The Paul Wells Show - Election week 1: The race in Quebec — and Mark Carney's riding

Episode Date: March 26, 2025

This is an elections podcast now. Each week throughout the election, we'll bring you a variety of smart commentators to keep you upto speed. This week, former Progressive Conservative MPP Lisa MacLeod talks about her old riding of Nepean, where Mark Carney is running, with Pierre Poilievre running just next door. MacLeod has also worked with Poilievre, and weighs in on his leadership. And Hélène Buzzetti, political columnist for les Coops de l’information, talks about the political landscape in Quebec. Can Carney overcome his weak French and lack of familiarity with Quebecers? And can the Conservatives gain ground in the province? Season 3 of the Paul Wells Show is supported by McGill University's Max Bell School of Public Policy

The Paul Wells Show is made possible by McGill University's Max Bell School of Public Policy, where I'm a Senior Fellow. We found the person who knows Mark Carney's writing the best. She's not a fan. Carney's not yet been here. When he referenced Nepean, he referenced Bell's Corners, which Bell's Corners is no longer in the ridings. So all kinds of little things that people talk about at Tim Hortons are things that are going to come up in this campaign, I think. This week, Lisa McLeod, the long-standing Ontario provincial member for Nepean,

on the two local federal candidates, Mark Kearney and Pierre Poiliev, plus columnist Hélène Buzery on the Race in Quebec. We're a campaign podcast now. I'm Paul Wells. Welcome to the Paul Wells show. One thing I like about this podcast is that it usually maintains a little distance from the headlines. And we'll get back to that after this amazing federal election campaign is over. In the meantime we're all about this campaign. Change is coming no matter who wins. The stakes are sky

high thanks to Donald Trump and the outcome is hard to predict. For the duration of the campaign I'll be bringing you the best observers, journalists, veteran politicians, subject matter experts. No talking heads from any of the parties. You can get that stuff somewhere else. But let's not kid anyone. My first guest knows who she likes, and she comes by it honestly. Lisa McLeod used to work for Pierre Poliev. For almost 20 years in the Ontario Legislature, she sat as a progressive conservative, representing the suburban Ottawa riding next to Poliev's federal riding.

That would be Nepean, whose new federal liberal candidate is a guy named Mark Carney. Lisa knows who she likes, and it's not Carney, but she also knows the region well, and I was glad to get her perspective on the issues at play there. Lisa McLeod, thanks for joining me. Thanks for having me, Paul. You and I have known each other forever, and I asked you just to come on now that you're no longer active in politics. I thought we could talk about what a political animal sees when she looks at this campaign.

And then just before I came on this call, I realized you're a member for Nepean. You are, you were the provincial member in the rioting that overlaps with Pierre Pauliev's federal rioting and it's next to the rioting where Mark Kearney is gonna run. Tell me about the geography and the fact that you now have this front-row seat on the Pauliev-Kearney wars. Yeah, so this is really an interesting one, so I should disclose everything. I spent two decades, six terms as the member for Nepean.

I was Pierre Poliev's campaign manager in 2004 and his deputy in 2006. And before I was elected, I was his EA and I served for John Barrett and Jan Harder in those roles. So I know Nepean probably better than anybody having served in politics and public service here for 30 years. And of course, I served alongside Pierre when he was an MP for Nepean-Carlton. Our writings were the same. And now, of course, he chose to run in Carlton on the other side of the river.

And I stayed in Ne Pian where apparently Mark Carney is is now from. So it's been an interesting uh couple of weeks. We started hearing the rumors trickle down during the provincial election that Mark Carney was uh was eyeing the Pian and then of course I think when Chandra Arya was banned from running for the Liberals it became more crystal clear for those of us on the ground that that was probably the play that we were going to see here in Nepean. Was Chandra Arya's dismissal as the candidate surprising? No, I think it was, there was speculation for over a year

that he might've been one of the ones that Prime Minister Trudeau was not naming with respect to some of the allegations that were happening in the House. I think we all know what those are. Secondly, I think when he ran for the leadership and they had ejected him, I didn't see a path forward for Chandra. It's hard to tell somebody that they're not allowed to run for the leadership

or party, but here you go. You can stay on as MP and run for the reelection there. I felt that that was probably what was going to occur. I have spoken with Chure a couple of times. I think that a lot of people in the riding, as much as they thought it was kind of funny that he had been running for the leadership, you know, sort of said, oh, good on him.

He's got some kahunas there and he wants to try and do this. It wasn't a surprise for us that he wasn't going to be a candidate in this election. I do think it was a huge surprise despite the fact that there had been inklings of suspicion that Carney was going to run here that he actually decided to because it's not really known as a liberal stronghold. Okay and not really a big sort of central banker riding. I'm not sure we have any central bankers and if they are as John Baird would say, they're probably thinking rednecks, right?

So people in our neck of the woods are very much strong values with family. They're very much safe streets type of people and very much on self-reliance. The big social programs don't go out so well up here. And I can tell you like the carbon tax has been something that even in my elections, I've been talking and railing about that for many many years and it's something that that's gonna have to be contentious. Hey but having said that when I vacated the seat this past February the seat flipped so the riding is changing there are new demographics and there are a lot of

people that are living here now that didn't know John Baird or didn't know Pierre Poliev and quite frankly, so many people in the last three or four years that they may not know me. So I mean, I think it's six to one, half dozen the other. I think that the biggest issue in terms of momentum locally here was Barbals been able to get out there and get her lawn signs up. She's got her campaign. She's had her launch. Currently, he's not yet been here.

When he referenced the P and he referenced Bell Corners, which to people that are not paying attention or not from here, it wouldn't really matter, but Bell's Corners is no longer in the riding. So yeah, so all kinds of little things that people talk about at Tim Horton's are things that are going to come up in this campaign, I think. Now you worked both for Pierre Polyev as his executive assistant and then alongside him as provincial member working with federal member. What do people not know about Pierre Polyev that they should? Three things that I think they'll underestimate him on is one is how cerebral he is. I think that they don't realize how meticulous he is and methodical. So Pierre Polyaev is on his ninth play

by the time you're on your second. He is an incredible strategist and they continue to underestimate him because so many people want to put him in a box of where he was when he was 24 years old and he was first elected. And you know, the campaign had to get his first suit. To today, as a father, as a husband,

and as somebody who served both in the executive council and on the front bench of the opposition. So I would say those are three things they don't know about him and three things that I've been able to see behind the scenes. And I'll tell you, as anybody that works with him, he's the type of guy that, you know, higher tide levels all the boats up and he's he's somebody that when you're around him they're upping their game and I think you see that I think we've seen it for the past year as he's been traveling the country he's getting those massive crowds and I always might I use my mom as a barometer as most people do in politics and she's either interested or she's not and she's one of the first people to say okay Pierre's coming you

know I'm from Pictou County Nova Scotia Peter McKay country but my mom is in that car and she's one of the first people to say okay, Piers come and I'm from Hecto County, Nova Scotia, Peter McKay country, but my mom is in that car and she wants to be at that rally because it's something to do. And so I think his organizational strength is gonna be on there too. There was a story in the Toronto Star last week, you already know the one I'm talking about, Rob Benzie's story about Polyev and Ford

having their first conversation three weeks after the provincial election. Now they both disputed that Pauliev asked for help from Ford, but they haven't disputed that the call happened. It was their first conversation they'd ever had. How does that happen? The head of the provincial conservatives and the head of the federal conservatives

go that long without chatting? Well, they'll have to answer that. And of course, I served in Premier Ford's cabinet and I was Pierre's campaign manager. So I think it's kind of interesting that that's happening. I get to comment. I will say when I read the story, I knew that was, well, in the famous words of my husband, it was bull. I won't say the last part. So I think for anybody that knew anything, it was a hard, hard pass for that. I don't know who the two people were that decided they were going to make that spin. I'm pretty sure Rob Benzie is probably not very happy with them right now. I would say in terms of the two of them meeting together, you know what, it really is both them focused on elections in the last little while. I don't think it's a big secret that they sort of are on different sides of the

conservative spectrum. I think Doug came in on a populist mandate and as a result of that, he hasn't adhered necessarily to the right wing leaning people in the party. And I think Pierre has come in with some pretty strong conservative credentials. So I think that that might be a part of it. And the other part is like, quite frankly, like we've gone from basically the pandemic right into now, which is the third election since the pandemic,

this will be the second federal election and we've gone through, I guess, two provincial elections too, so that's four. So it keeps them busy. And I think a lot of stuff is back channel. But in terms of this being Pierre Poliev asking Doug Ford for help and Doug Ford saying, no, I didn't believe it the second I read it.

And I'll never believe that. Just knowing the two men the way I do, I just don't think that would happen. You mentioned the pandemic just in terms of the context of how much electioning we've been having since then, but there's clearly a philosophical difference between the Ford Conservatives and how to handle the lockdown and school openings and things like that and the the Poliev Conservatives. So that people who were fired from jobs at Queens Park for being against COVID restrictions

got hired immediately in Poliev's entourage. And Jamil Javani, the young federal conservative MP called Stephen Lecce, the former Minister of Education in Ontario, incompetent, because Lecce, I think, spent a lot of time closing schools down during COVID. It seems to me there's some unresolved debates over crisis management between the two camps. That's possible.

I also think that there's a lot of unresolved debate and discussion in the entire country. I served in the Premier's cabinet, I had 24 of the hardest hit sectors under my portfolio and it was very difficult. We spent some days, 12 hours on a cabinet call with the public health officials and trying to get that right.

And so at our level, we were trying to keep people healthy and safe while at the federal level, they had a bigger and larger view of what happened with the nation. And I will say this, I think Doug's handling of COVID-19 to the people of Ontario was strong. And I think it was important that he was there as everybody's uncle and he delivered and that's why he's he's got another mandate so I got two more mandates. I think in terms of Pierre he was able to tap into the frustration of people who felt that they have lost their rights and the whole notion of freedom. I think he tapped into the anger that was going to be directed at Justin Trudeau over the wokeism and I think they appealed to two very

different types of conservative. Doug more on the populist side, the steadiest she goes, and Pierre more on the, you know, what's the word? It's almost as if it's the base instincts of people who are in a crisis. And I think to his credit, you know, I contacted him when he was the finance critic, shadow minister. And I really think that that is when Pierre Polyev became the Polyev of today. It's when he became a leader, when people thought, well, my hopes, my dreams, my income, and my rights are being taken. He was standing up for a whole new group of people. And to close this long circle I've just gone through, I think that their hopes and dreams were captured by two different people with two different, you know, messages

based on the timing. And so it's hard to explain, but I made a comment yesterday about Danielle Smith and Kim Campbell, and I said that they're very different views and values. And, you know, people immediately came after me and said, well, you're a conservative, they're both conservative. And, you know, that's not as simplistic as one might think, because you look at Dalton McGinty versus Kathleen Wynne, two very different types of people who capture two very different types of liberals. I'm a little surprised I managed to get this far

into the conversation without mentioning Donald Trump. The Trump tariffs and the threat of annexation are a huge wild card in this election. How do you think it plays? Well, look, I think every Canadian, with the exception of a few that have interests in the United States, are very upset. I think that we have found a very patriotic sentiment

across Canadians, and I think that there has been a void in dealing with Trump and his government since he was elected. And I think that the biggest thing that went wrong for us was creating that void and allowing the premiers, every one of them coming up with some different type of tariff or threat or what have you because the federal government was weak. So I think that there's a lot of fear in the electorate.

And I think people are looking for hope, somebody that can stand up to Trump, somebody that can write our economy and somebody that has an overarching vision. The other issue on that in the Trump tariffs, and it's one that I sort of explore as a former heritage minister, and this is my interest, is the fact, Paul, that we're seeing an unprecedented rally behind the flag,

something that I haven't seen since the referendum in Quebec. And so I think whichever leadership candidate, and I believe it will be Pierre, but whomever is able to really rally the Canadian people, not just about the fear for the taxes and the tariffs, but who can rally them over a hope and a dream. And I think the Arctic policies that Pierre peers come out with are a really, really good start, but we're gonna have to see people that can rally us and what it means to be a Canadian

and what Canada means to the rest of the world. The platitudes of Trudeau served people for a short period of time, but it's not what's going to get us through this next very difficult stage. Since Christa Freeland left cabinet, polls have swung something like 20 points from the conservatives to the liberals. Conservatives are still a nose ahead in most of the polls I've seen,

but it's neck and neck. That's got to be unnerving. Yeah. I mean, I've been through these elections many, many times, and usually there's always one party that pulls artificially high. And I think that was the conservatives for a good period of time. That said, I still believe that we are ahead. I think that the liberals getting rid of Trudeau really helped heal their own party.

Will that be enough for them? I don't think so. I think at the end of the day, you know, I talked about how methodical Pierre was. You're looking at a guy that has a ground game like nobody else. And so I think the polls, well, Stephen Baker would say are for dogs. I think it's going to come down to the ground vote and the efficiency of that vote. And I think that that gives the Conservatives a clear edge. That said, I guess we're two days into this.

So we still have about 34 days left to go. And anything can happen, of course, in an election. I've seen that myself. I mean, I ran in the famous 2007 election with John Tory when John Tory took a seat similar to what Mark Carney is doing and lost a seat and we lost the election. And you know, anything can happen. We were ahead in the polls then.

So you know, I don't know where it takes us, but I don't put too much stock in the polls. I mean, you know, every maybe week or two, I'll look at them during an election. But otherwise, it's all about the ground game. And the other problem is, and I'll say this because of a place like the Pian, there are so many people that don't speak English. It's not their mother tongue. They get a phone call, they hang up. I'm not sure how representative some of them are. And no disrespect to pollsters, of course. They do a great job. And I've used them many times in my life. I'm just simply pointing out there have been a lot of changes in our society and in the way we conduct, pointing out there have been a lot of changes in our society and in the way we conduct you know campaigning. All right let's leave her there. I am really grateful that you took the time to talk

to us and we might get a chance to talk again as the campaign proceeds. Yes we'll bring you out to Napier and we'll hopefully have a candidate there for the liberals. All right, thanks Lisa MacLeod. We'll talk to you soon. All right, thanks guys. Coming up, columnist Hélène Bousseti on the race in Quebec. I want to say a word about the people who are supporting this podcast. McGill University's Max Bell School of Public Policy offers more than just a master's program. They strive to bring together different perspectives and disciplines through public lectures and seminars, strike a better balance between theory and practice in their research, and emphasize the various complexities of the policy process in their conferences. But if you are interested in earning a Master of Public Policy with global reach in just one year, applications are open now for next fall.

Learn more at mcgill.ca slash maxbellschool. In another life, which most of you don't follow, I work with Hélène Buissetti almost every week. She's one of Quebec's best political journalists. She's tough in a scrum. All the politicians are afraid of her. And on Thursdays, Hélène and I are two-thirds of the weekly journalist panel on Radio Canada's nightly French language television news.

She talked to me about the Conservatives' surprising strength in Quebec, despite a strong performance by Carney. His French is terrible. Quebecers don't seem to mind. Quebecers don't seem to mind. Hélène Bouset, thank you for joining me. Thanks for inviting me, Paul. This is weird because on Thursday nights, we have a regular gig. We're on the political pundit panel on the

Tellez-Journal, which is the French language version of that issue. I'm, I'm sort of the Chantelle Ebert on that panel, the one with the weird accent. And you're the one who sounds like, you know, what you're doing. Um, but now the tables are turned because like now you have to speak English. Exactly.

What are you watching and what are you noticing as this campaign goes through its first week in Quebec? Well, I see, uh, I was giving some thought about it to summarize it. And I see three phenomenons that work right now in Quebec. Um, one thing, and we giving some thought about it to summarize it. And I see three phenomenons that work right now in Quebec. One thing, and we can get back to it afterwards, is the conservatives

are steady, which is interesting. And they are at their height. They have the best score they ever had in the past 15 years in the province, which is interesting. The NDP, like pretty much everywhere in the rest of the country, is crashing, but it doesn't mean much because the NDP was at an average of what, 10, 12 percent, and now they have about half of that. It doesn't make much of a difference for them, but it has an impact for the Bloc Québécois, and we can talk about that longer. And of course, the Bloc Québécois is losing speed as well. So if you look at the overall picture, you have to keep in mind that at the height of Justin Trudeau's unpopularity, the Liberals were holding their ground a little bit more in Quebec than in the rest of the country. When in the rest of Canada, they were at the very low 20s, they were

somehow the high 20s in Quebec. So their, their rebound is less spectacular in the province, but still it's very real. It feels like, I mean, you're supposed to be the analyst, but it feels like they have finally found a place to put this lingering dissatisfaction with Pauliev as the conservative leader. I mean, I've been surprised when I do commentary on the Quebec side that people are just not having Pauliev. And yet Trudeau's government was unpopular. Trudeau's government was not seen as sort of solid.

And now Carney becomes the receptacle for this, we're sure not voting for Pauliev spirit. But it's interesting, because in Quebec, you're right. People do not like Poliev, but conservatives, they like him a lot. And that's why I insist on this support they're having. From the past, maybe last year, maybe, they've been in their 21, 22, 23, even 24% support range in Quebec, which is really high. I went back to the four previous elections. They never got 20% of the vote in Quebec, 19%, 16%, 17%. In fact, and that's ironic, you have to go back to 2008 where the conservatives in Quebec got almost 22%.

And why I say it's ironic, it's because that was the election during which Stephen Harper, hoping to get a majority, criticized the artists who were complaining about their, you know, and talked about rich galas. It was a big controversy and it's probably cost him his majority because otherwise I think he would have swept Quebec. So that was their best result, almost 22%. So right now all the polls, they keep saying that in Quebec they are 23, 24%. So it tells me that there are a lot of people really dislike Pierre Poilier, but those who

like him, they like him a lot and they don't change their mind. And the consequence of that is that maybe the conservatives will actually pick up some seats in the province. I see two seats in the Eastern part of Quebec City, what we called Beauport in the past, places where Sylvie Boucher got elected in 2006. There are two writings there, maybe Trois Rivières. They've been trying to gain the Trois Rivières writing for many elections now.

So I don't think anything will happen bad for the conservatives. They will probably keep all their seats, and maybe they could gain two, maybe three seats. So it's really interesting. And also, I suspect, although I have no proof of that, that some of the support the Bloc Québécois is losing might be actually going to Pierre Poilier because there are a lot of people in Quebec who park their vote with the Bloc

Québécois. They're not necessarily separatists. They just don't like the two main contenders. And when you go outside big cities in the Région Ressource, you know, where you have mines, forests and all that, you have a lot of conservative minded people. So I suspect that in an election where we're being told it's a choice between two persons who can actually be prime minister, that some people might make the Poilier choice. So, I mean, yeah, right. I mean, outside of Montreal and Quebec City, there's a lot of Quebec that is sort of boots, not suits territory. And he's talking to those people. Oh, of course. And I'm struck by, you know, the... How could I say the manly campaign that Mr. Poilier

is running? You know, He's visiting plants, factories, metal shops, and all the people you see behind him, they're men, most of them with hard hats, boots on. That's the people he's talking to. And of course, we understand because of the tariffs, that's the kind of industry that's going to be hit by that. And that might strike a chord in those region resource where you have a lot of people earning a living in those areas as well. So into this comes Mark Kearney, who is as familiar to Quebecers as I am to South Koreans.

He's not on sort of native ground here. He did not usually for a federal level, he didn't even go to McGill. How's he doing on his sort of native ground here. He didn't, unusually for a federal liberal, he didn't even go to McGill. Um, how's he, how's he doing, uh, on his sort of first introduction to Quebecers? Well, it's, it's been difficult. I've been really critical of Mark Hardy because of that absence of connection with Quebec. Um, he did a piece during the leadership race where he was, you know, being

followed by a Radio Canada reporter. He wanted to sound like he knows a little bit of Quebec culture. He talked about Bye Bye Mon Cowboy song, which is a Mitsu song, which was popular in, I think, 1984. It was truly a 40-year-old song. So it's not just that he doesn't speak French very well, actually, and we can have a longer conversation about that. French is really basic. But it's also that you don't sense that he has any knowledge of Quebec or any connection.

But so far, it doesn't seem to have any impact because I feel from what I see, what I hear, that people are truly afraid by what's going on in the United States. And in Quebec, they buy in that idea that they have to choose a prime minister, a steady Anne and all that. And they see Mark Carney as being a good person that fits that definition. So it doesn't seem to have an impact, but we'll see the campaign is really young. Now, the surprise of the week perhaps is Mark Carney announcing that he won't participate

in one of the French language debates. There's a consortium debate on the French side, the way there is on the English side, it's run by a bunch of sort of approved networks. And then the TVA network several years ago went off and decided they launched their own debate, which typically has much better ratings, gets a lot of attention, but Mark Carney is not gonna play. How come and with what effect do you think?

Well, of course, I mean, at the heart of the issue is that the TVA is asking for $75,000 per leader to participate. And there's a really ethical issue with that, I think. I don't think we should be in the business of selling or time or redactional space to the people who are actually interviewing. So there's an issue with that. And that's the reason they're not going. But of course, they don't have the courage to say so. And there's a reason for that

because TVA is a big media organization. It's owned by Pierre Carre-Pelladeau, a big businessman in Quebec. He's really powerful. And you said so, TVA is the most watched network. All the newspaper part of the Quebecor conglomerate are really popular as well. And you've seen in the past that politicians in Quebec or in general are afraid to go against the wishes of Mr. Péladeau. So you see the liberals using some pretext, some excuses that frankly

don't convince anyone. Like Mr. Carney has said that he's not going because the Green Party will not be invited. I don't think that's the main reason why he's not going because, by the way, the Green Party has never been invited to that TVA debate. So when you speak off the record with other political parties who have accepted the TVA invitation, they will tell you that they don't agree with the idea of paying that much money to be on air with them, but they won't say so either because they're afraid. So everyone is being hypocritical in this file. They sense that they can strike, mark some points against Carney because he's the one who has most to lose. But there's a more important issue about the ethics of all it and what's the influence of that businessman in Quebec

and in politics. But that being said, Mark Carney's French is a real issue. He's not really good at it. You've seen, like I did, instances where he clearly doesn't understand the questions being asked of him. He's answering beside the point. There are many instances where, when I'm listening to him in French, I frankly, the only reason why I understand what he's saying is because I already heard him saying it in English and

I know where he's going and I can fill in the blanks or put the words back in the right order or switch some of the words and with the right ones. And you have to keep in mind that in Quebec, there are a lot of people who don't speak English. They don't. And what a politician will tell them in French is actually the only thing they will hear from that politician. So that's why the debate is so important. And that's why it's gonna be an issue for Mark Carney.

I went back and I sort of did the comparison, compared his French against Stephen Harper, who was not a native speaker, but can make himself understood. And I think he's probably the weakest in French of any leader who could reasonably aspire to be prime minister since Joe Clark 50 years ago. I mean, that's a long run of people who spoke better French than Mark Carney. And yet it doesn't seem to be at this point, setting them back too badly among Quebec voters. No, I agree with you.

Um, I didn't go back as far back as you did, but even stock well, I am older. Helen. Not that much. Beautiful. Um, I would even argue that maybe a stock well days French was probably even better. I mean, I think the problem with Carney is that it's not only that he's not really good at speaking French. It's also that he doesn't understand. Like, you know, sometimes you can tell and that's that's certainly true of Stephen Harper, which you were mentioning

that sometimes, okay, the words don't come easy. You don't have a good day that day. Your second language is not as steady as your first language. Sometimes when you're tired, it's not as good. But you could tell that he understood what was being said around him. He knew what was going on.

With Carney, I'm not always so sure. But all that being said, I've been saying what I'm telling you right now on many of the platforms on which I am on TV, on radio, in print as well. And I've been criticized for that. Many Quebecers tell me, who cares? You know, that's not important. Donald Trump is a threat we have to choose a steady hand and French is really just a secondary consideration in the context. I'm surprised by that, but that's something I hear a lot. Yeah, I mean, so this gets to two things. One, something I should probably say, I think Quebecers

kind of expect a banker to speak English. Secondly, eloquence is not a huge priority in almost any setting. People are looking through the strengths and weaknesses of the leaders to find someone who they feel would make the best prime minister. And like Jean-Claude Chen never won any debate he was in, he just won a bunch of elections. And I think this could potentially be a case of that. Yeah, maybe. I think people are looking for authenticity. And let's say, let's take Pierre Pauli as French, for instance. He's really good, but he's also, he speaks in a way that people understand or can relate. When I listen to Carney, he's a really cederable politician. He explains, you know, here point number one, number two, number three.

He's not a charming person. That's not how he's going to win that election, right? He's going to win the election by showing that he has competence, that he knows what he's talking about. That's that's his character in that election. Well, if that's what you have to sell, you have to be able to sell it to everyone. And when he switched to French, I have this impression that he lose like 15 points of IQ. You know? You know, he's not, he doesn't sound as intelligent.

I don't know how to put it differently. So all of a sudden what he has to sell doesn't seem so attractive in French. But again, it doesn't seem so far to have any consequence on his popularity. Okay. So I think that's a good overview. What are the events, moments coming up in the campaign that you're gonna be looking for? Frankly, I'm not original,

but the debate will be a turning point. And one thing that I noticed is that debate is quite late in the campaign, right? It's usually it's really in the middle of the campaign. Now it's the fourth week. If Carney stumbles, very little time to recuperate and to dig himself out of it. So that might be a concern. I hadn't thought about that and that could have an effect.

For one thing, it could actually reduce the significance of the debates, right? I mean, much more could be baked in before people get a chance to see these leaders. Good point. I think it can work both ways. Uh, either that it's baked in and nobody cares anymore, or people don't really listen so far. They will just watch the debate. And if something bad happens for him, then everything could crumble.

I mean, one thing that's important in Quebec, uh, the conservative vote is really steady, but the liberal vote is really fragile. It's very volatile. He has to be concerned about that. Okay. All right. Thanks for all of that, Hélène Buzetti,

and I suspect we'll check in later in the campaign. Okay, my pleasure. Thanks. Thanks for listening to The Paul Wells Show. The Paul Wells Show is produced by Antica and supported by McGill University's Max Bell School of Public Policy. My producer is Kevin Sexton. Our executive producer is Stuart Cox. Laura Regehr is Antica's head of audio. If you subscribe to my Substack,

you can get bonus content for this show, as well as access to my newsletter. You can do that at paulwells.substack.com. If you're enjoying this show, give us a good rating on your podcast app. It helps spread the word. We'll be back next Wednesday. you