World Report - Need a daily elections podcast? Try 'Power & Politics'

Episode Date: March 24, 2025

This Canadian election will be a sprint, not a marathon. Already, only 35 days remain! And so, World Report wants to help you find the best podcast to keep you informed. First up: Power & Politics, CBC’s only political daily. Hosted by David Cochrane, this podcast is for listeners who want a steady flow of up-to-date political news. You’ll hear from those who’ve got the power, those who want it, and those affected most by it. New episodes drop Monday to Friday.Their episode today:Power & Politics' panel of political insiders — featuring former Justin Trudeau adviser Vandana Kattar, former Conservative cabinet minister Lisa Raitt, former NDP national campaign director Brad Lavinge and Canada correspondent for The Economist Rob Russo — breaks down the duelling Liberal and Conservative tax cut proposals and whether either can fit into an increasingly uncertain fiscal picture. Plus, CBC reporters following the party leaders bring you the biggest moments from the early campaign trail, and TheWrit.ca's Éric Grenier analyzes each party's status in the polls.

This is a CBC Podcast. Hey, it's Marcia Young. At World Report, we do our best to tell you everything you need to know in just 10 minutes, but so much happens during an election and stories change fast on the campaign trail. So this week, we're including CBC's political podcasts in our feed. Today, it's Power and Politics. It's CBC's only political podcast with updates every day of the week. So if you're following very closely, they've got you covered.

Party's pitch tax cuts. Polls show a tight race and there's a debate over a debate. It's day two of the election campaign. I'm David Cochran. The Power and Politics podcast starts now. We begin with a roundup of where the party leaders were today and what they pitched to voters. Conservative leader Pierre Polyev is in the Greater Toronto area and he announced a tax

cut while in Brampton before heading to Mississauga this evening for a photo op. These people behind me, they work hard every day and yet at the end of the month they look at their pay stub and it's tax after tax after tax after tax and the more they work the more they pay and we're punishing our workers. Poliev is promising a cut for the lowest tax bracket, bringing it down from 15% to 12.7%. He says it will save the average worker $900 a year. The CBC's Kate McKenna is following the Conservative leaders' campaign.

David Peer, Pauliev has been signaling for months that he plans to cut income tax, and now we've seen his plan. If he is elected prime minister, it'll come into full effect in 2027. And it's a larger tax cut than what Mark Carney put in the window yesterday. It's set to cost $14 billion annually.

And he was asked what he would cut to be able to afford this tax cut. And he, of course, has been very critical of liberals in the past for their management of the public purse. He said he would cut bureaucracy, he'd cut consultants, he'd cut foreign aid. This is something that he has frequently gone back to whenever he's asked what he would cut to fund particular things that he plans to do. He went back to that again today and he also said that he is planning to release

a costed platform. We will be cutting bureaucracy, cutting consultants, cutting back on handouts to insiders, and we will cut back on foreign aid to bring our money home to this country. We will also and that those will be spelled out in our platform with numbers. This is a major announcement for Paulie Evan. It's not a surprise that he's doing it in the Toronto region. He's spending the first three days of the campaign here.

Conservatives believe that they can make inroads. There are more than 50 seats up for grabs in the GTA. Most of them at this time belong to Liberals. But polling suggests so far that this region is a

close race between the liberals and the conservatives so we can expect Paulie you have to be back here often. David? Alright Kate that's the CBC's Kate McKenna in Mississauga. Well the liberals have also announced an income tax cut proposal. Their cut will be smaller and is aimed at making up for the loss of the carbon rebate. But today liberal leader Mark Kearney was in Gander, Newfoundland, and Labrador to pitch himself as the candidate best positioned to deal with President Donald Trump. President Trump wants to break us so America can own us.

We will not let that happen. President Trump's plan is to divide and conquer. Pierre Pauliev's plan is to divide and be conquered. Mark Carney made that appeal in a town that has played a symbolic role in the Canada-U.S. relationship. The CBC's Ashley Burke is traveling alongside the Liberal leader, Ashley. David, I'm with the Liberal campaign on the Tarmac in Gander, Newfoundland. This airport is where Mark Carney is tapping into the town's history to try and persuade

Canadians he's the best choice to help Canada in a time of crisis. This town famously took in thousands of international travelers on 9-11. Their plans were diverted following the terrorist attacks on the U.S. Carney met with two local women who helped stranded passengers, including Americans, and said that Trump's actions have put the two countries' relationship under greater strain than any time in our storied history. Then he pitched that just like Gander helped others, his government is looking to help Canadians through this trade war.

Carney was asked by media today what efforts he's made to try and speak with Donald Trump. Carney said that he believes the U.S. President is waiting until the election is over to talk and said he's available for a call, but on Canada's terms as a sovereign country. Carney's next stop is in Halifax as he continues to tour Atlantic Canada where he's leading in the polls. David. Thank you Ashley. That is the CBC's Ashley Burke in Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador. continues to tour Atlantic Canada where he's leading in the polls. David. Thank you Ashley. That is the CBC's Ashley Burke in Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Okay, let's break down the first couple of days and those text policy pitches that the front runner parties have put out there. We've got the power panel standing by here in the studio. Vandana Khadr was an advisor to former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Lisa Raitt is a former Conservative Cabinet Minister. Brad Levine is a former national campaign director for the NDP and Rob Russo is the Canada correspondent for The Economist. Everybody here in person around the table is so much fun, they could see you all.

Vandana, let's start with your impression of Mark Carney. His opening pitch and leading with a tax cut. What do you make of that tactical decision by the liberal leader? Yeah, I think he also knows that as much as tariffs is on the minds of Canadians that affordability still is on the front like on minds of Canadians. I think he knows that's a key thing. I think as people go on to the campaign they're going to look for what else do you have to offer

and a tax cut is always sexy. I mean it helped in 2015 when we offered a middle class tax cut. It's going to help now but also showcase that people are looking at him like are you going to be some sort of fiscal hawk but he's showing that he is no understanding that this is what Canadians are thinking about the most and delivering for that. So Lisa we got a one percent cut, a one percentage point cut in the lowest tax rate for the liberals.

Two and a quarter points from Pierre Polly. Do I hear three from the ND? I don't think they have it together. The Liberals both proposed a cut to Canada's lowest tax bracket and the Liberals would decrease the current 15 percent tax rate by one percentage point. The Conservatives say they'd phase in a cut of 2.25 percentage points and the Liberals say using the PBO

calculator theirs will cost six billion annually. The Conservatives say when it's fully brought in by 2027 we're talking fourteen billion dollars a year. There's already a fifty billion dollar deficit and a tariff war. I mean what do you make of these moves? These are big price tag items going on. It's a pretty big deficit already. Vanden Heuvel said it.

I mean they're cluing into the fact that what Canadians are really worried about is how much money they have in their pocket, how much money they're taking home, is life affordable, can I afford my rent, can I afford what's happening in terms of inflation and also the concern about tariffs at the end of the day. So it makes sense that they're leading with this and like I say it facetiously but if we're

in a situation where one party says we're going to do X, the other person says we'll do X plus two, the third one says we'll do X plus three, the third one says we'll do X plus three. Canadians are going to have a little bit of a hard time figuring out which way to go or maybe they'll sit back and wait for the best offer that comes their way. Brad how do you see this?

I mean the NDP didn't, we'll talk about them a little bit later on their policy offer but they're not in the tax game right now. I think we should stay tuned on what the party has. I think it's a coincidence. Good for the show to start off with two parties with the same kind of policy areas. The question is, I mean, no Canadian is going to sit back tonight and say, oh, no, no, I don't pay enough taxes,

please, tax me more. Nobody is going to say that. The real question I think we need to make is when we talk about changes to the tax code, are what we doing fair? Is this the most efficient way of getting money into the pockets of those folks and I know you know there's lots of debate as to how you can provide tax relief whether you bring down the

brackets, whether you increase the personal allowance at the front end which is progressively you know as you make more your allowance goes down a little bit. So I think we're going to have a good discussion. And I think that the New Democrats will have more to say on tax fairness going forward. But certainly- Tax fairness doesn't sound like a tax cut though, right? Is that more of like going after tax avoidance and that sort of stuff?

It could mean tax cuts for some Canadians who need the relief the most. But I do agree with the point that is made. That while tariffs are dominating, I think the conversation, but I do agree with the point that is made, that while tariffs are dominating, I think, the conversation, there is still room for how, you know, Canadians see how they're going to get through this tariff. And of course, affordability is absolutely front and center, as well as housing, which we're going to get to. Right.

So, Rob, your thoughts on this. I mean, these are expensive items. Cutting taxes are expensive items, and there's already a pretty big deficit and nobody is saying they want to keep running deficits for a super long period of time with Mr. Carney in charge and Mr. Poliev in charge. That means some things have got to change on the spending side.

Yeah. I was very popular at Christmas around family gatherings because I would take a magic quarter, put it into a mayonnaise jar, I would tell the kids, place it under Funk and Wagnall's porch. It was there since noon this morning and voila, I've transported the kids, place it under Funko Wagnall's porch, it was there since noon this morning and voila I've transported it to some other dimension and this sounds a lot like that.

I say people need to beware of politicians who don the magic cape, wave the magic wand and say they are going to cut spending, eliminate the deficit and cut taxes. It's a very, very difficult thing to do. No matter how they outline their cuts a lot of things have to go right in the economy. I think what we saw, very interesting to see the

liberals try to get out ahead on the tax cutting front. That's usually conservative territory. Conservatives usually do very, very well when they establish themselves as a tax cutting party. We're seeing Mark Carney in the middle of a campaign kind of building a liberal party and rebuilding a liberal party by refashioning it and the tax cut right off the bat

was an attempt to do that. It's also an attempt to squash the change issue and make it so that it's not really an issue. You're going to get the same thing. The thing that everybody cares about is who is going to deal with Donald Trump, who's going to get us across the stormy waters. On the way here I listened to a report about

Conference Board of Canada survey that's showing consumer confidence at its lowest levels ever. Right? People are rattled, there's no question. And what are they rattled about? How can they not be? They're rattled about losing their jobs. Not about their taxes, but about losing their jobs.

And whoever can say to Canadians, I'm going to help you hang on to your job or help you transform into another job if you lose your job. That's the person that's going to get the job. So Vandana, that's clearly the central proposition of Mark Carney right as liberal leader, as prime minister but he's also very successfully prosecuting the record of the government he now leads right and sort of like throwing policies overboard and moving away from things and going in a very centrist industrial focused direction that was

not there two months ago. One would say conservative direction. I would say pragmatic direction. Everybody's got a word for it. Yeah that's funny. This is Mark Carney's party now. It is not just insurance. It's not just a political party. I would say pragmatic direction. Everybody's got a word for it. Yeah, that's funny. This is Mark Carney's party now.

It is not Justin Trudeau. So he will have his own view, his own direction, something that he has been thinking about for a long time. And I think what he's looking at is not just, to Rob's point, not just what is the magical wand, how do you create the conditions to inoculate Canadians from the worst of tariffs to protect their jobs and to

just build the Canadian economy so that it is resilient and I think he's going to look at this as one thing he's looking at but I think what he's looking at from a broader perspective is how do we create the conditions for the country for success in the future as well. So- To protect them from what's coming and then to

rebuild on the other side. Exactly. He's pitching it. Exactly and he's a pragmatic leader so I think he knows that there are things that don't work. They weren't his things. Yes as a liberal brand you know liberals and any party will defend their party's interest whether

they agree or not behind closed doors but he will have our own direction. The country's also changed over the last ten years and it requires different things and people are looking at when I think of resiliency and unity in building I think of young people, I think of people my age, I think of people older and how do you make the economy work for everyone when everyone has

different needs. So Lisa you say this, you might call these conservative ideas. He's just like Justin but he's copying all of Pierre's plans. Those don't go together right? Yes they do. How do they? They totally do. They totally do because you can't deny the fact

that he has been part of the brain trust that has been advising the prime minister at least for the last four years. I know of the last, I can't go back ten years, absolutely the last four years. Yeah probably like coming out of COVID, it was around 2021, him and Michael Sabia. He made the announcement right.

So that's clearly on the record. So he's been doing the advice in the last four years which is a long period of time. So you have to wear a little bit of where we are now or the missed opportunities that we've had in the past four years that have suddenly just changed. You know as a result of the realization of where we are standing in this moment vis a vis an economy that is soft

that needs to be strong in order to put up with what's going to happen vis-à-vis the United States. So I think you can say both without a question. And I think that just like Justin Park comes in, which is he may be saying the pragmatic things right now but can you really trust him and the folks around him who look a lot like the same to make the tough decisions that are going to come in

terms of pipelines, in terms of oil and gas, in terms of regulatory approvals that are going to be needed. His announcement on Friday coming out of the First Minister's meeting was a big shift in the direction that I think you would like on pipelines and project approvals, the one timeline and all of these things. I still don't get the sense he would force it through Quebec, I'm not sure any leader would force it

through Quebec but he's moved on an industrial policy that I don't think the previous leader would have been able to do or at least he's put it in the window. So you know what the previous government has made some decisions but they are also holding back on other parts of it so it's going to come down to very real projects. What are you going to do on LNG? What are you going to do with respect to pipelines east to west? Because the reality that we're dealing with is different now. If Donald Trump decides to turn off one of the pipelines coming into Eastern Canada that's it for them. There's no oil going into-

there's no aviation fuel at Pearson Airport if the Americans decide to turn it off at the border. And these are really big issues so maybe there's a bit more impetus to make these kinds of decisions but the question is, is are you going to, are you going to trust the people who have been saying this all along, i.e. the conservatives, or are you going to trust the people who just in the

last moment have found Jesus and have realized that we have to move in a different direction. Brad I can tell by the smile on your face you don't trust this conversion on the road to the election. But you know what do don't trust this conversion on the road to the election necessarily is happening. But you know what do you make of this is that it is a move towards more center ground more of a Cretchen Martin era view of liberalism that is happening at electoral speed.

There's no question and so I'm going to take a different tact than Lisa. In terms of Carney I think making a distinct differentiator in terms of his policy directions from the Trudeau. Now this is, he's moving the party to the center or to the center right. And it does bring back the memories and those are tough years, those 90s, the 1990s and you know this

is why the NDP are talking about housing. I think we met at a tuition protest in the 1990s, Brad. That's how old we are. Perhaps that's true. That's what I know about. Perhaps that's true, too. I don't know where Russo was. Reporting on it. He was reporting on it.

There's no question that Mr. Carney is moving the party to the right. There's no question. Now, does this provide opportunity for the NDP to, and now that the campaign is going on and the party has, you know, it's going to be spending the legal maximum you know, it's going to be spending the legal maximum centrally, it has going to be spending the legal maximum in dozens and dozens of target ridings and it's got issues

like housing, like what Sing was out on today, Jagmeet Singh was out on today. The 90's are a time that we can point to in the NDP to talk about when Paul Martin got the liberal, got the federal government out of building housing. We are still digging ourselves out of the hole that Paul Martin created. And the question I think we're going to have for Mr. Carney, and progressives that voted for Trudeau in 1915, 1921, who are, you know, who are, I think, open to moving back to the

NDP, even though there's some softening in the polls in the opening weeks. I think there's lots of time in this campaign to say the party that Trudeau ran and the policies that you liked about Trudeau are gone. We're going back to the 90's and the New Democrats will be fighting in the House of Commons for you and I think that taps into what Singh's message was in the opening. Right.

Rob, your thoughts? I just want to clarify that we're talking about the 1990's not the 1890's. Yeah exactly. Number one. Number two I remember the 90's I was here 1890s. Yeah, exactly. Number one. Number two, I remember the 90s. I was here. They were pretty good times.

The country turned it around after great sacrifice and began running, I think, about a dozen Provincial capitals might disagree. Right. They had hard times. The country began running a dozen surpluses in a row. The Canadian dollar started coming back in a big, big way. So that's a dangerous thing to try to point to. I'm not sure that we're addressing the issue that

people really care about. Once change is out of the way and the liberals are trying to put, I heard Mark Carney say the word change five or six times in his opening remarks. You've got to turn to the elephant that's in the room and the elephant that's in the room isn't housing right now. It's can I hang on to the house that I got?

Can I hang on to the job that I got? And can I, can I deal, who's going to deal with that guy who's in Washington who is going to take away my job? My job is already on the knife's edge as a result of what's going on there and who's going to take away my job, my job is already on the knife's edge as a result of what's going on there and who's going to have that plan. I think you're right when it comes to older voters. Younger voters still care about getting into the

housing market and those things right so you know that is you've got to deal with there's a generational component to this. And the youth vote and the unionized vote. So you know that is you've got to deal with there's a generational component to this. Right. And the youth vote and the unionized vote. Yeah. Particularly in southwestern Ontario and in northern Ontario they are going to do very very well on this election.

OK. We are going to talk about the elephant in the room which is Donald Trump but first on day two of this federal election campaign the main party leaders are out across the country pitching their message to Canadians including today. The parties only have thirty 35 days left to campaign before Election Day on April 28th. So where do the parties stand right now with Canadians?

Well we've got Eric Grenier. He is the author of the writ.ca. He also runs the CBC's poll tracker. He's walking onto the set here now to walk us through the numbers. Eric, it's good to see you. Let's start with the main parties. How are they all currently polling? Give us the top line here.

Well right now we are looking at a close national race. So if we look at where the polls are right now in our poll tracker, which is an average of all the polls that are out there, the liberals are leading with about 38 percent support. The conservatives are at about 37 percent and we see that with the other parties the New Democrats have fallen to 11 percent, 6 percent for the Bloc Québécois and 4 for the Greens so it is a tight race between the two parties

at least when it comes to the votes. OK so when the vote chair is close on election day the liberals usually win right because of vote efficiency so what does this mean in terms of seat projections at this point in time? Well for the seat projections the liberals are the favorites to win when it comes to actually forming a government. If we look at where the seat projections sit right now

the liberals are in majority position just above the threshold for majority government. You need 172 they're right now. The liberals are in majority position just above the threshold for majority government. You need 172. They're right now at 177. The conservatives are at 132 seats so they would pick up a few but they're quite a bit further behind. The conservatives, the Bloc Quebecois is at 26. The New Democrats right now with the numbers we've

seen are at six seats and the Greens at two. So the race for the most seats is not nearly as close as the race for the most votes right now. Okay that NDP number is shocking. We need to say they're at like 24, 25 now. But let's look at the conservative leader Pierre Polyev. He came in as the inevitable front runner to this year, not necessarily this campaign. He's spending day two in the GTA because there's no conservative win without a win in Ontario.

How does it look there for them? Yeah the numbers right now in Ontario are quite close between the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Liberals have moved into the lead right now with about 42% on average in the province with the Conservatives at 39. The NDP is right now at 12 and 4 for the Greens. So we have seen that the Liberals have moved in

front in Ontario over the last few weeks and in terms of seats this would likely deliver about 70, 80 seats for the Liberals, maybe only 40 or 50 for the Conservatives. Okay so those 70 to 80 seats in Ontario you stack on Quebec then you stack on Atlantic Canada. Those are three of the key pillars of the liberal victories in the past elections.

Mark Carney was in Newfoundland now he's in Nova Scotia. How does it look out east for them? Atlantic Canada is where we've actually seen the most movement. The Liberals have gained more than twenty points in the polls since Justin Trudeau resigned so right now in Atlantic Canada the liberals are leading with about 51% support, the conservatives are down to thirty two, the NDP at ten and the Greens are at four percent.

So this is where we've seen a lot of movement and you know just a few months ago the conservatives would have maybe won twenty, twenty five seats in Atlantic Canada. Now it looks like there's not going to be that much change. The Liberals have the pole position in Atlantic Canada. OK so all of this what does it point to in terms of probability of what we is the right now the likely outcomes on April 28th?

And reminder to everybody this is right now right? Right now yes. Not what's going to happen on election day. But right now with these kinds of numbers if the election was tomorrow I'd be saying there'd be about 53% chance that the liberals would win a majority government. They'd have about 25% chance of a minority. Conservatives would have about a one in five chance of winning the most seats but a very low chance of

securing the majority government just with the kind of numbers we see with the N.D.P. as low as it is and the liberals as high as they are, it's just hard to imagine a scenario where the conservatives would get to a hundred seventy two seats right now. That is a dramatic, dramatic shift from January 6th. When January 6th it was about a ninety nine percent chance that the conservatives would win the most seats.

So it just kind of gives you nothing, nothing's inevitable I guess. Alright, events your boy, events. Alright. Events to your boy events. Alright Eric thank you so much. This is Eric Grenier author of the writ.ca. He'll be running the CBC poll tracker throughout the campaign and he'll be popping by the studio with some frequency. OK so let's come back here and Rob this goes back to

the main thing right. This that you were talking about. This is it was obvious that when Donald Trump started doing what he was doing the ballot question would shift to how to deal with Trump. What was not obvious is why the liberals would seemingly be the answer to the question of who's best to deal with it.

Why do you think it has gone this way? You mentioned it that one of the most eye popping numbers there is the New Democratic. One of the reasons why Mark Carney seems to be shifting to the center is because New Democrats are going to stick with the Liberal Party it seems right up until now anyway because they're scared. They're scared of Donald Trump and they're also scared of Pierre Poilier getting in

as prime minister. So those two factors are collapsing the NDP vote which helps Mark Carney shaves off support that goes to the Liberals. It also hurts the Conservatives because in a lot of writings, particularly in Ontario, if you have a robust NDP vote, even if they don't win it, if they're second or third, that allows for tight freeway races and often the Conservatives come up

the middle when the progressive vote is split. With Mr. Carney's move to the center there is less of a chance of that happening with Mr. Trump menacing on this side of the border and Mr. with Mr. Trump menacing on this side of the border and Mr. Poliev menacing on that. So the number to watch is the New Democratic number. If that stays low that augurs very well for the Liberal Party.

So just quickly on that point the conservatives are kind of holding more or less within their range of support but when you look at the math it's the liberals who have shot way up and the NDP that have gone way down. I mean I don't know if six seats is where it ends up but that's pretty grim. It's a good thing David that we have five weeks of campaigning. I'm not shoveling dirt on you. I'm just wondering what you think. No, no, no, untaken, untaken. Nothing gets the juices,

the blood of the New Democrat going more than when our competitors, our opponents write us off. There's no question that there's some steep hills to climb but what the beautiful thing is, is that within a campaign when people tune in and they see the options before them and they see what is on offer from the major parties, people need to understand. Do you trust the Mark Carney move to the right for the liberal party?

Do you trust the banker to have your back when things are going to get rough? Do you trust him on the things that you count on? Now he can say nice words during the election campaign. Liberals do a really good job of saying really nice things during the election campaign. But then when they get the opportunity to govern, they don't always follow through on those kinds of things. And so I think Singh has an opportunity here to go to that progressive base and say does a banker really have your interest,

you know, does he have your back when things are going to get difficult on the key issues. And that's the beautiful thing about the election campaign. I think there's a difference between a banker and a central banker. Do you know what I mean? The folks at home aren't going to be concerned. But he would be known more as the governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, wouldn't he?

Well we can call him governor. That would even make my point even more. The question when you're going to the polls and you're going to put your ex next to the candidate for the party with the leader who's got your back. That's what Singh is, is, is, is, and, and you know, to, to watch the leader, uh, Jagmeet Singh in the first couple of days, you know, I think he's really, this is his third election campaign, so he's got more experience than, than, than a few other, of the other leaders. I think he's done a good job in internalizing what it is, um, that he, that, that he's offering Canadians, what, what it is, what, what, what the role that he wants to play in this election campaign. And let's not forget, campaigns matter.

We always say that, especially when things change. The last month and a half has mattered. Then I got this hit. But, you know, I like to go back to the greatest hits. You know, in 2011, at this exact moment in time, we were at 13 percent. Eric has, you know, just at 12. And and Jack Layton won 103 seats because the campaign mattered because the issues that we talked about people saw what was on offer.

Who were my options? And they chose Jack Layton overwhelmingly. 33 percent of the popular vote. So you know New Democrats like a good, they're comfortable in the zone of being up against the wall and there's no question that is where we are now but that's I think brings out the best of the tens of thousands of volunteers right across this country at HQ here in Ottawa and in writings

right across the country. So Lisa the banker versus central banker you know like obviously he comes from the corporate world he was at Goldman Sachs, Department of Finance, no I was trying to do it in order, Bank of Canada, Bank of England and then Brookfield and now politics, right, so why is that a liability or an asset or what? How do you view it?

Well I'm going to tie together what Brad was just saying, what Rob said, what I find really interesting. It is true that in southwestern Ontario we need to have a robust NDP vote in order for a conservative to win and I've been the beneficiary of that, thank you very much, in 2000 and we had a majority government. But the reality is that we know that and what you have seen I think in some

interesting social media work by the conservatives, if you've seen the Kearney and a coal mine video that's out there, that kind of tracks and interviews people in the United States who Brookfield writ large have ownership of a reinsurance company and they're trying to correlate the two that people were denied their coverage.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. The proof point is this is that why would the conservatives be putting something out like that to bolster the NDP quite frankly, to move people towards the NDP. So you can see that it's more than just you know one move one move. It really is about making sure that you're covering all the bases here.

A strong bloc in Quebec is good for the conservatives, a strong NDP in southwestern Ontario is good for the conservatives so you dabble in these kinds of things. It's not going to get a vote for the conservatives necessarily but it may put people thinking about Mark Carney in a different way than they were thinking about him before and lines up with what Jagmeet Singh is saying. So Vandana how do you square this circle that it is his resume and experience that the liberals

would say is the big advantage and asset that Mark Carney brings into this but clearly others are attacking as an Achilles heel potential as a weakness for him to disqualify him in the minds of voters. Yeah there's two things for him. I think one, I've said this before, you know it's not intergenerational wealth that he has. This is someone who is a son of two teachers who won scholarships and gained this and I think that you know he's saying this is aspiration for all Canadians that everyone

should be able to come to this country and get as much money as they want for their career and have the things that they want. And that's what everyone wants for their children and that's what kids want. They want to be able to afford their life. So I think it's more aspirational. But I think in this time frame with tariffs I think people are looking for somebody.

Can somebody fix the economy? Because no one can really pinpoint what it is. And it's complex. There's a number of issues that lead to housing crises, a number of issues that lead to inflation, the economy can even start it off with Ukraine, right, and the COVID. But who has the resume, the experience to be able

to deal with these things? I think people will put trust in Mr. Carney and that's why conservatives and New Democrats are trying to discredit him. And I think yes, Mr. Carney is a recipient of a lot of people who, while you know people have faith in the New Democrats I'm in seeing on my socials which are millennial and Gen Z's kind of led

socials that say like you know we don't, we can't risk it right now. You know given what's happening with the economy. So why would you split a vote right? I think that's what they're worried about. Also Mr. Jagmeet Singh as much as I respect him and appreciate him ten years there's a lot of receipts there. So as much as a lot of the things I say from the

Supply and Conference Agreement may have come from them I don't think he's been able to reap those benefits. So people see him as things that he's like maybe negotiated on, maybe not gone as forward as he could have as the NDP. Things, positions he has taken that may have been softened and I think that's why people may just, that's what happens in politics.

Ten years we saw the Prime Minister will see with Jagmeet Singh, people just don't have that same faith. And I think that's, that's going to help Mr. Carney. But also he's not, he's getting a big coalition of voters. So not just people who may have been conservatives but don't like Mr. Poiliev, but also people who may want a different option from Mr. Singh and I think he's talked about important things like he's talked about

Indigenous reconciliation, he's talked about the environment that does play into those voter coalition as well. So Vandana talking about her socials being millennial and Gen Z is her way of saying she's younger than everybody else at the table. I want to ask you about something I saw on your socials last night. I was watching the St. Pierre Poliev rally- I never do socials and something I saw on your socials last night. I was watching the same Pierre Paglia rally.

I never do socials and now I'm getting, OK. I watched this, I watched the same rally. Pierre Paglia had a massive crowd in Don Valley North would be the riding. And I watched his speech and he was more energetic and comfortable I think than he was at his launch. And that's not a criticism of his launch but he's in a room full of people. But it was a speech that worked really well on hitting a lot of key issues in the absence of Donald Trump.

It wasn't really about Donald Trump. So how does Mr. Poliev get back into this mood that Rob talked about right off the top, that it's really about Trump when he is focusing on underlying issues that have been there for a while? It's a really good question and I'm not inside the party so I don't know what their strategy is on all of it but you would have to think that if you're focusing on the economy and you're focusing on everyday issues like there is a long section that they did on crime in the GTA which is a really big issue for us in the GTA.

Not only car theft but home invasions and outright robbery on the street. So we focused on that kind of stuff. That's going to resonate. So why not Trump? Maybe, maybe there's a theory that at the end of the day the realization is going to be that dealing with Donald Trump is bigger than one individual person

and not a single person is going to have all of the answers on how to deal with them because it is an overwhelming threat that we're facing in Canada. And then maybe people will go back to thinking about what's best for me now in the moment. because it is an overwhelming threat that we're facing in Canada. And then maybe people will go back to thinking about what's best for me now in the moment. Perhaps that's the theory on it. I don't think it's because they're afraid of talking about Trump. They've just got their plan and they're going to go with-

No, but it's just his front runner status has been impaired by the emergence of the Trump. For now. Yeah, yeah, yeah. On this day, on day two. Let's see how it goes. Quickly and why not. I'm going to have to disagree Lisa, sorry. I think he wants to talk about other things other than Trump because every time he talks about Trump,

you know, people are reminded that those in Canada that like Trump are in the conservative party universe and that his style reminds people of Donald Trump. You know, I think Hott was good with Trudeau and so Poliev was very successful because he was the alternative to Trudeau. When you eliminate Trudeau all of a sudden now do I

want hot? I think Mr. Carney's initial support is boring is working better than Pierre's heat. So I think that there's some trouble there. So he wants to talk about anything else. That's, I think, Pauliev's biggest problem, which is why I think the campaign is stalled in many respects, he hasn't been able to pivot. So the principal actor in the,

three months ago was Trudeau. Now it's Trump. And I think Pauliev has just, hasn't found that pivot where the safe ground is because he, and so until then he's not talking about it. So he's going to be talking about crime. He's going to be talking about anything else other than Trump and I think that that's, well we'll see how it plays out. We'll see how it plays out.

Rob you quickly on that and then I want to check in with our reporters with the block in the- Why did the vote move? It moved because of Donald Trump. You better deal with Donald Trump one way or another. Brookfield might be a way to do that. Brookfield might be a way to get at Mr. Carney's decision to, when he was at Brookfield, to move Jobs South. Might be a way to get at the Trump issue

without drawing Trump directly in there. But you are going to have to come up with a policy that makes Canadians feel very, very safe about you confronting Donald Trump. But I got it. I hate hacking on Canadian companies. Like that really, as a person, as an individual, like successful companies, I just hate it when we take

that route. It's unclear to me how many jobs have actually moved there because it's been, you know, some of the financial reporting I've read, it's a paper transaction, I know it helps you do things, it puts it, you know, there's tax flow revenue. I just, yeah, Lisa, like I don't know. It's just-

No, it happens all the time in Canada. And I was like- But he is going to have to deal with the orange menace. He's going to have to- And that's not the NDP you're talking about. You're talking about- That's right. Yeah, okay.

All right. Careful. Careful. I'll show you the menace, Rob. It's so great we're together. We are going to check on the orange menace, the team, not any individual, because NDP leader Jagmeet Singh is focusing his campaign today on housing. Singh made an announcement this morning in Montreal before heading south to Toronto for

an event tonight with local candidates. When I talk to people everywhere I go they say, I can't find a place that's affordable. I can't find a place that I can afford to rent. I simply cannot find anything. And for those people, I want to let you know that I hear you. It's frustrating. I can see why you're so angry because there's nothing there that's affordable. —Singh's New Democrats are promising to use federally owned land to build more housing.

Singh would also spend a billion dollars over five years to buy more public land to build rent controlled units. The CBC's Marina Von Stakelberg is traveling with Singh on board his campaign bus. Marina. Hi David. I'm on the NDP campaign bus where the New Democrats are spending most of their second day of this campaign. We're on the 401 highway right now driving between Montreal and Toronto. These are two cities where the New Democrats are hoping to pick up some seats. Right now in Quebec

they only have one seat in Montreal but they are eyeing a few other spots. You might remember that there was a recent by-election, a liberal seat that the Bloc won but the NDP came in a very close second. But this might not just be a campaign about the New Democrats trying to pick up seats, it might be about them trying to save the ones they have. If recent polling bears out, several of their seats, the majority of their seats are at risk. And perhaps a bit of a nod to that, at his announcement earlier this morning, Jagmeet Singh took a few punches at a punching bag at an outdoor gym. But I will say that at the events that we've been to so far with the NDP, it's been a quite small turnout, sometimes just a handful of people.

Even the big sort of launch event last night in Montreal only had about 100 people there. And then again today we're spending most of the campaign on a bus, not talking with the electorate. But you know, this could be a sign of a different strategy for the New Democrats because for the first time on a campaign, they have two full-time staff here with us on the bus doing social media for the New Democrats, uploading content in real time as it happens. David?

Okay, Marina, thank you. That's the CBC's Marina von Stackelberg on that NDP campaign bus on its way from Montreal to Toronto. The Bloc Québécois, their leader, Yves-François Blanchet, will spend the entirety of his campaign in Quebec, to no surprise. The only province in which the Bloc runs candidates, so if he's Prime Minister something crazy happened.

Today he is in Quebec City where he's questioning the tax cuts promises from both the liberal and conservative leaders. How the hell do you intend to do that? One of the parties says we will cut, cut, cut the expenses. Okay, is it the right time to cut the expenses when the moment is more appropriate to support enterprise companies and jobs?

And the other party says, we will cut expenses and we will cut taxes. There's no way on earth one can manage that. Blanchet says both the frontrunners need to explain how they'll pay for their tax cut proposals and the CBC's Rafi Boujikaneen is traveling with the Bloc leader. Rafi. David, if Francois Blanchet's struggle is to stay relevant in an election campaign that's so far largely been about who is best placed to take on Donald Trump.

Blanchet has pitched today a private members bill that would force the federal government to prioritize domestic providers in federal government contracts. Blanchet is also seizing on the Liberals balking at paying a $75,000 participation fee to take part in a French language debate that would have been held by the French private network TVA, an event that may not happen now. Blanchet says Mark Carney must be afraid of facing off against him and is accusing Carney of robbing him of a platform to connect with Quebecers. Now Blanchet will still have his chance at the other French language debate, which is scheduled for April 16th,

coincidentally his birthday, a rare gift for a leader that could be squeezed out of this campaign. David? Okay, that's the CBC's Raffy Boudjoukani in Quebec City. So look, all of these leaders are going to have a chance to square off in debates and we've got details today on when the leaders' debates will be during this election campaign. The French debate will be held on April 16th and the English debate a day later on April 17th.

They will both take place in Montreal. But we also learned today that the Liberal Party will not be participating in a debate that was trying to be organized by the private French language network TVR. Rafi mentioned it there. That debate had a seventy five thousand dollar price tag. The party had to pay seventy five thousand dollars to participate.

Bloc Quebecois leader Yves-Francois Blanchette is accusing Mark Kearney and the liberals of being scared. So far I don't know what he's not afraid of. This guy is supposed to be strong enough to face Donald Trump which is one of the biggest threats on democracy and freedom for a long time. I will face a guy and then we say hey come in Quebec and discuss with us because you want us to vote for you.

Oh I won't go. I'm saying to him hey let's come and face the music. Okay face the music. Vandana I'll let you respond to that allegation as the liberal in the room right now but I just have to ask widely. Does anyone ever heard of a debate you were invited to as a political party that you had to pay a cover charge to participate in?

Seventy five thousand dollars, I've never heard of that Rob. Like you know if you organize it you pay it right? You host it. Yes. Often in the United States and in other countries as well. This debate is sponsored by, in other words, people put up the money, rent a hall, in order to get the politicians to come and tell citizens what they're going to do,

how they're going to be governed. Never heard of this before. That being said, it is a disadvantage for Mr. Carney to debate in French. His French is labored. I know other people disagree with me, some others in the punditocracy. The question is whether or not Quebecers care about that.

Up until now all the evidence that I've seen, all the research I've seen suggests no. Since early 1990s, and yes I was here in the early 1990s, Quebecers have in effect since the collapse of the Meach Lake Accord they've opted out of federal politics, large swaths of the province have, and they've decided that they are going to look after their own interest and invest in people who

will look after Quebec's interest. Donald Trump has changed a thirty year old pattern. OK. Quebecers are not content just to look after their own interest. They're worried about their language, they're worried about their culture, and who worried about their culture and who is protecting their language and culture right now?

A barely bilingual Anglophone they think is the one who is going to provide the ring fence around the language and culture of Quebec. And the federal system is going to do that. So it's really fascinating for somebody like me who began their career worrying about national unity coming out of Quebec, how that's changed and how Quebecers' votes are shifting as a result of that.

Right, well look I do want to go to Vandana but we're all clear, no one's ever heard of the debate where you had to pay to play, right? Like that just doesn't happen when you're like, okay, all right, because that strikes me as strange. So Vandana, is it that the liberals don't have seventy five thousand dollars or they only want to do two debates or what? We got some cash now. Okay, all right, because that strikes me as strange. So Vandana, is it that the liberals don't have $75,000 or they only want to do two debates or what?

We got some cash now. Mr. Blanchet says it's because Mr. Carney is scared. I think Mr. Carney is a tough leader who could not be shaken down and like I think there's many, many ways to connect with Quebecers. Listen, you'll have a French debate. I will revisit Chantelle Hebert's tweet that happened shortly after the French debate during the

leadership and she said, I love how people- this is not you Rob- but people who have like high school French or evaluating his French where she was like it's, you know, for some Quebecers it's fine. You know, like I live in Quebec, I speak French every day. Is it perfect? Probably not. But do people appreciate it?

Most importantly, do you understand Quebec? Do you understand Quebec culture? Do you understand what's important to Quebecers? The environment's very important to Quebec. He's talked about the environment at length. He's even gotten to go talking about like you know we can meet there with a pipeline you know like that's changing sentiment to Rob's point.

So I think it's just more like for the resources needs to prep for debates from a pure campaign operative lens it's just kind of a waste of time. I'd rather spend that time talking to Quebecers on the ground, sitting them with rooms, leading them to where they are rather than going to a place where there's debate where while there are some moments for debates a lot of it can be scripted and

you know may not really answer what Quebecers are looking for. So I think it's just a smart, practical decision for the campaign. Lisa, Pierre-Paul Léves also has said that it's because Mark Carney doesn't want to debate him in French. With a 35, 36 day campaign, 37th day for voting, English debate, French debate, do you need another debate? What do you make of this whole controversy here? Yeah, so regardless of what the leaders are saying about the motivation, if it was money,

Vanden Heuvel, we would have started a GoFundMe for you. It would have been all GoFundMe for you. It would have been all good. But I understand. But here's the interesting thing for me. It's a risk analysis. OK. You are risking not being able to communicate with

Quebecers. At a time that's very important because as you pointed out already it's those last three weeks of the Quebec where people suddenly decide which way they're going to go. that's very important because as you pointed out already it's those last three weeks of the campaign in Quebec where people suddenly decide which way they're going to go. Why wouldn't you want to have an extra shot at talking to Quebecers and the mistakes that you can make in explaining why you

didn't want to do the TVA debate could actually be more detrimental than the fact that you're not doing the debate like saying things along the lines of well we don't really need to talk to them or we're going to talk to them in another way. Anything you do that could possibly put the Quebec knows at a joint at this point in time I think is a really risky venture so we'll see if the risk pays off.

I don't know why they wouldn't want to do it. There's all kinds of a plethora region and we'll let all the leaders weigh in on that. Why? But the other side of the equation of is the what happens if Quebecers just really think that well you don't think a lot of us in order to come in what's seventy five thousand dollars to come in talk to Quebec directly. That is a

judgment call that they've made and it could prove to be the wrong way. Yeah look I don't know Brad if Quebecers will feel that way. I will you know leave that to Quebecers to make up their own mind like they will about Mark countries French which is much better than mine. But a cover charge is a strange thing for me. I look at the world of journalism,

I know I say this from the privileged perch of a national public broadcaster where we do get you know parliamentary appropriation but that's an unusual move and you know I know the NDP were uncomfortable with it in my conversations with them. But how do you think, is this a vulnerability from our current and the Liberals in Quebec now that they were the one who said no and because of that the debate is cancelled entirely? No, I'm going to say no, it's not.

Because there is going to be a French debate and there is going to be an English debate. Yes. And most Canadians will probably say, look, one debate, as long as there's a debate in the French language and I like the fact that they're in Montreal, that's good, Ottawa or Montreal, makes perfect sense. So I think most Canadians are going to say, gee, guys, I've got a lot on my plate here, really?

So just on your point, the $75,000 ransom that TVI was asking for is just, that is outrageous and I think that it, I don't even know if it would have held up like appeals whether or not like the public airwaves and the ability to- There's a fair access requirement right? Yeah. Yeah exactly so you know I don't know what level or what agency would regulate this but it may not.

But it's so offensive that somebody would say we want to hold a debate and we're going to charge you a lot of money for it. We put the money up too because you know when you're we got the hill to climb that the New Democrats do we'll take every opportunity. But at the end of the day I think this is going to be a blip like again thirty six day campaign here we're on day two. There's going to be a lot of issues we're going to be talking about. We're going to be talking about tariffs.

We're going to be talking about the economy jobs. We're going to be talking about all this kind of stuff. So I think this is a process story and to be honest as a practitioner I would say Carney doesn't have to do too French. If he has a vulnerability with his French language or if he wants to get the message across to Quebecers, a debate, especially when you got to pay 75 grand to get in, is the worst way to do it. I would plow all the money into ads that speak direct, into the, you know, into- Or do a sit down with TVA, or do a sit down with Patsy

Rizzois, or you know- There's so many ways to get your message across that is better than a second debate. I'm not voting for him, but I think he's fine. If you're a reporter, you want as many debates as possible. But why not a debate in Atlantic Canada then? In French Canada. Why not a debate in Western Canada?

Given the resource issues that are at play. Have as many debates as possible. I cannot construct a logical argument why you would have a second debate in the province of Quebec in French and tithe people in order to get there. I have, I believe when you brought me up here in 2015 to fill in, in the big long election that this is the conversation we had that like why not regional debates, an Atlantic focused debate, a Quebec,

because the language divide becomes really a Quebec debate where you talk about even Quebec infrastructure. We used to have a lot more debates right? Yeah. This is a whole new thing but I think what they have done, they've given Mr. Blanchet a massive stick to beat Barq Carney with in Quebec. I think they've handed it to him and it's whether or not

he does something with it is the question but I think it's still a risk. Well it was the debate in 2021 that gave his campaign some life right because Vandeneer was asked some questions by the moderator that sort of inflamed the Bloc Quebecois base in Quebec and that had been dormant to that point. Right and that goes back to do you understand

Quebecers and how they think and how they function. I think Mr. Carney will be able to do that in the French debates as actually I don't think he needs more than that. I think there's a lot of options to Brad's point. Interviews, sit downs, going to the ridings, talking to people directly, that's going to make the most difference. Right. Ads, there's a number of ways you can micro target Quebecers in a message that works for them.

I don't think the taboo debate think that the today's story maybe goes tomorrow and I think it disappears after that. Okay well look speaking of comments that inflame things Alberta Premier Daniel Smith. She is denying that she urged the U.S. government to interfere in the Canadian federal election. This weekend an interview she did with Breitbart which is a right wing U.S. media company drew some attention so take a listen to what the premier of Alberta said when asked if

Canadians are likely to vote conservative. Before the terror war, I would say yes. I mean, Pierre Pauliade is the name of the Conservative Party leader and he was miles ahead of Justin Trudeau. But because of what we see as unjust and unfair terrorists, it's actually caused an increase in the support for the liberals. And so that's what I fear is that the longer this dispute goes on, politicians posture, and it seems to be benefiting the liberals right now. So I would hope that we could put things on pause, is what I've told administration officials.

Let's just put things on pause so we can get through an election. Let's have the best person at the table make the argument for how they would deal with it. And I think that's Pierre-Paul Yabou. Okay. So as I said, Smith is denying accusations as she asked the U.S. administration to interfere in Canadian politics, even though she kind of said it there in terms of calibrating what they're doing. Her office gave a statement saying, any suggestion the premier is asking the U.S. to interfere in Canada's election is offensive and false. So some of the party leaders addressed Smith's comments on the campaign trail today. I'm wondering if you feel these comments are appropriate. Are which?

Appropriate. Well, people are free to make their own comments. I speak for myself. I think it is shameful if you break down what Daniel Smith is proposing. She is talking about taking steps to harm the liberals and to prevent tariffs in a political manner to create a political outcome. The President is waiting for the outcome

of the election and see who has a strong mandate from Canadians or who has a strong mandate from Canadians or who has a mandate from Canadians? Is it someone who is, to quote Daniel Smith, who's in sync with him or is it someone who's going to stand up for Canadians? Okay, Daniel Smith, we didn't reach out to her office to invite her on the show today. We never got a response and she did cancel a public event she was having. Lisa you know the plain reading of what she said is calibrate

your response throughout the campaign to avoid electing liberals and then she suggested in another segment of that interview that Pierre Poliev would be more in sync with Donald Trump. I mean what message does that send the Canadians when the first minister of Alberta is saying things like that on U.S. radio and apparently to the U.S. administration according to her. Yeah and I don't know if I can explain what she said

or what she didn't say. This is the way I look at it. I think what she was trying to say, even though I said I'm not going to explain it, but to be generous, to be generous. I'm going to say that she was probably bringing out the point that what's happening in the United States vis a vis tariffs is having an impact on the trajectory and

discussion around the Canadian general election. And she personally thinks it would have been going in a different direction but for this and would you stop saying that. I think that's kind of what the thrust of it was. But the weird part is, is that you know let's say that Donald Trump's administration comes out and says I understand Canada's in the middle of

an election and we're going to put pause on all the tariffs right now we're not moving ahead on April 2. Who takes the credit for that? Melanie Jolie takes the credit for that right? Or Dominic LeBlanc takes the credit for that. If you think about it right if there is an announce it doesn't help anybody it doesn't help the conservatives it helps the liberals if there is some

kind of a pause in how the Americans are dealing with us vis a vis the tariffs so it's just it's one of those comments where I don't know whether or not she was understanding the entirety of the comments that she was making at the moment because I don't follow through on it being particularly beneficial to the conservatives because I would take, if I were in the liberals

I would take a victory lap on being the ones that were able to the conservatives. Because I would take, if I were in the liberal, I would take a victory lap on being the ones that were able to negotiate that. Well she said this in the interview on the 8th of March, Rob. So it was the day before Mark Carney won the leadership and it just took a while to percolate. You want a tell? There's a tell. There's no public pointing.

She never told anybody that this was there. Usually when premiers do these kinds of interviews they tell people in the gallery, I did this interview today and people go and look and they listen. That's right. There's a tell there. You've done a marvelous job. I think that they should engage you. But let's- But a tell in what way? I'm interested in a tell in that she didn't want anyone to know? She didn't publicize the fact that she'd appeared, usually when a politician goes-

Great work, it's huge though. I realize that. Every time Doug Ford was on CNN we got a press release. Yeah, so usually, usually, premieres and politicians say, this is what's on my agenda today, here's what I'm doing. There's that. Daniel Smith is, I think, a talented communicator. She was, she was an open line host for a long, long time.

I think that she's a very, very good communicator. So when she speaks, I mean we all slip up, but I think that she said not one but two things that were also tells. She didn't say get rid of the tariffs. She said pause. It's like stifle, muffle, attenuate. Don't get rid of them.

She said pause. Again, these are important distinctions that I think Muffle, attenuate, don't get rid of them. She said pause. Okay. Again, these are important distinctions that I think it's important for people to realize. It's a 36 day campaign. Days are precious. There's now been two days where the conservative leaders had to answer questions about this issue.

There are 34 days left. Is he happy about that? No. There's another tell as well. Is he happy about that? No. Well the plain reading of what she said is it seems to be benefiting the liberals right now so I would hope that we could put things on pause is what I've told administration officials. She is saying she has said this to the Trump administration

citing the benefit of this to the liberals and later said if Pierre Pollyade wins he will be very much in sync with the new direction in America. Now I'm sure Pierre Pollyade didn't want her to say that given everything but you know Vandana how do you view this that you know she is the premier of a Canadian province and she's making this call to administration officials in her own words saying to

calibrate the response to help her preferred electoral outcome here. For someone who's a like a good political like has great political acumen it was a stupid move and I think that's a lie too, Bob's point, she didn't share it. I think a couple things like I look at Doug Ford in comparison going to the U.S. and fighting for Canada as a whole. Not just Ontario

but Ontario but Canada he went at the United Front and he's never went political about it. And people want that from elected officials and I think for having dealt with a lot of issues I tell people if you're dealing with an issue on campaign just deal with it. Answer it, answer it honestly and then move on

and just take the hit. Mr. Poliak had an opportunity to do that. So if you didn't denounce it, it leads open questions as to what does that mean? Does that mean you're OK with it?, it leads open questions as to what does that mean? Does that mean you're okay with it? Does it mean that there are connections between your party and Donald Trump's party? And things that he doesn't want to associate with. So I think a full out denouncement would have been preferred because then you can cut that

notion out. By the way, people will think about that. Right. So these comments that Premier Smith has made and we saw Dan Arnold who used to do polling for the Liberal saying the Liberal Party should pay for a media tour for Daniel Smith for the whole thirty six days. We've seen candidates being appointed by the Conservatives and old selfies of them and make America great again hats are being brought out like this is a thing that they're going

to need to deal with throughout the campaign because on the socials it seems this will have traction and you've now got audio of the premier of Alberta right? It's attack ad gold. It is. It does rate itself. So I think that this does have legs. We were talking earlier, will the second French language debate carry on?

No. But I think this does and this is why. Because you have one of the top, one of Canada's top conservatives and Daniel Smith basically saying to an extremely right wing media outlet in Breitbart that, Pauliev's your man for the Trump administration. We can, we can, we'll handle this later but right now what you're doing is you're hurting because Canadians don't trust Pauliev with tariffs so put the tariffs

away for now until we can get elected and then we can pick up the conversation. That is, I think, at one point it seeks to invite a foreign government to participate in some way in the outcome of our election campaign. Because it's asking them to change their policy, not because we want to save Canadian jobs,

but because we want an electoral outcome. And if you want this outcome, Trump administration, then listen to me as, and you're right, she is the Premier of Alberta and a top conservative, she's a fantastic communicator. But when she goes into a very cozy environment, like Breitbart, where she maybe felt too relaxed to let certain truths in her mind slip out, she says these two things.

One, Poliev's your man to the Trump people and two, if you want to help us win this election you got to put the ice on the tariffs. That is I think that every Canadian. And so Delisa, our point earlier when we're talking about you got Poliev down in the GTA talking about crime and not the issue of the day, which is Trump and the terrorists, this is why. And in fact, I would submit that it's probably better for Poliev to go hard after Trump to fight

against this perception that now Daniel Smith has put right dead smack in the middle of the opening days of this campaign. Max Bernier would love that don't you think? Because one of their first moves they kind of- Max- I know maybe he's on the Joe, he's on all these podcasts and stuff that are in that same ecosystem as Breitbart but you know I go back to one of the first moves that they really tried to do when Poliev became leader is they went out to that Manitoba by-election to crush Max

Bernier because he wanted to remove the People's Party and that three to four percent potential bleed and consolidate it. Are you captured by that in any way Brad? Just quickly? Yeah, no. One of the things that he did and Smith did this in Alberta as well. You got to steer to the right quickly, take care of the fringe right, bring them back into the conservative tent and then go and fight for the middle.

So this is all going to be bad because he's eventually going to have to, she or he will have to explain this and there's no way that the opposition parties are going to let this go because this is gold. Okay, we are going to take a break and wrap up the panel in just a second but Lisa I want to give you the last word here. I mean if you are the conservatives and you know the Trump questions are probably going to persist because the liberals keep making it a thing and seemingly an ally like Daniel Smith makes it a thing. What do you get it what how do you get on top of

it and in a way that you don't do self-harm? Well I would say that if there's any political leader out there who is accusing any other political leader of not being patriotic to the country or not being patriotic enough they're really toying in a very dangerous area. Because- We've seen that already though haven't we? Like you sent jobs to the U.S. I mean that's all like- Patriotism but a patriotism I mean in terms of trying to

trying to incite you know foreign government interference. Sure I got you. I got you there. I got your point there. If we start going down that wedge of saying that X is not a patriot or X is really in it for American I mean that is just that's a wedge too far in my opinion and a pox on the houses of anyone who thinks that they're going to

go in that direction. Whether or not it's gold I don't know. Whether or not it's gold I don't know but if they want to wedge, I hate it when we wedged on COVID and I'll hate it even more if we wedge on Canadian patriotism. I think that's a bridge way too far. And even though like I would ask the better angels of all the parties, just, which is saying a lot, just to remember at the end of the day we need

to come out intact as a country and when you attack one you're attacking more than one. But just quickly isn't the whole allegation on Kearney's assets that you would sell out the interest of the country for the interest of your assets and your blind trust? And how many times have I heard Mark Carney say that Pierre Poliev is going to get on his knees in front of Donald Trump?

Not fair. The Conservative Party of Canada has run pretty aggressive television ads. You want to talk about playing fair and listening to our better angels? Sure but like you folks the Conservative Party of Canada ran ads against Jagmeet Singh and you know about the way he dresses and stuff like that.

You folks knuckle, knuckle fights here. Now you're calling for- I'll tell you why I was surprised. In this frame? Absolutely I am. I was just surprised because she thought she could convince administration officials that not to do this to help Mr. Paulyev. I, if she thought she could convince him, this negates the entire thought of Mr. Trump having

this up until now submerged preference for liberal prime ministers. What happens to that notion? I thought he loved liberal prime ministers. Why is she trying to convince him to help a conservative? I'm confused. Look- Maybe she needs to convince him because he does like the liberals.

He's hidden it brilliantly so far. Well, look, reading the line of Donald Trump- Maybe she's a liberal plant. It is going their way. Yeah, exactly, exactly. They orchestrated the U.S. election. All right, look, we've got to leave it there. That was a fun rockin' hour on TV.

I want to thank the power panel for this expanded election edition of Andan Akadar, Lisa Raitt, Brad Levine, and Rob Russo. That's it for today. If you like this episode, please follow the pod and catch our next live show on CBC News Network. We're on weekdays at 5 p.m. Eastern Time. I'm David Cochran. Thanks for listening.