The Paul Wells Show - The Panel: Everyone's talking about it

Episode Date: April 15, 2025

This week is mostly about Quebec. Sorry, people who get bugged by that. The Conservative and Liberal leaders were on Tout le monde en parle, the only talk show in either official language that’s a must-attend for the Carneys and Poilievres of this world. On Wednesday they’ll be at the French-language leaders’ debate, followed by the Thursday English-language debate, both in Montreal. (The leaders of the emergency back-up parties will join them.) Mark Carney, at least, decided to stay in the Montreal area between TLMEP and Wednesday. Poilievre had Montreal events on Monday too. Our Panel also discusses Carney’s habit of putting his campaign up on blocks so he can return to Ottawa and be prime ministerial every time Donald Trump does the sort of thing Donald Trump would do; and the tendency of both major-party leaders to go on quirky offbeat lifestyle podcasts where nobody ever asks a backup question or points out a contradiction. Mostly I’m the one who wanted to talk about that last part. Our Panel, once again, is Conservative Jason Lietaer, New Democrat Allison Gifford, and Liberal Marci Surkes. And they’re the best. Enjoy.

Hello to the panel. Thanks for joining me, Jason, Allison, Mercy. I'm speaking to you today from my rarely used office at McGill University where behind me is all of my accumulated wisdom. The last time we talked, it was, we were entering the slow week of the campaign. And we figured that between between last Monday and this week, something would happen. Jason, what do you think has happened? What do you what's the state of the campaign at this point? It's funny, not a lot happened last week, which is ironically,

I think was mostly good news for Pierre, but some good news for Carney in that as well. I think a couple of little skirmishes, right? We had Buttongate, we had some poll stories, we got the Conservatives sort of rebounding in a couple of polls. But I will say, I think it's like all the calm before the storm. Everybody's been getting ready for the debate. We saw the two main leaders on Toulon-Mont-Au-Parle last night, you know, sort of buttressing up their French trying to figure out how to operate this kind of stuff. And I will say this idea that I brought forward last week, which is Carney's resume is amazing. He looks good. But people are going to be a little disappointed. I think that started to happen a tiny bit. And I think Pierre has tried to, has tried to sand off the edges, frankly, that were, they were having a tough time with, with women, with seniors.

I think they're trying to sand off some of the edges there. And all of that stuff is in flux. I think people are waiting to see what happens with the debates. I thought both, by the way, did a really good job on True Lemon on Parle in different ways last night. I wonder, I'm wondering what the panel thinks. But I thought Pierre, by the way, did a really good job on Toulon-Mont-Den-Parle in different ways last night. I wonder what the panel thinks. But I thought Pierre was outstanding. I thought Karin, he struggled a little bit with the French. But anyway, it's going to be interesting to see how that plays into the French debate this week. Alison, Marcy, did you guys watch Toulon-Mont-Den-Parle? I mean, you're on the road, Marcy, so I'm not sure. No, I've read the reviews. I didn't get to

watch it, unfortunately. Yeah, same. I thought they both did fine. It's clear. Paulie's French is superb. Might as well just say that. Like, I'm on TV and speak in French every Thursday night on Radio Canada, and I know what decent French is. I know what struggling French sounds like. And Poilier speaks dynamite French. And so if it's not working for him in Quebec, it's not because people can't understand what he's saying. It's for other reasons, which we can discuss. Carney's French is better than it was three weeks ago.

And nobody cares. Past that, nobody cares. Like people, you know, a lot of people seem intent on voting liberal because of the Trumpian menace and they're not interested in parsing his grammar. So, which incidentally, even Carney's grammar is decent. So there's my review. Marcy, some of the polls suggested

a little bit of tightening. Do you think there's reason for the Liberals to be nervous at this point? I suspect the Liberal campaign would like for this campaign to be over. Every passing day brings new opportunity for them to slide or to face some unforeseen barrier that they would rather not face. I mean, that's the nature of a frontrunner's campaign. You really just want to get it over with. And I think that feeling is real. This week we have, I mean, we talked about Tula Mon-Dumparo.

We have the other key milestone, which are the debates. And I feel like we've been talking about the debates for an unseemingly long amount of time in this campaign, because this is the milestone that everybody has been looking toward. As we've discussed previously, debates don't necessarily change everything in a campaign, unless they do. And so I think on the liberal campaign side, you're probably this week going into the debates, first of all, having prepped a considerable amount. I know that as we discussed last week, what's happening in all of the hours when we don't see the leaders, debate prep has been very thorough and rigorous on the Liberal campaign side.

I know it's being taken incredibly seriously and you're bracing for impact, so to speak, because it is the one big event really that you can plan for that can still tip the balance one way or another. I was on the receiving end of when it doesn't go well in 2011 in the liberal campaign, we went into that debate. The liberals, we were not ahead, but Ignatiev was starting to look a little better. He was starting to campaign a little stronger and we felt quite confident going into debate night

until the debate blew everything up on our side and that was immediately the catalyzing event for the Orange Crotch and Jack Layton's ascendancy. So I do think sometimes debates matter. That could be the case here. Watch this space. I guess we'll see. But you know as you're planning for the campaign that this is a key one for your guy.

The expectations have been lowered. That's helpful. I agree, Paul. His French is better than it was at the beginning of the campaign. But the expectations on the French side have been managed pretty effectively. So it's not a very high bar that Mr. Carney has to cross to succeed on the French side. On the English side, everyone's going to be coming at him. So it is going to truly feel like a leaders debate. And we saw in the leadership campaign that when questioned, when pushed, Mr. Carney seemed to become defensive.

And I have to assume that that's what his opponents are going to be attempting to recreate in this debate this week. So will that influence voter outcome? Again, we don't know, but this is a moment and we will have to watch very closely to see if this shifts the dial. I would also note very quickly the policy platforms, fully costed platforms have not yet been made public by the three main parties. There are pieces and elements out of each platform, but we will see if those

platforms drop before the debates or after the conservatives naturally have done both historically once before in recent history did not seem to go particularly well for Mr. O'Toole when they put it out before Mr. Shear waited till after. So we'll see what the conservatives try to do. But I think the Liberals want to actually have their platform out soon. And that's another milestone for them in terms of some potential voter interest. Allison, you were there working for Jack Leighton at that time. Do you remember that? I mean that was an extraordinary campaign in so many ways but do you remember feeling like that exchange had an influence on the outcome of the campaign, even while it was going on? Well, Jack, I mean, that was always a strength of Jack's. I think he did that with Stephen Harper too in his sweater vest jokes.

I mean, Jack was the true happy warrior and he liked nothing more than to wind up and land a good punch. And yeah, I think that that was a moment where there was a lot of pride. And then the biggest turning point was the Léger pool that came out in Quebec shortly after that. I think we've seen this a few times, like 2011 was a good example of things shifting in the last two weeks. I think the same thing happened in 2015 when people caught on to the change, the change momentum

suddenly swung behind Trudeau at the very end. I remember the NDQ was actually in 30s at the beginning of the campaign. And it happened in 2006 with Stephen Harper too, when people had just had enough of the liberal scandals. So, you know, I don't think people have decided. I don't think they're 100% sure. I think they're still deciding between the affordability question and they're deciding between the Trump question. And I also think Carney, as much as his favorables are high,

he's still a bit unknown and he still has a really delicate coalition of support between Green supporters, NDP switchers, and disillusioned conservatives as well, who just want him to manage the economy. So anything's possible. And I think history shows us that. Jason, should anybody be worried in these debates

except for Mark Kearney? It seems to me they're just all gonna try and jump Kearney. Like there's no point Blanchet getting in his digs against Poliev. Am I right? I think you're mostly right. I will say that's a specific example, Paul. And I actually think who hates oil and gas more. I like I actually think the last shots going to try to try to wedge Carney on oil and gas. He was talking today saying Brookfield owns oil and gas. He tried to pretend he's green. So there might be a couple of side swipes at the conservatives. So I think I think the Quebec debates or the French debates a little bit different. I'll just say too, I think the reason why carnies should not be worried, that's the wrong word. Listen, we talked about 2011. I worked on with Harper on debate prep in 2008 and 2011.

He was the only person that anybody was criticizing other than this shot at Ignatiev. Let me put it this way, in the conservative war room, when Ignatiev got that shot from Leighton, we were cheering because it's the first time the NDP has ever actually taken on an opponent that they probably should be taking on rather than just us, right? And I think that's something that Mr. Singh's probably learned over the last little bit.

But I'll just say this, you asked who should be worried. The thing with Carney is, I don't think I'm breaking any news to say they've been hiding him. They've been hiding him before the campaign, they hit him at the end of the leadership campaign. They've really tried to hide him over the course of the campaign. Every time he sort of gets into it, he suspends his campaign like the you know, I don't know whether he's going to interrupt it, pause it, you know, adjourn it, discontinue it, like I don't know what's coming next. But you can't do that during a debate, right?

Like he's not going to be able to sort of say, hold up the right white flag and say, just give me a second, I gotta confer with my advisors. And I'll just say that I don't think, and I thought the point that Marcy made was really interesting. Carney, it's very clear that he's a prickly guy, and I don't need to say that pejoratively.

That's what his nature seems to be. You can't sort of paste on that smile and actually just get through and look affable. He's not an affable guy. That might work for him in the next little bit, but during the campaign or during the debate, I would expect him to struggle with that. And I think Marcy said something about expectations on the French debate, Paul. And I think that they haven't been managed at all on the English side. And I don't think they could be because the whole raison d'etre for this guy, the reason why the

liberals say you should vote for him is he's managed big crises. He's calm under fire. He's calm, cool and collected. He looks like a prime minister. He's got a plan for Trump, all of that kind of stuff. And you can't hide from that stuff. So I will say I think expectations are sky high for him, like, you know, sort of Ivy League debater kind of stuff. And this is one of the problems that Ignatius had. And I think Carney's gonna have the same thing. People expect Carney to be great in the debate. I think Canadians do maybe not the press gallery, but Canadians are going to and I think they're going to be surprised by what they see. I agree with that entirely by the way. How about the thing where he pauses his campaign every several days to come back to Ottawa? At some point does that start to see like I mean people in my line of work were rolling their eyes a bit this third time. Can he go back to that well

indefinitely? So Doug Ford did the on campaign off again thing pretty effectively over the course of the recent Ontario election. I think you can keep pausing, so to speak, in order to conduct the business of government. You are, after all, the Prime Minister and it is a very fraught, complicated moment. I think it has to be a little less dramatic would be my only advice. I don't know that you have to be as overt necessarily going forward about suspending the campaign, which felt dramatic, but appropriately so

on the eve of Liberation Day. As we continue, if there are days where it makes sense, quite frankly, for him to be doing government business, I think that would be accepted. I would just downplay the whole suspension element of it. We need our government to be functional right now. It's becoming increasingly clear that whoever wins the selection and forms government is going to be in negotiations with the United States in very short order potentially on a new KUSMA deal or some other form of economic and security deal.

Like that is coming, it's right on the doorstep. So government needs to be prepared and aligned. And let's be clear, whoever the ministry is right now, you know, we know it won't be the same ministry, depending on what stripe, whether it's red or blue, the public service needs direction now that preparation work is happening now. And so I actually think it would be pretty ill-advised and inappropriate for the government not to be meeting as such given what is coming and what Canadians expect in terms of a

level of preparedness from the federal government. So I would say this, Paul, I understand the eye rolling. I do think that as leverage in a campaign, perhaps they need to downplay that a bit. But in terms of the work of government, I for one wanted to continue happening simultaneously to the campaign. And sometimes that means that the leader and the ministry will be busy with the work of government. Now, I want to pick up something that Jason said earlier, which is that Paulier was trying to soften his image.

To me, the most interesting moment on Tout Le Monde en Parle was when Paulier was asked about not taking questions at news conference. And he said, what are you talking about? I am here on Tout Le Monde en Parle. I and I'm doing all these podcasts and I'm taking a lot of questions in very thoughtful settings. And in fact, he and his wife, Anna Poliev, went on a podcast hosted by Camila Gonzalez, who's a Latina social media influencer and red carpet interviewer who had also interviewed Justin Trudeau last October. So she's interviewed two more party leaders in the last six months than I have. So she's interviewed two more party leaders in the last six months than I have. And he also went on this podcast hosted by Shane Parrish. He's a Wall Street tech guy and has a gigantic audience, almost all of it in the United States.

Jason, what the hell is going on here? Listen, I'm not running the public relations strategy for the campaign, but I will say this. He's got an obviously on-again, off-again relationship with the parliamentary press gallery. I don't think that's up for debate. I will say this. So the last couple of years, they've a lot of like, well, like the same allegations were being leveled against them when they were 20 points up or 15 points up, then they are when they're a couple of points down or it's a close election or whatever. And I'll say this,

like, what what they have found a way to do. And Pollyad is a really good communicator at sort of bite-sized chunks and bringing things into relatable stories and anecdotes for a lot of younger people specifically. And one of the things that they're going to have to try and figure out if they want to get that change wave going over the next couple of weeks is how to get that message out a little bit further. It's funny, Pauliev, most people would know him as Mr. Soundbite. Mr. sort of, you know, slogan, I guess, is the way the liberals call it. I watched Touloumou last night.

My French is, you know, like a C-minus, but I was able to understand everything that he and Carney said. And I'll say the long-form interview was terrific. Like I don't know, Paul, you know, I mean, like in terms of, forget about the language for a second, but the truth is he was affable. He was, he was, you know, good, good natured about the kind of questions. He pushed back where he needed to be. And I think there is probably room for him

to do some long form stuff over the next little bit to get out of that sort of all he is as a slogan. And you'll say, and I think we talked about this first podcast, but I'll just remind people like my view of the world is that Pauliev was beating Trudeau because he looked more serious than Trudeau at all over the last couple of years. And it's one

of the reasons why, at least out of the gate, Carney was beating Pauliev was I think he looked more serious or had the ability to look more serious with that resume, the plan, the sort of the public relations view of him. And I think that Pauliev is closing that gap. And I think he's got to close that gap before the end of the campaign and some long form stuff. It might be able to do that. But, you know, they're never going to be able to count on great media coverage. But what they do have to do is get that message out. And that's what they should be measuring is efficacy rather than anything else,

frankly, at this point. Yeah. First of all, Zeitgeist check. Allison, Pauliev is said to be softening his message. Does his message seem softer to you? Does he seem like more of an affable fellow this Monday than he did last Monday? No, I don't think so. I mean, we've all worked for politicians who we've tried to make smile, and it's all, it all turns out deeply uncomfortable. And I can think of a politician in every party who we've tried to make smile and try to make

likeable. I don't think that that works for everybody. You have to make them convincing in a different way. You can't just become likable in a week because someone told you to smile. It's sometimes it's just creepy. I think Alison's right on that. I think Alison is bang on on that.

And this moment doesn't necessarily mean smiling. It means serious, but not a jerk. That's the distinction that Pollyup has to make if he's running to be prime minister and not leader of the opposition. So that's why they're hiding Carney, right, Marcy? There's two jerks on the ballot. Anyway, I joke, but not really. So I'm watching this Camila Gonzalez interview and this Shane Parrish interview and I'm thinking I am now in exactly the wrong line of work. Because it's not just me.

I mean, these days I'm just a podcaster, but anyone who has spent many years covering politics is now precisely the person that you do not ever wanna put a party leader in front of. Camila Gonzalez asked pretty good questions, including about the Trumpy stuff. Shane Parrish asked pretty good questions, including about the Trumpy stuff. Shane Parrish asked pretty good economic questions. But what they didn't ever once do

is put Pauliev in contradiction with his own record on those files or against the complexity of the real world. It's actually really hard to export your natural resources in a world where markets for that stuff is are collapsing because whatever Canada thinks about the environment the rest of the world has concerns and it's similarly to Mark Carney this is turning into my rant but it's my show turning it's similar for Mark Carney who has

popped up in a record store with Nardoir and on Jon Stewart's stage. These people are desperate to look approachable rather than fielding hard questions from people who have been around the block. And I'm wondering whether any of you would give any different advice to a candidate if you were running their campaign. I think the main advice right now,

the main advice right now that, and I've never formally been in the comm stream, but for colleagues and friends of mine who do communications work, the main message to campaigns and to candidates is that in such a diffuse media landscape, you have to meet people where they are. And that is now as we know, not in the traditional mainstream places where where those of you who work in the

gallery present your work. So I mean, it's it's that as much as it is about, you know, the fact that there are you know facts are secondary now to opinion and so you can you can just troll for opinion leaders and influencers who are going to amplify your message without fact-checking you. I mean that's the nature of where we are from a media escape. So you, would my advice be different? Look, I personally quite like facts, as it were, and believe in the importance of truth, but I recognize that we are now living in truthiness. So I guess what I would say is my advice is not different from you have to meet people where you are. That's absolutely true. You could be on the best news programs day

in and day out, and if your dwindling audience is not hearing you, it's not going to convert into success at the ballot. So you absolutely have to find where people are and speak to them where they are. There's no question. Could the platforms be more unbiased or more news-based? I would like to say so, but I can fully understand from a campaign perspective

why you are looking for somebody who is going to give you a pass and allow you to own the space. It's not different from that direct-to-camera monologue that we're seeing Pierre do, Mr. Pellier have used very effectively, has been using effectively, and others, quite frankly, trying to catch up, although I guess Mr. Singh has been doing that for years on TikTok and the like, adding one small filter of an influencer interviewing

is a bit of a fig leaf. It's still a direct-to-camera kind of monologue or homily from the leaders, and that's what they'd like. I mean, the more unfiltered your message, the better. Yeah, I guess there's a difference between meet the people where they are and Christopher Freeland campaigning on MSNBC for two months when I don't think there's 35 Canadians who watch MSNBC.

Like it feels like chickening out. Jason? Well, a couple of things. I like this, Paul, we could probably debate this all day. So so but we won't. We'll be done soon. So so, you know, Freeland on MSNBC, like, you know, you're sort of making a joke about all the candidate politicians making the case on tariffs directly to the directly to the US media. And I'll say there's a bit of that

for sure. But I will say this, like, you know, I remember stories, you know, people talked about Doug Ford and said, like, you just waited to get to Doug Ford, a message Doug Ford was to go on CP two four and say it. Well, the easiest message to get, you know, to Trump or whatever was, you know, US media, because the guy cares. He cares about what they say to him, certainly on Fox, little less on CNN, certainly almost not on MSNBC. But I'll say this, nobody's got this jammed and, or nobody's got this completely figured out because I would say Pierre, like Justin in 2015, it wasn't new communications tools. His social media was great, but why was his social media great? His social media was great because he had a great campaign. It was full of hope and change and after 10 years of sort of a dour guy, he got some change.

This one, the question is, does the tone of your stuff meet those audiences? It's funny, just before we got on, I retweeted something. It was an influencer. I'd never seen this person before. I didn't know her name. She's a podcaster and she'd made the most effective case against Carney that I've ever seen. It was sort of like, you know, she was playing a character, she was pretending she was sort of a sort of a liberal woman who was like, I really like Carney, I like the fact that he doesn't like to pay taxes and like all this other stuff. And it was like really effective. And I looked at it, it's got, you know, 5000 likes 2000 retweets. And the truth is what the gallery has to deal with is there's two things here.

Number one, it's not as important as it used to be for as big an audience is. But at the time that matters, which is the next 10 to 14 days, people will be looking to the gallery to sort out some of that information. Who won, who lost, who did well, all that kind of stuff, and especially seniors.

And I will say this, I think the only issue that Poliev's got is I think Carney's audience, it's sort of like COVID. They're sitting there in front of the TV, they're watching for Trump's next move, those seniors, and I think that has impacted

how seniors have been feeling about Carney. And I think that they've probably got to crack into that if they want to win this election. Okay, I'm going to wrap it up there for now. We've got to settle in for debate week, I think all of us, and we'll pick over the returns from those two events next week. Thanks for joining me today. Thank you. Thanks, Deval.