podcast into a daily podcast and we want to keep the parade going. So there we go. Steve, thank you so much for having me. Truly such a pleasure. I'm so happy you asked. Thank you. And it's a delight to have you and we'll see you bright and early on Monday morning. Okay, kiddo. Get you sleep. Excellent. Meantime, everybody. See you next time on the Paken podcast. And as I always say at the end of these podcasts, Karen, because we need more of it in this world. Peace and love, everybody.

Thank you.