Scott Payne spent nearly two decades working undercover as a biker, a neo-Nazi, a drug dealer, and a killer. But his last big mission at the FBI was the wildest of all. Had to burn Bibles. I have never had to burn an American flag. And I damn sure was never with a group of people that stole a goat, sacrificed it at a pagan ritual, and drank its blood. And I did all that in about three days with these guys. Listen to Agent Pale Horse, the second season of White Hot Hate. Available now.
This is a CBC Podcast. Hey, it's Catherine. We're heading into the last full week of the federal election campaign. Make sure you catch our next House Party chat. with fellow political nerds Danielle Thibault from Quebec and Jason Marcusoff from Alberta. House Party drops on Wednesday, so hit that follow button if you haven't yet. You can get both House Party and the House right here on your feet. Now, on to the show.
My name's Catherine Cullen. I'm with CBC Radio. We're covering the election. You voted in the advance polls. Was it a hard decision for you? It was. Every party has things I like and things I don't like. Ultimately, I just went with the things that were the most important for me. It wasn't that hard. It wasn't that hard. I think it was pretty obvious who I wanted to go for.
There are just days left in this election campaign. The leaders' debates are behind us, and things are starting to come into focus, at least for some voters, at the advanced polls in the Montreal riding of Le Salimard Verdun. Tell me what the issue was that helped you decide. Trump, number one. Probably that's the main thing on everyone's mind, the uncertainty. You want someone that can kind of be stable with that, but also affordability, housing.
I'm with my parents here. Normally, I would have liked to maybe come in with my own address maybe in the future, so that would be fun. Oh, you mean you live with your folks still? I live with my folks, that's the thing. Do you feel like the ballot you cast today could help with that? Yeah, yeah, definitely. Can I ask you how you felt about making up your mind in this election? Was it a hard choice? Yes and no. Why? Because strategically or where my heart goes.
And which way did you choose? Where my heart goes. What were the issues that were touching your heart? The fact that many things are unaffordable. I'm Catherine Cullen, and this week on The House, what mattered most in those leaders' debates? Our political strategists helped make sense of what we heard. And why are we waiting so late in the campaign to see costed party platforms?
one number cruncher on whether the party's promises are likely to add up. Plus, we'll visit with the Bloc Québécois and ask where their push for sovereignty fits in during Trump times. But we start with the conversation, the clashes, and the controversy from the leaders' debates. The House in Montreal is now in session.
So let's not waste any time. With just over a week to go in this campaign, what did we learn from those face-offs between the four main party leaders? And what should the parties do with the time they have left before Election Day? Our political insiders panel is here. Marcy Serks is former senior advisor to Justin Trudeau, now chief strategy officer at Compass Rose.
Kate Harrison is a conservative strategist and vice chair at SUMA Strategies. And George Soule is former director of communications for the NDP. He has also been helping out the party in this campaign. Hello, everyone. Hello. Hello. Hello. Okay, quickly to get us started, what was the most important thing that happened on that debate stage across those two nights? Kate, I'll start with you.
I think this election became about more than Donald Trump. That came across really clearly to me in the English debate. The first segment dedicated to Trump quickly became about pipelines. And I think Polyev took this that direction. And I think that was a strategic right move.
And by the end of the debate, Mark Carney's pitch around Donald Trump to me just felt a little hollow after hearing the content. So I think that we might have actually just seen a shift now to have this campaign be about more than what's happening south of the border. George? Well, since Kate talked about what's most important for the Conservatives, I'll say what I think was most important for drink meat, and that was that he punched through. And so I think that...
While I think everybody had an okay debate, I think Jamit was able to show his presence, he also very clearly said that Mark Carney, in the absence of new Democrats in the House, would forget about people if they weren't there to remind him of that. And I think that was an important message, and I'm sure we'll talk more about it. why that's true. Marcy.
I think the prime minister demonstrated that he can be cool under fire, didn't take the bait, didn't get prickly, was able to maintain composer throughout. And I think that Pierre Polyev demonstrated that he actually has more range. It's not only one gear. He did show up and appeared much more prime ministerial than we've seen him. I think it was a good night for both of the front runners. And I think.
The other men on stage demonstrated that they are relegated to the sidelines in this election. Okay, I want to dig into some specific examples to help us kind of talk through and think through what happened during the debates. Let's start with this from Thursday night. We need a change so that you can afford a home. And our change will be, again, to axe the sales tax on new homes. incentivize municipalities to speed up permits, free up land, and cut development costs.
train up 350,000 young people who can be in the trades to build those homes and sell off the land that is going to be needed in order to build homes. That is a real plan. A real plan for you to own a home and afford your life for a change. Mr. Carney, they're coming at you from both sides. What do you say? Okay. I know it may be difficult, Mr. Polyev. You spent years running against Justin Trudeau in the carbon tax.
And neither. They're both gone. OK, they're both gone. And we're in a very different. Look, I'm a very different person from Justin Trudeau. Kate, how important is it for Pierre Polyev that voters buy what he is selling when he tries to tie Justin Trudeau and Mark Carney together? It's critical. Mark Carney is consistently polling well above that of the Liberal Party.
He has done a good job representing himself, I would say, as a departure from Trudeau. But it's important that Canadians continue to be reminded that The people around him, the people that he's bringing back as a part of his team are all part of the same Trudeau crew and that he himself was an advisor to the Trudeau government. And I thought that the exchange that happened. Catherine, where Polly have pointed out that that detail is actually still on the Liberal Party website.
helped amplify his point that this is not the change candidate that you think that he is getting. This is going to be a change election. I think the question at this point now is, is it a change election from the Liberals or is it a change and a protest vote against Donald Trump?
Marcy, clearly, as Kate has pointed out, this is an important message for Pierre Polyev. Is it sufficient for Mark Carney to say, you're wrong, I'm not the same guy, even as Pierre Polyev says, well, listen, you've got some of the same people advising you? He's so clearly not the same guy. I think that's obvious to anybody who's watching. That being said, I think that is the conservative's most salient attack line. And if I were a conservative, it is what I would be hammering.
That's the message track in terms of whether or not the Liberal Party ought to have a fourth mandate to govern. I, of course, believe the Liberal Party should continue to govern under the new leadership of Mr. Carney, but I can clearly see that that's where the Conservatives should be focused on their closing argument for this final week.
In terms of Mr. Carney, I would have liked to have seen him push back a little harder. But let's be honest here. Mr. Carney was not a seminal figure in the Trudeau administration. He was not part and parcel of any of the decision-making processes of consequence. And he needs to make that clearer, demonstrate that this is a new vision and a much clearer focus on the economy and a much clearer focus.
on the opposition to the president. And I do think Mr. Carney will do that ably over the coming week. But that is very clearly where the pushback needs to be clear, hard and focused. George, you talked about Jagmeet Singh punching through. I want to talk about, you know, I think people can understand Mark Carney, the purported frontrunner. That's why he's pushing back against Carney. He pushed back a lot against Pierre Polyev. Let's listen to one example.
Mr. Polyev had the opportunity to show us what he could do. He was the Minister of Housing under... Stephen Harper. And during that time, guess how many homes he built? He built six homes during that entire time. This is not something you can trust to build homes. He built six homes. And this has been confirmed again and again. He built six homes. That's it. Why did he spend so much of his time criticizing Pierre Polyev when he needs to win voters back from the Liberals?
Well, because Pierre Polyev's got some plans that are going to hurt Canadians. I mean, Mark Carney does too, but let's be clear, the Conservatives are a problem. And Pierre Polyev stands up on there talking about housing. And that number six comes from government numbers. There was a program that was supposed to have government-built homes across the country. and 12 of our 13 provinces and territories.
got exactly zero, and Quebec got six houses out of that whole program. But George, I get that you are suggesting that this is fundamentally about principle, that it's about Mr. Singh doing what is right, but I wonder whether it is There is also a strategic motivation here insofar as he's trying to bring back progressive voters, people who are perhaps. further along the spectrum in being progressive.
Some of them are quite worried about Pierre Polyev. So if this is about showing that you can come over from Mark Carney, but still have someone who's going to stand up to Pierre Polyev. Well, that's right. I mean, and the truth is, again, sitting in Ottawa, sometimes we forget this, but...
In parts of northern Ontario, southwestern Ontario, British Columbia, certainly, only new Democrats in those ridings can defeat conservatives. And so the message really has to be for folks across this country, if you currently have an NDP MP,
then vote for them again because that's how you can stop Pierre Polyev in your writing. I want to zero in on a policy issue here with all of you. One where we saw some real differences and there were a few over the debates, but let's talk about crime and public safety.
Pierre Polyev during the debate spoke about the man who was convicted of the Quebec City mosque shooting. He killed six people. Polyev wants to use the notwithstanding clause so that mass murderers can be made to serve back-to-back consecutive sentences. Let's listen to some of what he has. He got, according to this ruling, only one 25-year sentence. meaning he can be out in his 50s. He only serves four years for every murder that he carried out. That is outrageous.
And I will use the constitutional powers that are created for this purpose to ensure that mass murderers stay in maximum security penitentiary for life. They will only come out in a box. I think it's very dangerous. to override judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms exists to protect Canadians from politicians who may use their power to override fundamental rights.
Now, before we get to the question, I do want to point out, Mr. Polyev has suggested several times that the killer in the mosque shooting would get out after 25 years. people need to understand that is when he would be eligible for parole. There's certainly no guarantee that he would be released immediately. And in fact, past precedent suggests It's very unlikely that he would be. But Marcy, I want to ask you, this is an emotional issue. Mark Carney responds with a constitutional argument.
On these questions that Pierre Polyev is trying to get into the debate about crime and public safety, is there a risk that as Mr. Carney tries to push back against Mr. Polyev, Kearney doesn't seem attentive enough to the public worries about safety. Well, first of all, thanks for the fact check off the top of that, Catherine. I do think that's important for listeners to understand. I spent four years as the Chief of Staff to the Minister of Public Safety. I feel very...
passionately about these matters and these issues. And I think you're right to point out that these are very emotional issues for many voters and for good reason. We care deeply about security of our streets, places of worship. places for our children to play and gather, and we want for every Canadian to feel safe in all of those domains.
In respect to Mr. Carney's answer to Mr. Poliev, I actually thought that was one of the most interesting moments of the debate and probably one of the moments where I thought Mr. Carney appeared most... He understood that the response, maybe it could have been a little more emotional. I'll give you that in terms of the feel your pain sort of instinct that we would like to feel from politicians. But his response was to Mr. Polyev effectively to say,
Let our politics be overrun by the kinds of constitutional wrangling and disrespect that we've seen in other jurisdictions, most notably the United States. Prime Minister Harper's own lawyer. Benjamin Perrin has been clear to point out that this kind of stoking of fear around crime and these kinds of policies and the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences and the like.
They have not held up. They do not hold up. They are not constitutional. That has been clearly found. And to suggest otherwise, to disrespect the fundamental boundaries of the judiciary in this country and its role vis-a-vis the legislature, I think... point for Canadians to recall and remember as we watch Other jurisdictions allow their constitutionality to erode.
We do not want that to happen in Canada. It cannot happen in Canada. And that was the clear shot across the bow. I think if we were having a debate in constitutional law in the first year of law school, this would be an app. line of argumentation it is totally devoid and disconnected from the reality people are feeling and for me that exchange was the biggest moment of contrast in the night. The room I was in went quiet when that exchange occurred. I thought that Carney's response to Polyev's
claims was cold and unempathetic, and it didn't acknowledge the reality that people are facing. He talked about mass murderers being able to serve concurrent sentences, but he also talked about auto theft. and crime that people are dealing with all the time. I personally think, Catherine, if every voter, if every voter in the GTA and lower mainland BC saw that clip, this would be over. Because to me, it is the perfect example of how Polyev and the Conservatives
get real issues facing people, not professorial responses from official Ottawa. Yeah, and auto theft is down. Auto theft is down by more than 20%. Still a massive problem, though. Yeah, I agree with that. I agree. Kate, I just want to ask you here, though, your answer seems to say... Well, this is the right position because this is how the public feels about it, regardless of the fact that, for instance, the Supreme Court that said that sentencing like this is...
cruel and unusual by nature, regardless of the fact that it puts him offside with all the other party leaders? No, it's not regardless. This was also a law that was passed by parliament, passed by parliamentarians and then overturned. by the courts. I think that if you are going to be on the side of saying this is not the right thing to do, come up with me for a good rationale of why the notwithstanding clause should be used. To me, this is a very good case.
for why this should be used. Mass murderers being able to serve concurrent sentences is wrong. It's not right. So you can have the debate about do we ever use this clause ever? Sure. This, to me, seems like a great example of where it would be appropriate to use such a clause. I want to get George in here. Well, Catherine, I know that the folks who listen to the House are highly educated listeners and follow politics in a way that most Canadians probably do not.
But again, we're having either this academic debate or wedge politics. And I think that's the real problem here. This is. Pierre Polyev is not looking to solve a problem. What he's looking to do is solve a political problem, not an actual criminal problem.
We have judges across this country who, when a bad crime happens, the judges put people away. Except they don't, George. They don't. Well, they do. And sure, we need to do more. And we need all kinds of other public safety has to happen. But on Thursday and on Wednesday, Pierre Polyev tried to act.
Like, he was special for being opposed to murders. And as Jagmeet pointed out, he's not. Everyone on that stage is opposed to people who are murderers, and we need to trust the judges to put them away. Trying to bring this stuff down below that level is just about...
And frankly, I think it's part of what's eroding the political system in the states. And I think that's what's being brought up here, too. But people are angry about the amount of crime that they're seeing in their communities. That is the real source of anger that people are feeling. Absolutely. And that's a law enforcement issue more than it is a sentencing issue. Okay, I do want to squeeze in a question about...
The debates themselves, the Independent Debates Commission, which ran the English and French language debate, there was some controversy there. The initial inclusion of the Greens, the exclusion of them, the day that the French language debate was supposed to take place. changing the time of the game pretty close to the last minute so there was less of a clash with the Montreal Canadiens game.
And certainly what happened with the media scrums and the question of who was accredited. I'd like to know quickly from each of you, do you think these debates worked for the parties and for Canadians? Marcy. I thought the debates themselves went perfectly smoothly, but I think there are legitimate questions to be asked by both the parties, the participants, and by Canadians.
about whether the independent commission has the balance right in terms of their decision-making processes and how they're handling media. These are fair questions to ask. Independence of these types of events matters a lot. but they also have to be properly run. And so it is time to question the efficacy of the commission so that it can proceed. I'd like for it to proceed, but not without a very thorough review and improvements.
Yeah, I think the commission made itself the story this time around, and you never want it to be. The debates were solid, but then everything else around it became a fuster cluck. It became a problem. And we lost the opportunity to have good questions asked by professional journalists. After the English debate, Jagmeet did put forward a press conference, but nobody else did.
And the night before, after the French debate, we saw organizations that purport to be journalists but clearly aren't dominate the whole thing. And that's a problem, both for the politicians but also for Canadians to get their questions answered. Kate? When you change the rules in the middle of the game, everybody loses. And we saw the debate commission do that on multiple occasions. The rules are there to be enforced.
You can revisit them next time. You shouldn't be changing them on the fly. And I think that one debate in each official language, 10 days out from voting day, is not sufficient. We should have more debates. They were effective. And I think a lot of people tuned in. It's too bad they didn't have more opportunity to see the leaders go head to head. Okay, we're going to leave it there. Thank you all for your time today. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks very much.
Marcy Serks, Kate Harrison, and George Sol. So on to another thing that came up in the debates. None of the main parties had released a fully costed platform yet. The Bloc released a partially costed plan on Friday, with the other parties promising to deliver their plans in the coming days. But how much does it matter? Advanced polls are open. Is it a little too late?
Sahir Khan is with the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa. Previously, he was the Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer. I spoke to him on Friday afternoon. Hey, Sahir, welcome back to the House. Always a pleasure to be here. So the parties have been making promises, releasing policy ideas, but why is a fully costed platform important?
Well, I think it's important for a couple of reasons. You know, we have pollsters from Frank Graves and Nick Nano saying that, you know, a lot of the voting intentions locked in. But there may be two really big reasons why they matter. The first one is, you know, a few months ago when – and this just sounds like a short while ago. But, you know, if this had been a Justin Trudeau, Pierre Polyev election, we might have been debating on who is the better accountant.
Who's the better manager? But something happened quite fundamentally with the trade war and threats to Canada's sovereignty. So when you have these kind of big issues like sovereignty, You have the threats to the economy and you still have the affordability issues. There's, you know, the ballot question changes fundamentally. So all the planning that might have gone into these for these political parties for the election kind of has to get thrown out the window. So we really want to understand.
How are they addressing those really, really big issues? And in a changing context. So for example, at the IVSD, we did an assessment to figure out like, so what happened? since the parliamentary budget office kind of put their election baseline out well everything's about 68 billion dollars worse over the next five years so a slower economy
you know, more spending to cover EI, you know, and other kind of supports for the industry. So we got to figure out, like, how are these parties going to demonstrate their fiscal plans and how they're going to implement, how they're frankly going to react. And I take that point, but I guess I wonder if the flip side of it is, given the unpredictability of Donald Trump, the constantly changing tariffs,
How feasible it is to make all the numbers add up, knowing that things could shift again at any moment. Yeah, it's a good question. When we read it, we're kind of an updated baseline for the parties to kind of think about when they're putting their platforms together. We kind of took what we thought was maybe a worst-case scenario that this trade war would kind of persist over the five-year period, which is a typical planning horizon for these platforms.
We're not saying this is a budget. We're saying this is kind of the reflection of what could happen. The problem is if you spend more. than might even be available, then everything gets a lot worse. So you're trying to figure out like, how would you operate in a constrained environment? And if things are better, then maybe you can spend more. But certainly if they get worse and you really don't fully factor in the risks in the economy.
and the cost of your measures, then we could kind of be in a fiscal trap that might be a lot harder to get out of. So either way, we don't have a crystal ball. They don't have a crystal ball. But we want to know how are they going to react to the changes? And how are they going to adjust their measures in such a way that, you know, Canadians, the economy support it, and that they could be nimble enough to adjust with the changing geopolitical environment?
Now, so I don't know if this is economics or politics, but why do you think the parties have then waited so long to release costed platforms? Well, I think there are a couple of reasons. One is that that pivot might have come a little later for all of them. If they went into this election with some idea of how they might have –
presented their ideas, the Trump administration and their actions have really kind of thrown everybody for a loop. And there is uncertainty. So I think this went from being kind of an offensive issue to probably a defensive issue for all the parties. And so it makes it a lot harder for them to kind of think about how they might be perceived. And if a lot of the voting intention is locked in, then what we're really looking at as voters for the 28th is, does the plan make sense?
You know, they did wait a long time. It's just kind of holding together. Does the narrative match the substance and behind? And if one of the two parties, the liberals or the conservatives, plan to form government, these platforms are going to be the basis of which they're going to operate for the next four years or however long the government's in power.
So we really do care what's in it. We really do care about the plans that they have and whether they're credible or not, how they're going to deliver. Because you can't say on the 29th that, oh no, the leopard ate my face. I didn't know they were going to do that. So how these plans come together and how they kind of are held together with a credible fiscal plan really matter.
So in that vein, what is the first thing that you're going to look for when the parties do release these platforms? Well, I think the simplest way to do is like, okay, so what did they announce and how much do they think it's going to cost? How many of those measures did they get costed by the PBO? So my colleagues and I at the IFSD, we sit around a table and we read these things. That's the first thing we do is we go to the tables and figure out how does it all add up.
Then we've got to say, okay, what does this mean to the big questions? Like, did they recognize the risk to the economy? Did they fully account for the less resources that the federal government is going to have over the next five years? Now, how effective are the measures to respond to those threats on the economy and on Canada's sovereignty? And with the resulting kind of balance at the bottom, are we still fiscally sustainable? So I imagine, I mean, the numbers, I'm sure.
virtually always add up with a costed platform, right? The question is probably more the second thing that you pointed to, which is like, how realistic are their guesses about where they're going to find revenue or how much something is going to cost? Well, and that was brought up last night in the debate. The liberal leader, Mark Carney, talked about one distinction he wants to make from the previous.
Trudeau government was, you know, focus on results. Well, that's all about delivery and execution. So if you've thought about the costing, if you thought about the delivery, then the promise that you made can then be translated into result. And that's part of this credibility assessment that we're looking at.
Because these are not just ideas. These are actually the costed platforms really become the basis of a governing party's speech from the throne, the first few budgets. And so we need to pay attention because if they're not realistic, they're not credible. then you're going to be into this situation where the government's all hot and no cattle, as my uncle from Texas would say. And that's a risk. So in closing, without having seen these costed platforms, is there...
Any particular promise or pitch that has sort of set off any alarm bells for you, make you wonder whether the math will math, as the kids say? Well, I think very early in the election, I think it caught us by surprise that we had... Two tax cuts. And to us, it was an answer to a question nobody asked because we thought we were dealing with much bigger issues.
than just the tax rates. And obviously the conservative tax measure was a lot larger than the liberal one. But those two kind of felt a little out of sorts given everything else that was going on. And I think we're really waiting to see how that fits in with all the other pieces. And this is a puzzle, right? These are all little puzzle pieces that they announced.
throughout the election. And we just want to see now, does this turn into a cohesive picture that we can recognize and that we are confident on the 28th to vote for a party that kind of has their act together so that on the 29th, we don't have a lot of regret.
Well, listen, Sahir, I appreciate you taking the time to help us make sense of this as we wait for this additional information. Thank you. My pleasure, Catherine. Sahir Khan is the Executive Vice President of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa.
House podcast, including our riding profile of one of the tightest races in this election. A Liberal challenger is out knocking on doors, trying to take a seat away from a Conservative incumbent in the heart of Calgary. I already blew through one pair of shoes. This is my second pair of shoes for the campaign. Yeah, it's that much more. That's in about 10 minutes. In the fall of 2001, while Americans were still grappling with the horror of September 11th,
Envelopes started showing up at media outlets and government buildings filled with a white, lethal powder. Anthrax. But what's strange is if you ask people now what happened with that story, almost no one knows. It's like the whole thing just disappeared. Who mailed those letters? Do you know? From Wolf Entertainment, USG Audio and CBC Podcasts, this is Aftermath, the hunt for the anthrax killer. Available now.
I'm Catherine Cullen. You're listening to The House. Making politics make sense. Make sure to give us a follow so you never miss an episode and tell us what you think of the show. You can email us at thehouseatcbc.ca. We're in. It's time for some spring cleaning at a small park in Côte-St. Paul in southwest Montreal. Nicolas Jolicoeur has organized some local families to pitch in for a community cleanup.
They've got yard waste bags, buckets, as well as coffee and croissants for neighbours. It'll be a busy, long weekend for him because he's planning to vote in the advanced polls too. How are you feeling about voting right now? Feeling good. My choice is pretty much made. I think we're going to go vote tomorrow. And do you mind me asking, how did you make up your mind? I think for me, the priority is to have somebody who can represent Quebec.
at the federal level, so there's no better party than the Bloc Québécois for that. I think it's really important to have a lot of MP from the Bloc to put pressure on the government, either liberal or conservative government. On the other side of the playground, Laura, a mom who lives just across the street.
I'll be voting for Liberals. And what is it that's motivating that? The economy. Do you feel any differently about the Liberal Party, given that Mark Kearney is the leader now and not Justin Trudeau? Absolutely. I feel really confident with him. A few steps away, Karim, a father, explains he's been watching the election campaigns closely.
I work in investments, so I definitely have to follow them. So yeah, we've been watching them closely, more than the hockey game, I would say. Wow, we found the one guy watching politics closer than the Habs. How hard is it going to be for you to make up your mind about voting? It's really hard. Honestly, because first of all, it's my first election where I'm allowed to vote. Yeah, I'm newly Canadian, so... Every party has its own saying, like...
The conservateurs said like 10 years of liberalism broke us down. Liberals saying other stuff. And so no one is like really advancing real numbers. Like we work in investments. We would like to see a budget. And so are you leaning anyway? I mean, the advanced polls actually are open over the course of the weekend. You could vote now. I could vote now, but to be fair, I haven't made up my mind yet.
It's not like I have faith in one party more than the other one. So it's like really trying to see which one makes sense or which one would harm us less. Undecided voters like Karim are certainly the target of local candidates as we head into this final week of campaigning. Here in Le Salimard, Verdun, the Bloc Québécois candidate and incumbent is Louis-Philippe Sauvé. As we've been sitting down with a candidate from a different party all through this election, this week, it's the Bloc's turn.
I spoke with Monsieur Sauvé as he was arriving to join that neighbourhood clean-up. The last time that you were on the House, you were running in the by-election in this riding. The Liberals... Losing this seat, which had been a stronghold for them, was a significant political event at the time. Now, Justin Trudeau has gone. The national mood has shifted. How much harder is this fight than the one you were in seven months ago?
Well, of course, Mr. Trudeau was the devil you know. The devil you know he liked to fight. But different campaign, different context. I think that my election during the by-election in September is expression not only of a rejection of Mr. Trudeau's policies. But I think it's going to be clear on April 28, the rejection of the Liberal Party. I think that for the last 10 years, they have poorly managed the business of government.
people will need a strong voice to protect Quebec's interests when it comes to the economy. So it's a different speech I'm trying to have in front of the electorate. When it comes to the past election, I focused on Mr. Trudeau's dissatisfaction. But this election... I'm trying to say to the people that it's important to have a good local MP.
someone who is a grassroots MP that is close to the people, but also someone who will fight for the economy of Quebec, because Quebec's interests are not only identity and language, it's also about the economy. In terms of the big picture, as Canada tries to deal with Donald Trump right now, what's one thing that you would want a future federal government to do to try to give Canada some significant help?
in the face of what the U.S. is doing with tariffs. Well, we want a real free market. You know, that's the big problem we're having with this trade war, because the United States do not respect the trade agreement they had with us. so real free market is all about
supply management. It's all about trading lumber. It's all about trading aluminium. To be fair, supply management is not about the free market. The very nature of it is about protecting our dairy and poultry industry. That's not the free market. There's a case for it, but it's not a free market case. In every trade agreement, there's always space for certain sectors that are protected. For instance, in Japan, it's rice that is protected.
For the United States it's soja and cotton that is protected. So there's always one sector that... and it's not a luxury for dairy farmers. Because if we open the market, you know, there's more dairy product than our product in the Wisconsin state than all of Canada. So if we open our market, it's going to be a dumping effect and it's going to be really detrimental to our farmers and the space occupation.
Your party has said because of the tensions right now, the trade war with Donald Trump, the sovereignty discussion won't be a focus for a bit. Donald Trump is likely to remain a chaotic force for the entire four years that he is president. Are you, in essence, saying that the sovereignty discussion, which is a crucial one for the Bloc Québécois, is something you're going to have to put on the back burner for the next four years?
Well, sovereignty first is going to be decided at the National Assembly, because this is where the self-determination right of Quebec as a nation is exercised. Second, this is an election that is only about sovereignty. Canada's sovereignty. So the best defense of sovereignty is paradoxically made by federalists. They stand up for Canada. They say how important the Canada sovereignty is important for them. And I think that it shows that.
We, sovereignists, we stand for something that is very important for our people. So by defending Canada's sovereignty, they show that we have a point. But are they not also showing that when all 13 provinces and territories work together, we are best at pushing back against strong outside forces? Well, I think it's a funny argument. Together forever, they're stronger together, but not necessarily together forever, you know.
I think that we have different interests. We can work on like-minded issues. We can be allied to Canada. But I think that in the long run, we would be better satisfied with sovereignty and association with Canada than centralized point of view. In this same vein, we have heard calls from Western Canada, notably from the former leader of the Reform Party, Preston Manning, who has said re-electing Liberals is a vote...
for the breakup of Canada, that there are people within Alberta and elsewhere in the West who won't tolerate that. And in order to keep the country together... People outside of the West should vote for the Conservatives to preserve the country. What do you make of that call? Well, I think it shows how dangerous the liberals are to Canada's unity. because their centralized way of thinking Canada, their way of showing contempt for provincial jurisdiction, for regional sensibilities, just...
don't work with the reality that Canada is a multinational country. But his argument is that the Conservatives would do a better job. So you're saying the Liberals have contempt. for the provinces. Do you accept his premise that the Conservatives would put us in a better place? Well, I don't think they would put us in a better place. I just think that the Conservatives express more the values of the western part of Canada.
So I think that the fact of the matter is that the Conservatives they are. really really strong in Western Canada so it shows that in in a sense the the Western Canadians are feel alienated toward Ottawa and I think it's a If I were a federalist, I'd be concerned by that. I'd be concerned by this fact because Canada's unity is always the first concern of any prime minister and it has always been so since Confederation. Even if you don't agree with Preston Manning's statement, you should...
you know, listen a bit to it. And I don't think the Liberals will do so. So in this sense, I think they can be a threat to Canada's unity. Okay, it is an interesting discussion. It's an interesting election. Thank you for taking the time to talk to us, Monsieur Sauvé. It's a pleasure. It's my pleasure. It's all mine. Louis-Philippe Sauvé is the Bloc Québécois candidate in La Salle, Imard, Verdun.
Every week of this election campaign, we're taking you around the country to visit the tightest, most interesting races. This week, the CBC's Alison Dempster is here with a profile of Calgary Centre. Hey, Alison, so why did you choose this as a writing to watch?
Hey, Catherine. Well, Alberta is often seen as scorched and salted earth for the Liberals. But this election, they see some potentially fertile ground. Liberal leader Mark Carney seemed almost surprised by the warm welcome in Calgary last week. I thought I was in Calgary. This is amazing! One of the ridings the party hopes to turn from blue to red is Calgary Centre.
The writing has an interesting voting history. Over the years, it's voted reform, conservative and liberal, just to give you a sense of its electoral DNA. And now, Catherine, I've got a little Calgary Centre pop quiz for you here, if I can put you on the spot. Uh-oh. Usually that's my job, Alison. I'll give it a shot. Let's try. The tables have turned. Okay. In the federal election in 2000, a former prime minister ran in Calgary Centre and won.
Who was it? Joe Clark. Correct. For the Progressive Conservatives. Yes. Then as an independent, actually. Yeah, but so thanks for playing. The other thing about Calgary Centre is that, as its name suggests, it's at the core of the city and its God. Old affluent neighborhoods, plenty of shiny new condo towers, also some lower income areas as well, a real mix.
In the polls, the race has been neck and neck. So for all those reasons, it's shaping up to be a really suspenseful race this election. Fascinating. What are you hearing from voters about how they are going to make their decision this time around? To get a sense of that, I went to the Crossroads.
farmers market to hear what's on people's minds. It's been a long time since we've had anybody in Ottawa advocating for Western interests and our oil patch and our fundamental contribution to the country. Well, the most important thing for me is that I feel... We have a calm leader who can stand up to Trump. And so I have always voted NDP, provincially, federally, and this time around I won't be. If you're not voting NDP, who are you voting for? I'm going to vote for Mark Carney.
Normally, I care who runs in my riding. I don't care who runs in my riding this time. I will just simply take the L. I also met Michael Kehoe at the food court. He's concerned about how polarized politics is right now in Alberta and feels That's the opposite of what's needed in the face of what's happening south of the border. Everything just seems to be torqued up to the highest volume. I guess that's the way it is. It's a blood sport.
We need to bring people together, especially on interprovincial trade and cooperation economically. And I think that's top of mind right now for me. So for Michael, like a lot of people I talked with, this election is about how to best handle all the uncertainty Donald Trump has unleashed
Now, it's interesting because in Alberta, Premier Danielle Smith has been an element in this campaign. I mean, even federally, right? Before the campaign even started, she was under fire for that interview she did with Breitbart News, which is a Trump-friendly media outlet. In the interview, she pushes for a pause on tariffs since the tariff fight seems to have been helping liberal fortunes. She suggests that Conservative leader Pierre Polyev would be in sync with Donald Trump's direction.
What is your sense of how Danielle Smith is affecting the federal campaign in Calgary Centre? Yeah, it's hard to gauge what the impact is going to be. She's also come out with a list of demands for the next federal government, including unfettered cross-country access to build pipelines and lifting the emissions cap. And as you know, Catherine, Premier Smith says her demands must be addressed to avoid a national unity crisis.
For some Calgary voters I spoke with, she's just voicing long-held frustrations. They support her list of demands. And they argue now is not the time to overburden the oil and gas industry with regulation. But I also spoke with a conservative voter in Calgary Centre who says now is not the time to be stoking Western alienation. I don't think it's a very good look, and it's not something that I would want to get behind. There's got to be something in the middle that works for the whole country.
That's Chris Howe. While he votes conservative, his wife, Jessica, votes liberal. And they may be in different political camps, but the one thing they agree on in this election is national unity.
I don't know. Canada's a great country. I would not like to see it split up. I certainly don't want to see Alberta leave, and we need everybody to stay together to keep the sovereignty and keep the country what it is. And you think that Conservatives are looking like the right folks to do that? Well, I'm hoping so.
How do you guys talk about this at home? Well, we don't. Our daughter tries to instigate things, but I'm pretty... I was definitely raised in a very, you know, keep your politics to yourself family and, you know, like, have your own... but everybody else doesn't have to have your beliefs as well to get along. So that's kind of what I go with. It works for us so far for, you know, 40 plus years. Well, something must be working.
about politics. Well, it was nice of them to talk about politics with you, Alison, in the house. Always a safe space to talk about politics, of course. So listen, how are the Calgary Centre candidates responding to the key issues in the riding? Well, the Conservative incumbent is Greg McLean. He's held the riding for two terms. He declined my request for an interview.
To try to get an insider's perspective, I met up with political consultant Melissa Cowett at a cafe in Calgary Centre. She lives in the riding, and she's been a conservative campaign strategist in numerous elections. She's not involved this time around, but if she were, she'd advise the McLean campaign team to stay focused on what matters to people in their daily lives. She says there's no doubt national unity and Trump are big issues, but so is the cost of living.
The Conservatives have an advantage in this way because they do have a lot to say about affordability, crime, all of these public safety issues that we see becoming an issue, especially, you know, in urban centers like Calgary Centre. So I think it's really just about sticking to. what their commitments are and not getting too distracted about what people, what kinds of judgments people want to lob or associations people want to make that may or may not be fair.
Cowet also says the Liberals have an uphill battle here, largely because of their energy policies. The liberals should definitely want to try to pick up here in Alberta. I think that, you know, Mark Carney does seem to show, at least at face value, a willingness to try and do so, though that's definitely been a promise and a thing.
that Liberal and left of centre leaders have wanted to do in the past, but have not really been successful in doing so. I mean, you look at some of the policies that the Liberals have said they will not repeal that are very damaging to Alberta, including emissions. and C-69 and all these other things.
Yeah, so Carney has said he'd keep Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, also known as the No Pipelines Bill here. He says he'd rather work with it than start from scratch and invite long court battles. He's also promised energy corridors and fast-tracked approvals. But Cowet isn't so sure Calgarians will go for his pitch. She predicts Greg McLean will hang on to his seat in Calgary Central. Can you tell us a bit more about the Liberal challenger who's going up against McLean?
Yeah, the Liberal candidate is Lindsay Lunau. I already blew through one pair of shoes, so this is my second pair of shoes for the campaign. Yeah, it's that much walking. It's so much walking. Like, do you keep track of your steps? Yes, I do. I met her at her campaign headquarters where staff and volunteers were arranging sign deliveries. Luna is the director of a local investment cooperative.
I asked her how she's being met at the doors as a liberal running in the heart of Alberta's oil and gas capital. There are a few things that I'm hearing at the door. So the first one is that people really like Mark Carney and they really think that he is the only leader who's going to stand up to Donald Trump and protect Canadian sovereignty, Canadian jobs and look after our economy.
But the other thing that I'm hearing at the door is that people are rejecting the divisiveness in federal politics, and they really want to see us coming together for a vision for the future rather than continue to be divided. Catherine Lunau also told me she's having interesting conversations with Calgarians who have voted PC in the past. and aren't sure they have a home in the current Conservative Party.
What did she have to say about what we heard from Melissa Cowett there, the questions around the Liberals' policies on oil and gas? She's trying to thread a small needle, acknowledging the big role the oil patch plays in the economy while defending liberal positions on the energy transition.
We know in Calgary that we are so lucky to have been blessed with our oil and gas industry. But we also need to recognize that there's a need for us to transform, given climate change and the need for climate action. to support and I will support our traditional oil and gas industry but we also want to support those emerging technologies the move into renewables supporting geothermal and I will be championing Calgary as the global leader in all things energy.
So, Catherine, Calgary Centre is becoming this battleground where the liberal and conservative visions for the country, its economy, its energy industry, its national identity are really getting tested. As for the NDP, Beau Shaw is the candidate in Calgary Centre. Pollsters say a good part of the reason there are tight races in Calgary is because the New Democrat vote has shrunk considerably, and that's likely favouring the Liberals.
We are definitely going to be keeping an eye on Calgary Center on election night. Thank you for this, Alison. You're welcome. Alison Dempster is a CBC producer in Calgary. We have heard so much in the past couple of years about the danger of foreign meddling in Canadian politics. So what is happening in this campaign? Our colleague Janice McGregor has a new documentary out just this week on that very topic.
It aired Friday on CBC Radio, and we're going to be dropping it in our House podcast feed on Sunday. Here with a look at what she learned is CBC parliamentary reporter Janice McGregor. Hey there, Janice. Hi there. Congratulations on this new documentary called How Safe Is Your Vote? All about foreign interference in our elections. Spoiler alert here, maybe. Is the coming federal election safe from meddling?
Wouldn't it be great if I could just reassure everyone that no problem, no problem, sleep well at night, but yeah, no. No one can be certain about that. And look, one of the big takeaways from that public inquiry that we all covered on foreign interference is that, frankly, these concerns are our new normal.
But to be clear here, we are not talking about things that affect the integrity of the vote itself. So things like the voters list that Elections Canada maintains, those paper ballots that we still mark by hand, the integrity of the count that, you know, is scrutinized. We're not talking about that. The new issues have more to do with what's inside our heads and what's in our hearts when we turn out to vote or perhaps when we make the decision that we can't be bothered or don't want to vote.
I talked about this with Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, Stéphane Perrault. I think there's been a significant change after both the Brexit. experience and the U.S. 2016 presidential election, where we realized that there are more players that need to be playing a key role in the electoral process. And that's where we began reaching out and collaborating with security partners at a much, much higher level.
both in terms of the cybersecurity, but also in terms of the overall cyber environment. Because you, as the chief electoral officer, you're not an intelligence expert. I'm not. I'm not. And we talk about that in the piece. And I want to say also that security and intelligence officials are trying to do better this time out too. And that is why every week during the campaign, we as reporters... are invited to a briefing now on whether there have been any new risks or threats detected.
And to be clear, they don't think that anything so far has been serious enough to affect the overall integrity of the vote. But new levels of vigilance are required. New transparency is required. So we're all savvier about this, not only because.
There's been evidence that the main actors we heard about during the inquiry, I'm thinking China, India here, are still at it, and listeners are going to hear from some voices in my piece who have been impacted by this in ways that they may not have considered.
but also since the last time that Canadians voted, fears about Russian disinformation, either as a consequence of Canada's support for Ukraine or as a consequence of the Trump administration's evolving relationship with Russia or its evolving relationship with us. These concerns are way higher now than they were in 2021. And disinformation, you may recall from Commissioner Marie-José Ugg's inquiry, her closing news conference, she said that might be the biggest threat to our democracy.
Okay, help me see this, Janice. Can you give me an example of something that you learned while you were working on this that made you realize how seriously foreign interference is impacting our politics right now? One of the people you're going to meet is Henry Chan. Now, he has been an activist for democratic rights in Hong Kong.
He's also, though, been active in Canadian politics. He's run municipally, he's worked federally as a staffer, and last year he ran for a provincial nomination for the Saskatchewan party in his hometown of Saskatoon. One of the things the public inquiry warned us about was how vulnerable the party nomination process is to foreign meddling, because often these contests are run by local volunteers, not like professionals at Elections Canada.
Listen to what Chan experienced. In a lot of these nominations, there are no rules at all. It is basically a gong show. A lot of people registered with false address. We had actually people on the phone. who said they actually don't live in the address that they bought a membership for.
Now, I know what you might be thinking. Yeah, yeah, chaotic nomination meetings. These happen all the time. What does this have to do with national security? But Chan walked me through how he was approached by someone that he later realized. had ties to the Chinese Communist Party, he thinks. This person asked Chan what he was prepared to do to help the Chinese people. And he offered, allegedly, to support him in return.
to be clear, turned him down. But after the fact, it left him wondering if there could have been some kind of local meddling in this race going on to make sure that, for example, no one sympathetic to democracy in Hong Kong would ever sit in the provincial legislature.
His story touched me because honestly, Catherine, I hope we can all agree that no one who steps forward to run to serve their community should be left wondering if they need to be looking over their shoulder and taking security precautions as a result. Yeah, absolutely, Janice. I know one warning that the security officials in Canada have sounded so far in this election had to do with potential Chinese disinformation on WeChat. why hasn't more been done to crack down on social media?
Well, for starters, we've seen as parliamentary reporters how difficult it is to get MPs to agree that any kind of online censorship is a good thing. Stifling debate, I mean, come on, that is undemocratic, right? Responding to this threat. in a draconian way, well, that misses the point entirely. If your goal is to uphold democratic values, well, those include free speech, right? And yet this freedom...
is being weaponized against countries like ours now. A few days before this election campaign started, Canada's Cyber Intelligence Agency warned us that countries like China, Russia, Iran... will very likely use artificial intelligence to try to mislead voters. And then we have X, formerly Twitter. In his final days as a parliamentarian, New Democrat Charlie Angus told me that in his opinion, its owner, Elon Musk now, has basically become the equivalent of a hostile state actor.
It's becoming clear that what's happened in the United States... is that there is now a group of very powerful people who are intensely anti-democratic, who have no interest in respecting the rule of international law. and would be more than happy to undermine democratic countries. And they've focused, Mr. Trump and both Mr. Elon Musk have focused attacks on Canada.
we would be incredibly naive to think that we can carry on our little elections. We've already suffered from massive bot farms. We're already starting to see the AI. We're going to see deepfake. The idea that Mr. Musk has control of the X algorithm at this time... For Elections Canada not to take this as a major, full-on threat to our democracy, to me, it's inconceivable. Now, Angus isn't running again, but he wrote to Elections Canada trying to get...
them to do something about it. And I talked to Stéphane Perrault about this, and he said, look, from Elections Canada's perspective, he says he can't be the referee of what's fake and what's legitimate free speech without... hurting the credibility of his office, which has to be neutral. It can't take sides. And frankly, that's a good point, too. So this is all very complex, but the stakes are really high here. So I hope your audience...
Make a bit of time to listen to this as they consider their vote. Think about the issues at play, because yes, some of this stuff is kind of scary to contemplate, but that is still your hand marking your ballot. And our democracy in the end is only as strong as we make it.
It is important work, Janice. I salute you for doing it, and thank you for taking the time to tell us about it. You're most welcome. That is the CBC's Janice McGregor. How safe is your vote? We'll drop in the House feed tomorrow. Okay, that is it for us this week. Our crew on the house is Kristen Everson, Emma Godmere, Benjamin Lopez-Steven, and our senior producer is Jennifer Chevalier. Thanks also to Miguel Plante for technical help. I'm Catherine Cullen. Thank you so much.
For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcast.