SPEAKER_01: Ready to see your business savings grow? The CIBC Business Investment Growth Account is designed to help your money work smarter. No monthly account fee, total flexibility, and a standout up to 3.15% interest on new deposits up to $5 million. But this offer ends February 28th, 2026. Take your next big step. Open your account at CIBC.com slash big A now. Terms and eligibility requirements apply. CIBC.
SPEAKER_01: Ambitions made real. This
Zain: is a Strategist episode 1875. My name is Zane Velgey. With me as always, Shannon Phillips and
Zain: and Stephen
Zain: Stephen Carter. Carter, how are you, sir? Oh my god.
Carter: you, sir? Oh my god. Oh
Carter: my god. Oh my god. Jagmeet Singh, Drake, and Lamar. Kendrick. Holy
Carter: shit. You almost got it.
Zain: shit. You almost got it. Okay, I'm going to give you a second take. Go ahead. Try again. Fuck.
Carter: Fuck.
Carter: did I get wrong?
Zain: Lamar, Kendrick.
Carter: Kendrick.
Zain: Kendrick Lamar.
Carter: Kendrick Lamar. Fuck.
Carter: Kendrick Lamar. Drake.
Zain: Kendrick Lamar.
Zain: Drake. Jagmeet Singh. not
Carter: Jagmeet Singh. not
Zain: a fuck that up shannon phillips shannon phillips would not have fucked that up i
Carter: fuck that up shannon
Shannon: shannon phillips
Zain: i did
Carter: i did
Shannon: not receive the briefing note i would have read it uh with excitement and relish i did not enjoy the one tweet i had to read on this however if there was an actual briefing note on it that would have been more exciting to read to kind of really get let me let me give it let me let me
Zain: really get let me let me give it let me let me give you the briefing note these
Zain: are two fragile men yes
Shannon: yes and
Zain: and then there's kendrick lamar okay
Zain: okay that That's that's that's what's happened.
Zain: There
Carter: There is there is Drake and there's Jagmeet Singh who folded so
Zain: folded so
Zain: much quicker than I thought he would. It was it was embarrassing by Jagmeet Singh. I do. I do love Jagmeet. But I mean, Shannon, welcome. I'm part of the Jagmeet Singh fan club. Carter is well known to this that I'm probably this is last. This is just another
Carter: this is last. This is just another reason why the man shouldn't be in politics. But
Zain: this was a fucking dumbass move by Jagmeet Singh. I do not know what the hell he was thinking to
Carter: this was
Carter: to go to a concert.
Zain: to go to a concert.
Carter: No, no. You can go to a fucking concert. I
Zain: No, no. You can go to a fucking concert. I
Zain: agree with you completely. No, go to the concert. I agree with you completely.
Carter: with you completely. No, go to the concert. I agree with you completely. Be strong. Don't apologize. Say, I like the fucking music. Go to hell, Drake. Or ignore it, because who the fuck cares?
Zain: Carter's correct.
Shannon: I agree. He can go wherever he wants. And I don't think he has to answer to anyone, especially now that he's a private citizen. There were other private citizens there. Like, get over yourself, Drake. Get
Shannon: over yourself, judge me. Interesting.
Zain: over yourself, judge me. Interesting.
Zain: So there is something interesting about this, which is Jagmeet Singh's cultural cachet was always greater than his political sort
Zain: of upside, Carter.
Carter: Carter. Gravitas? Yeah.
Zain: Gravitas? Yeah. Like the fact that like Drake and Jagmeet Singh know one another is actually quite interesting from a Canadian cultural perspective. I find that to be quite interesting. So what does someone like Jagmeet Singh have to do when he obviously is no longer a political face, but transitioned? I'm almost asking you celebrity PR, Carter, but
Carter: but it kind of is. Oh, yeah. Because
Zain: is. Oh, yeah. Because Jagmeet
Carter: Jagmeet
Zain: Jagmeet Singh almost is on like a celebrity PR track now, isn't he?
Carter: No, he's at the very end of his celebrity PR track. Yeah, he's at the very end of his celebrity PR track. And he extended it by an extra 24 hours just by getting in the middle of this
Zain: very end of his celebrity PR track. Yeah, he's
SPEAKER_01: he's at the very end of his celebrity
Zain: celebrity
SPEAKER_01: celebrity
Carter: Kendrick Lamar Drake.
Carter: Why
Carter: Why don't we just all go with Kendrick? I mean, and what is Za? What is that? Is that a band?
Zain: Carter. Oh,
Zain: Oh,
Shannon: Oh, okay. It hurts. But, you know, if Jagmeet Singh is going to have another little round of 15 minutes of fame, then he should use it for fundraising purposes to clean up the debt that he left the party and the existential threat that he left to the federal NDP and the future of social democracy in this country. How about we take that seriously, not the Kendrick
Zain: okay.
Carter: okay.
Zain: okay.
Carter: okay.
Shannon: Kendrick-Drake feud? Like, come on down to earth, buddy. There's a big old debt there. Figure it out and set the party up for success, which is something you never did in the time that you were leader of it. Here's
Zain: what I like. I like that Shannon has taken it in this direction. I was just coming in with a nice
Zain: nice sort of like, you know, let's all lay
Zain: lay our tentacles into Jagmeet Singh for a few minutes. But now I have a serious question for you. And it's back to you, Shannon. And does the former leader have an actual responsibility to clear this debt? Talk to me from a party perspective, because many people do not know this, and you could probably explain it greater than I do, but I'll give you the simplified version. The NDP have a building that they borrow against to raise money.
Zain: And I think they're the only political party on the federal scene that does so and does that, the
Zain: the borrowing of the money leveraged against the building. So this
Zain: is an interesting sort of situation where what happens when a leader leaves? What have you historically seen? What do you think about the actual and moral responsibility for someone like Jagmeet Singh is in that regard?
Shannon: Well, the federal party has never been left in a state like this, not even when they lost party status in 1993, to my recollection of it, although I joined the party in around 97. But I was on the federal council in the late 90s, early 2000s and, you know, in the
Shannon: the days when we had like 20 seats. So I saw their finances at that time. And I was around as well for when the party bought or essentially
Shannon: essentially Labour bought the building for the party before the new election finance rules came into place that that that Kretchen brought in right in 2003 before the 2004 election. So that was the genesis of that. Steele and others pulled some because they in the in the olden times, Labour used to guarantee that loan right
SPEAKER_01: place that
Shannon: in some way, shape or form because they could. Oh,
Zain: Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Oh, that's interesting. Yeah. And so
Shannon: wasn't aware of that. Oh, that's interesting. Yeah. And so when the legislation took that out, then Labour, before the legislation came in, Labour bought the building. Yeah.
Zain: Yeah. And
Shannon: And then the party, and that was essentially what, there were a couple of different things that came out of that legislation that helped the party build in the latent years. Number one was it allowed individual writing associations to do their own receipting and their own fundraising. And so you didn't have to necessarily do a revenue share or anything. So you were just amassing money in individual writing. So a Nathan Cullen, a Jack Layton, an Olivia Chow, these kinds of seats, then, you know, Brian Massey grew
Shannon: grew up over time, right,
Shannon: right, because they could establish their own fundraising base. So
Shannon: So that was what that legislation did for the party. And the other thing it did was it allowed them to borrow. But to your question, what responsibility does Jagmeet Singh have? I'm not really sure if I can sort of reach back to it like a history time on
Shannon: on when a leader had that kind of responsibility, because no leader has left the party in this kind of dire straits ever. Never. And so if he has an ability to help them get out of it, he should try because he set a really bad precedent here. And he has authored a lot of it.
Zain: Carter, obviously, was not planning to go here. But now I find this a very interesting line of inquiry.
Zain: Oh, great. I'm well prepared for it. politicians and as a no
Carter: Oh,
Shannon: Oh,
Carter: Oh, great. I'm
Shannon: I'm
Carter: I'm well
Shannon: well prepared
Carter: prepared for it. politicians
Shannon: politicians
Zain: but as a political practitioner what responsibility would you have like tasked with your principal jagmeet singh to clear the party's debt or would you have said you do your nominal bit do you participate at all this is behind you you're done how do you even think about these things we we often talk about leadership campaigns which are of course associated with your name and you ran for leadership and we talked about the toxicity of leadership debts this is interesting because it's a party that no longer has official party status, that has this ability to borrow, that did do that borrowing. It's got a long history and tenure. It's a very interesting situation. What responsibility do you hold Jagmeet Singh to as from a practical practitioner's perspective?
Carter: I think he's got a moral responsibility that he's going to be walking away from. I mean, he has no actual responsibility. He has a moral responsibility, but that moral responsibility does not carry the weight of law or any of the the truth of the matter is the leader is not responsible for the actual actions of the party during the actual campaign. One could argue he may not even have known. Now, if he didn't know, then I think he'd be delinquent in
Carter: in his leadership responsibilities. But if he did know, then he would have some fundraising responsibilities. But let's be honest. Let's be honest saying if he had any capacity to do the fundraising, he would have raised the funds. He doesn't have the the ability to do the fundraising. So he leaves a giant hole for whoever chooses or is chosen to lead that party. I'm not sure you're going to see a huge lineup of people going, yeah, I really want this challenge. But whoever takes it on is going to be taking on quite a lift.
Zain: Can I talk about Jagmeet for a second, though? Shannon, maybe over to you. Do you feel like someone who leaves a party in this sort of lurch, has this impact them in their future career prospects or even in a brand way or are have we in politics just consider this one of the elements of politics where this doesn't dog you you get to just move on with your life what do you think oh
Shannon: oh i i mean i think it would depend on on what he wants to do but generally speaking you know my working thesis is always that people don't really understand politics and to the extent they do they don't really care how it all works uh
Shannon: uh and so he'll probably go off into the private sector or go and practice law or do something else. I think, you know, I'm sure he's got a number of things that he can do. He is a talented guy in certain respects. He just wasn't particularly talented at leading the federal NDP and creating one party, in my view, for the country. So he'll do that. I don't think it really matters. But for people like me who would like a relevant relevant uh federal ndp who you know my heart has
Carter: and so he'll
Shannon: has broken for the last decade watching
Shannon: watching what has gone on with the federal ndp and and now with the the opportunities and openings that they have that they they won't be able to necessarily take uh
Shannon: uh am i pissed about it hell yeah i am i it's a good thing i can't hire him because i wouldn't carter
Zain: carter let's let's use that transition of heartbreaks And let's go from heartbreaks for the last decade to hearts potentially breaking for conservatives in January, because it has just come out a couple hours ago that Pierre Polyev is going to be facing a leadership review at the parties. And these are sources speaking to the Globe and Mail at the party's national convention in January of 2026. Carter, this was well rumored to be something that happens in the spring, potentially for Pierre Polyev. It's
Zain: It's now been moved up to January. January.
Zain: This is also a time where Pierre Polyev doesn't have a seat. It's also a time where Pierre Polyev seems
Zain: seems to be, at least reported by the Hill Times, making phone calls to
Zain: to do a campaign debrief post-mortem.
Zain: Start here. Does
Zain: this help or hinder Pierre
Zain: Pierre Polyev's chances to stay on as leader? The
Zain: The timeline moving up to January. Start here with me.
Carter: You know, I was thinking about that and I actually don't think I know the answer. I think that there is a case to be made that Giving a little bit more time for him to, like he's dropped precipitously in the polls, having a little bit more time for him to show his legs and to actually achieve something might be better for him. On the other hand, January, I'm not 100% certain, but I believe it's those in the room who get the vote on the leadership review. Maybe not everybody wants to travel in January. Maybe it's a smaller crew. Maybe it becomes the diehards who want to see him stay. he may be able to influence that more effectively.
SPEAKER_01: to show his legs and
Carter: I think it's a bit of a push. I think, frankly, if you're going to face these leadership
Carter: leadership reviews after every election, and I'm not sure I'm a fan. I'm not sure that this is the best way to run a party. But this is the way we've all chosen to run a party at this stage. If you're going to have the leadership review, personally, I think the faster after the election, the better for the party, just to get it behind them. But I
Carter: I worry for I worry for young Pierre. I worry. I worry that he's facing off against something that he may may not be able to control. I'm
Zain: I'm glad you mentioned earlier, because that's where my instinct would be at. He
Zain: He seemed to be riding a pretty decent wave on the heels of the election to kind of say, listen, we didn't get there, but we got really fucking close. The narrative was on his side that he didn't fully tank this thing, especially considering where they were going to be with the majority government that was going to be piled against them.
Zain: And so I agree with the sentiment of close, but now we're in this weird period. It's
Zain: It's not a year from now or like March, which I'll use that as roughly like a year from now, right? Like nine months from now. But it's January and it's January, Shannon. So I'm like, there's also something to be said. January, like a beginning of a new year, people looking for renewal, people potentially thinking about things maybe slightly differently. It's cold as fuck in Calgary. So I'm kind of curious, where is your head at? If you're Pierre Pauliev, now that you've had this date moved up on you by a couple of months.
Shannon: January in Calgary, importantly.
Zain: Yeah,
Shannon: Yeah,
Zain: Yeah,
Shannon: Yeah, of course. So you
Zain: you have
Shannon: you have a good opportunity to fill that room for the people who are going to vote nicely for
Shannon: for you, who maybe just worked on the campaign, on the by-election, who are your ride-or-dies out of Alberta. They're not folks out of BC who might be butthurt that they didn't have the breakthrough that they wanted. They're not going to be folks from Atlantic Canada who are butthurt that they didn't have the breakthrough through that was expected, you know, back even five months ago. And so I think it's easier for them to do it earlier. It basically means that you campaign through the summer, through
Carter: who maybe just worked
SPEAKER_01: five
Shannon: through your by-election and through your barbecue circuit. You
Shannon: You get back into the House, you know, you score a few points off the budget and other things and show that you still are in fight and form. It's not long enough for anything to fester either on the party side or the caucus side. As I said last Last time, when,
Shannon: when, you know, looking at his really crappy numbers, and they are really bad. There's been a couple of data sets come out now. Beyond now, since the
Zain: Beyond now, since the last time we chatted. Yeah, they're happy. They're
Shannon: time we chatted. Yeah,
Shannon: They're not good. Ain't good over there. Now,
Shannon: Now, caucus is probably going to be the last people to cotton on to this, right? Caucuses, being what they are, oftentimes they're the last people you can hold a gun to their head and they wouldn't be able to tell you what percentage of popular vote you got in the last election. This is what electeds
Carter: electeds
Carter: electeds
Carter: electeds
Shannon: electeds are like. Having been one, I know how blissfully unaware we, they are. But I do think that it doesn't give anything time to steamroll and to fester because the party is still on his side. They kind of still don't know what to do or make of it. And it won't be enough time for factions to kind of bubble up in caucus. I think that's probably the idea of January over spring. Carter, what do you think of that? What
Zain: do you think of that? What
Shannon: What
Zain: What
Zain: do you think of
Shannon: of that?
Zain: that? I agree with the Calgary part. I'm not sure I entirely buy that there's not enough time for allowing something to fester or for an alternative, even if not perfect or even as good enough as Pierre Polyev, to present itself. Do
Zain: Do you agree with Shannon or do you feel like there is a bit of daylight here if someone wanted to do shit?
Carter: Shannon's the typical NDPer, wants
Carter: wants to keep a leader forever. The Conservative Party does the exact opposite. They
Carter: They want to get rid of their leaders as fast as humanly possible. There's always someone campaigning for it. But, you know, the idea that Doug Ford isn't going to be in a position to send a whole bunch of people to Calgary with his voting preferences, it doesn't matter. Or let me throw another
Zain: Or let me throw another name out there. Jason Kenney. Jason Kenney. The Jason
Carter: Jason Kenney. The Jason Kenney. You know, these things could all happen. I mean, we're not sure. I'm not sure that any location would have been good. I'm not sure that any time would be good, because I think that unlike the New Democrats, who have long had this, let's give our party leaders a couple, three, four chances at the, you know, grabbing the brass ring, the
Carter: the Conservative Party is one and done. That
Carter: That is their methodology. That's the way that they think. And I don't think that Pierre Polyev's performance, as good as it was, is
Carter: going to necessarily be enough to stand in the face of the performance as bad as it potentially could be. and because it is equally as bad uh it's not great for the uh uh
Carter: uh for
Carter: the good folks uh you know in in pierre polyev's camp this is just i
Carter: just don't know that he's going to be able to rebound through the the fall and my
Carter: my bet would always be on the conservatives doing you know tossing their leader it's the same way that they i think if jugmeet singh didn't resign i'm not sure the ndp get rid of them because they just are so politically inept not you shannon but
Carter: but the The others. A
Shannon: A lot of people just walked away from the federal party. But this is where I on the Pugliava thing. I mean, the reason why I sort of tend towards he might be OK and he might be able to skate it through if he doesn't let it fester too long is because you have seen the conservative party successfully peddle the narrative. And maybe it's a fiction. I don't know that they actually kind of won the last campaign. Yeah. They've done that well
Carter: where I
Zain: They've done that well enough to. Exactly.
Shannon: Exactly. Yeah, exactly. I mean, and so to Carter's point, you know, it's true that they do like to stab each other in the back, the front, everywhere else. But it would seem to me that they've got that. He still got the membership. Right. At least for now, because
Zain: Yeah, exactly.
Shannon: because he catered to the ones that might be the fastest to throw him overboard. the kind of like the the
Shannon: the the further right ones right the more conspiratorial ones he never he never really pissed them off right he never went you know like oh you're a globalist wef guy or whatever uh they never got really the chance to throw him overboard on that stuff or even vaccine or whatever else might have come up so
Carter: conspiratorial ones
Zain: ones he never
Carter: never
Shannon: and he didn't even piss them off on trump which arguably might have bought him some points on the other side fair so it would seem to me that he still still got them uh they're not very mobilizable uh against him in calvary not yet uh unless somebody comes from the right at him uh
Carter: fair so
Shannon: uh which could happen i'm
Zain: which could happen
Zain: i'm glad you mentioned this because i almost want to put you guys on two separate teams carter your team create fucking chaos for pierre that's what i want you to be for a second and shannon okay i want you to be on on team secure pierre future right so as as a former elected i want you to think about what you would do over the course this summer. This is dovetailing off the reporting by the Hill Times that's saying Pierre Polyev's doing one-on-one calls with former candidates, caucus members, being like, where did we go wrong? What's going on? What do you think? But I want to start with Carter on this. Carter, if your job was to sow chaos and potentially propose an alternative between now and two milestones that we know, we
Zain: we roughly know, his by-election and now January,
Zain: give me a game plan, roughly, around what you'd be doing, what you'd be doing this summer, what you'd be doing tail end of summer, what you'd be doing early fall right now, Carter, if you wanted to propose the
Zain: the weakening of Pierre Polyev and potentially an alternative. That'll come to you, Shannon.
Carter: Number one is setting the expectations for the by-election, right?
Carter: right? I can't remember what the vote percentages were in, what did Battle River Crowfoot, or what is the name of the riding? Battle River, something like that. Safest one.
Zain: something like that. Safest one. It's something like an 80-20 split. I'll look it up. 82, I think. Yeah.
Shannon: I'll look it up. 82, I think. Yeah.
Shannon: Yeah.
Carter: Yeah. So it's got to be, you know, he's got to get over 80%, right? In a by-election, that should be the minimum that he is achieving. I would set that as a primary outcome. If he's going to show real strength, he has to get over 80%. If he doesn't get over 80%, then we are seeing the law. He's not as popular.
Shannon: Yeah.
Zain: Yeah. So it's
Carter: So that would be the first thing I would set. The second thing I would set is that he's got to perform well on the barbecue circuit. And this is not a guy who traditionally performs well on the barbecue circuit. He is better in the House of Commons doing the theatrical than he is in people's front rooms
Carter: rooms doing the barbecue circuit, meeting
Carter: meeting the gen pop. That's not his strength, but I would set an expectation that it's going to have to be his strength. You
Carter: You know, how does he perform at the Stampede? How does he perform across Canada during the course of the summer?
Carter: Is he getting out there? Is he being seen or is he, you
Carter: you know, retreating
Carter: retreating into prep for House of Commons, which is what
Carter: what he really loves and what he really wants to be. I'd set those two expectations right off the bat.
Carter: And the third expectation I would set is
Carter: that his House of Commons performance is just
Carter: costed in.
Carter: We know he's going to be great. We
Carter: know he's going to be great. He's
Carter: He's going to be the best leader
Carter: leader possible in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, that doesn't win elections.
Carter: Tom Mulcair performed wonderfully in the House of Commons. And look where he is today. You know,
Carter: punditry.
Carter: Punditry on radio stations. Poor Tom.
Carter: Poor little Tommy.
Zain: Carter, before I go to Shannon on this in terms of her helping Pierre save his leadership, how
Zain: would you do this? You said you'd set these marks in the sand. You'd set these lines. Would it be as a separate group? How would you suggest these things become socialized and then become markers that we all, all being the very small niche political class, follow and say, yes, box checked, box not checked? How do you ensure that these things become socially validated
Zain: KPIs that we're all like, okay, like I see there's a there there. How do you do that?
Carter: Unnamed conservative insiders who look like they are pro-Polyev rather
Carter: than anti-Polyev.
Carter: So they'd come out and say... Leaked
Zain: Leaked the media.
Carter: Yeah, they'd leak it to the media and say, you know what, Pierre Polyev is going to get 85% in Battle River.
Carter: There is no way that he's not going to perform to 85%. His ability to win in Alberta is unparalleled. He's going to do an amazing job. Not only that, he's going to work the entire barbecue circuit. He has to work the entire barbecue, sir. He's going to do a great job on that. I just would just set false expectations for him that I know he can't meet by making it look like I'm on his side.
Zain: It's almost like you've done this before, Carter.
Carter: I might have.
Carter: There's no evidence. Shannon,
Zain: what does he need to do? What does he need to do this summer? He's making these individualized phone calls. Is that sufficient? Is that even a good start? Is that even a good move for Pierre Polyev as he tries to get his seat back, get a seat back, I should be clear, and save his leadership now with the timeline of January? Oh,
Shannon: 100 percent. It's a good move. Everybody likes to be asked for their advice and what they think, especially, you know, after an election outcome. I think for sure that's a good idea. And I think he should be focusing on places that generally have a large and active membership and tend to send people to
Shannon: to these review exercises. So obviously the Alberta members
Shannon: members who have lots of membership in their ridings, I'd be talking to them in particular. And I'd probably, in addition to my stampede work, I would be doing some specific things with the biggest Alberta ridings where there's a large membership base. I'd probably do the same in Saskatchewan around the same time.
Shannon: And I might even do some small group stuff on Deep Breathe. And I would go around and get a sense of what are the top two things that you can show that you have appropriately
Shannon: appropriately gotten the right message or pivoted, quote unquote, which was the knock on him through the campaign.
Shannon: So I would do that and then I would do those things. So if that's firing Jenny and tossing her overboard, then that's what it is. Or other things that, you know, ways to humanize him or taking a run at Trump or if, you know, the polling data and the debrief shows it, you know, like taking a, it really depends on what the polling shows, right? Right. Like, do people want him to take a run at the further right? Do people want him to dig in on the further right? That's what your debrief, your conversations and some of your polling is going to tell you.
Shannon: And then I would look like I'm taking action in
Shannon: in September or September, October, whatever that looks like. And going to the house, having done some things that are like, turn the page and I'm a new guy now. And
Shannon: And I'm sure that'll mean throwing Jenny overboard in some way, because
Shannon: because it doesn't seem like she has a whole lot of allies anywhere in the operation and whatever else the data shows that you need to do.
Shannon: I
Shannon: would certainly be making
Shannon: making a lot of those individual phone calls, though. There's no substitute for that in your caucus and listening to your caucus. Carter,
Zain: I want to pick up on that point because I agree with Shannon. I think we've said it many times on this podcast that there is no substitute to that exercise of the individualized phone call. However, tell
Zain: me if I'm wrong about this, that on the heels of a loss, there could be this element that it showcases vulnerability and potentially even weakness, especially with the other side that I'm getting you to run, which is the expectation side. side, which is it can show it can show humbling. It can show genuine
Zain: genuine curiosity. It can show all the things that it does, which is those calls. But it can also show weakness. Am
Zain: I wrong in suggesting that that could be a greater force here than
Zain: than all the other upside that comes with that individualized phone call?
Carter: I think that an individual phone call works wonders, but it works less good, less well if another person
Carter: person calls you right afterwards. If Doug Ford was to pick up the phone and start doing his own individual calls and say did you hear from the leader he
Zain: did you hear
Carter: he must be desperate um
Carter: um you know uh or or were you satisfied with his responses like if if doug ford was working the the uh the telephones or jason kenney was working the telephones against him um
Carter: um then your telephone your initial telephone call is kind of
Carter: met on the field of battle and has less in terms of actual impact. This will be interesting to see if Doug Ford, Jason Kenney, and the like decide
Carter: decide that they're going to try and do an open opposition
Carter: opposition to Pierre
Carter: Pierre
Carter: Pierre Polyev. Sorry, I had a little stutter there. Couldn't spit out the word Pierre Polyev. Very embarrassing. Very embarrassing. I
Zain: I know it's historically been a struggle for you. Carter, final thoughts on this. Give me final thoughts on this From the perspective of Pierre Polyev, anything you would add to what Shannon's list is? And Shannon, I'm going to get you to do the vice versa for a second. Anything you would add to further chaos to the anti-Polyev universe that we're trying to create so that he potentially loses the job? Carter, first word to you, and then Shannon, I'll finish off with you on this.
Carter: Carter, final
Carter: Well, I would imagine one of the things I'd probably do is pull out the digital advertising budget and make sure that a lot of digital ads are being placed with a lot of video. The
Carter: The truth of the matter is that I think the Conservatives are coming out of the election in
Carter: in the strongest financial shape.
Carter: No sense leaving that for the next leader. He
Carter: He may as well just piss it all away.
Carter: So, you know, you've got the fall to really ramp up your digital advertising on the party's dime. You may as well do that and really target your own members. Shannon,
SPEAKER_01: So, you know,
Zain: Shannon, I see you nodding and agreeing to that. I'll ask you the question on Carter's Lane, which is anything you would do to disadvantage Pallieva over the summer season between now and,
Zain: and, let's say, obviously the by-election, but even extending into January?
Shannon: Oh, I'd be coming at him from the right as much and as often as I could because that's where the vulnerability is. It's not coming from Doug Ford. Doug Ford is happy being mayor of Ontario until they take him out of there in a pine box, right? Like, he's not going anywhere. The challenge to Pierre Pallieva is not coming from the centre-right. It's not coming from the Chamber of Commerce Conservatives. That's what we're used to in Alberta.
Zain: Commerce Conservatives. That's what we're used to in Alberta. It's
Shannon: It's
Shannon: It's coming from the Lulu's on the right. And so, yeah, I would be finding one or two of those to just start, like, creating just an absolute gong show. But Carter's right that they've got more money than really anyone. And, you know, Pierre Polyover could really and
Shannon: and probably should shore
Shannon: shore himself up with
Shannon: with the membership on digital ad. And he might have to if somebody comes at him from the right. Right. Can
Zain: Can I ask you guys this? And this is leaning into the provincial side a bit more. But do you feel like the current situation we have with separatism in Alberta, could that metastasize to an operation on the federal level in any meaningful way? We've always talked about it metastasizing into a splinter of the right provincially. But I'm curious what role and impact, especially now that we're tripling down in Alberta, right, like polyads running in an Alberta seat. This is going to be an Alberta convention in January. You're probably calling a lot of Alberta ridings. Do you see the separatism force metastasizing at all federally, not
Zain: just provincially? Anyone want to take that first?
Shannon: Well, it very well could. I mean, we will recall that that was the Reform Party, essentially. You know, when we essentially had two big brokerage parties and the New Democrats were kind of sidelined after the 88 and certainly after the, well, I mean, in the 93, that was when a bunch of Reform Partiers took seats from the New Democrats, right? And so we've seen some some of this movie before, in terms of when the two, when the blue and the red become really big tent brokerage parties, there are factions
Shannon: factions that get left out. And that's what that's what led to the creation of the Reform Party. Now, the issue with with Polly Everett is that his Alberta caucus and certainly Saskatchewan and that kind of caucus, they're very, very docile, right?
Shannon: right? There's There's not a whole lot of people storming their barricades among that membership. There might be Kenan Bextie's father is now a Bow River member of parliament. There's some elements that might bubble up there. But historically, the Alberta caucus in particular is pretty somnolent, put it that way.
Carter: elements that
Shannon: Carter,
Carter: Carter,
Zain: we're
Carter: we're
Shannon: we're
Carter: we're recording here Monday. Monday. Psalm, Psalm. Yeah, yeah. It's good. It's also the episode
Shannon: we're
Zain: we're recording here Monday. Monday.
Zain: Yeah, yeah. It's good. It's also the episode title.
Zain: Okay.
Carter: Okay.
SPEAKER_01: Okay.
Carter: Okay. That's good.
Zain: Yeah.
Zain: We're going to give it all three spellings that you think it is. So go ahead. Yeah, I can't. I have no idea. I
Carter: Yeah, I can't. I have no idea. I have no idea. I am the brown person administering a spelling
Zain: no
Zain: idea. I am the brown person administering a spelling bee. It's good. I should be able to spell it. My people should be able to spell it. Your people
Carter: It's good. I
Carter: it. Your people should, but we have no expectations from you. This is true. Very true. Yeah.
Zain: Very true.
Zain: true. Yeah. Carter, let's talk about the G7. We record you on Monday, Monday afternoon.
Carter: Uh-huh.
Zain: -huh.
Zain: Carney's at the G7. He had a bilateral with Trump this morning. A lot of other fucking people showed up.
Zain: I'm going to read you a quote. While conceding he's a terrorist person who likes the relative simplicity of imposing broad-based tariffs on goods from other countries to raise revenue and try to bring back jobs to the U.S., Trump said Carney has come forward with a different concept, and it's one some people like, and we're going to see if we can get to the bottom of it today. Quote, I think Mark has a more complex idea, but it's still very good. Unquote, Trump said of some sort of trade pitch that Carney has made to the Americans, a proposal that is yet to be made public. I think we're going to accomplish a lot, quote unquote, from Trump at the end there.
Zain: Carter, expectations
Zain: expectations were high. It wasn't that just Carney just wanted to host the G7. That was a that was what was given to him. It seems like he wants to now convene the G7 and be something at the G7. Talk
Zain: to me about where we're at. We're obviously reacting to this in real time. But that quote is fascinating to me, which is why I pulled it out. Which
Zain: Which is Trump praising an alternative proposal by Carney at the G7 with a lot of observer countries or whatever you'd call them added to the mix. What
Zain: What do you think is happening to the expectations game in real time of one Mr. Mark Carney, prime minister of Canada?
Carter: I have said from the beginning that Mark Carney has a better relationship with Donald Trump because Mark Carney comes from the same class, if you will. Self-made man, made millions of dollars, you know, from the from Northwest Territories, who who comes to you, who comes out and gets a scholarship to Harvard and suddenly makes all the money. I think that Trump has respect for people with money in a way that he doesn't have respect for other levels of politicians. So I think that, you know, Mark Carney coming in and saying, I may not be a billionaire, but a hundred a hundred millionaire, you
Carter: you know, that that brings a lot of of credibility
Carter: credibility to the table. And
Carter: And Mark Carney is taking advantage of that credibility. I
Carter: I would love to be able to see what the proposals are, because those proposals, you know, one of the I think that, you know, Donald Trump's proposals have been written on the back of a napkin and crayon. And
Carter: And I'm quite certain that Mark Carney's Mark Carney's
Carter: are probably a lot more like stained glass that you color in paint by number, you know, because he needs to communicate with Donald Trump and make sure that Donald Trump actually understands what is the proposal that's being made. and
Carter: feels like it's akin or
Carter: or relationship or close to the
Carter: the proposal that he's made. I would love to be able to see it. I'm very impressed with how Mark Carney is managing the G7 overall. And
Carter: And I think that this is going to be
Carter: be an absolute highlight, whether it actually translates to the voters or not.
Carter: But I think that this is, you know, for the watchers, this has been amazing to this point. You know, here we are halfway through day one, but still very, very impressive.
Zain: very, very
Zain: It is interesting. And I'm going to ask you the same question, Shannon. What has this done to the expectations game? And I'll tag on the answer Carter gave me that I didn't ask, which is, what are you now thinking of, Mark Carney, as you sit here halfway through, a little bit more than halfway through day one of
Zain: of the G7 in Kananaskis?
Shannon: Well, I mean, quite frankly, I don't know yet. This is like taking a toddler to the grocery store, right? Like you're halfway through. Is it going well? Well, yeah, OK, it is so far.
Shannon: But, you know, the full blown meltdown could still happen in
Shannon: in the middle of the chip aisle. You never know. And so I don't think that we should get ahead of ourselves here. Like he's doing his best. And and clearly what's happening on the tariff side is he has put something before Trump that weaves in some of the national security stuff. Yeah.
Carter: Yeah. Some
Shannon: Some of the defense spending stuff and uses that as leverage or a tradeoff against baking in an ongoing tariff, because we know that that's Trump's bias. So he's already done it with the UK and he's trying to do it with the whole world. And he essentially said this morning, you know, everyone has our deal, right? Because we'll just write them a letter and tell them that here's your across-the-board tariff for the rest of time. That's the trade deal if you don't make a deal with us, right? And so we know that's the default. And so what Carney is doing is putting something in front of him that does not bake in an across-the-board or even auto or steel-specific tariff for the rest of time in a way that really rewrites the terms of Kuzma. That is what he is, you know, without having seen anything, that's what he's trying to do. And I don't think they could get it over the line for the G7 because there was too much in there that baked in a fundamental rewrite of access to markets for us. and so now we're going to go into this place where he's just trying to leverage the defense stuff and some of the procurement maybe uh some of that against you know if we do this then you will not tariff us on that is is my hunch i that's that's what my gut is where this is going um and he's he's playing it out beautifully so far and and i have read some reporting that you know they tried to structure it in a way that would make uh the toddler happy as well right so in in smaller chunks of time because he doesn't like everyone going around the horn, seven people. He doesn't like having to sit through a
Carter: some
Shannon: a lot of that because it annoys him. So they've structured even
Shannon: even today in a way that doesn't make him
Shannon: him too tired. He gets his nap, his blankie, his snack,
Shannon: and they can kind of manage any
Shannon: any meltdowns that might happen. It really does put me in mind of back in the day managing two little boys in the grocery store. I
Zain: think it's a very fascinating analogy, and I think probably an apt one. Carter, here's the thing.
Zain: Raw politics here. A
Zain: better, more perfect deal end of summer or
Zain: a good enough deal today
Zain: at
Zain: at the G7? Today, tomorrow, right? Which would you take as someone advising Carney for the domestic political implications? Good enough deal this week? Mic drop? Or would you take a better deal, more negotiation, more hand ringing over the summer down the road. I know you've talked about that. He probably has the summer. Should he need it? But
Zain: I'm curious where we sit now and the pieces we see on the board, what you as a practitioner would take, as a strategist would take today? Good
Carter: enough today.
Carter: Good enough right now. Today, tomorrow, the next day. And the reason is, I'm not sure. We just don't know what the mercurial waves of the toddler are going to be. I'm loving Shannon's analogy. He is a toddler. He is currently thinking that Mark Carney is a good guy that he wants to negotiate with. That could change. He said that in his quote and
SPEAKER_01: currently thinking
Shannon: thinking
Zain: He said that in his quote and in multiple quotes. Yeah.
Carter: Yeah. Mark Carney could become the devil incarnate by the end of August. Your best bet is to take what you can get early, as long as it's acceptable to the Canadian people. And I suspect that Mark Carney will be able to find a way to make it acceptable to the Canadian people. But But it is a it's
Carter: it's a crapshoot if you go any longer. If you and it's a crapshoot if you go past today. Every day is a crapshoot with with Donald Trump. Shannon's not wrong. You've got the toddler in the grocery store. How's it going to end? Who the hell knows? Generally speaking, the breakdown happens somewhere in the treat aisle. So we're
Carter: we're probably at the treat aisle right about now.
Zain: right
Zain: Shannon, would you take good enough today? day. The Starmer has actually taken good enough yesterday and he's paying a bit of a political consequence. So I am curious, you know, there is the home field advantage of the G7. There's a current political moment. This would certainly be a mic drop of being able to convene, host and do all those things.
Zain: But there is the political ramifications of down the line of what you have made your populace live with and how that kind of ultimately lands
Zain: with people. Well, how would would you be thinking about this?
Shannon: I would be thinking of it as purely in terms of what it means for the Canadian economy and what it means for unemployment
Shannon: unemployment in the industrial base of the country. And so I would take the risk of later, because we know Taco, right?
Shannon: right? We absolutely know that he can back down. He's probably stronger politically today than he is tomorrow, than he is the day after that, the day after that.
Shannon: And so the risks that Carter identifies are absolutely real, but I would not want to bake in an across-the-board tariff or some kind of forever situation on auto and steel and aluminum
Shannon: that moves too far outside the bounds of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement. I just wouldn't. He's too weak
Shannon: weak in the future. And we almost know that for sure, right?
Shannon: right?
Shannon: Politically, anyway. He's too
Carter: Politically, anyway. He's too crazy in the future. We do know that for sure.
Carter: The craziness of the future is impossible to predict.
Carter: Strength and weakness is all relative.
Zain: We're going to use that and move on to our final segment, our over, under, and our lightning round. Stephen Carter, as you know, regardless
Zain: regardless of time of day, we do this for you.
Zain: Thank you. This segment is for you. Here's my question for you. First one, I'll ask Shannon in a moment.
Carter: Thank you. This segment
Zain: 24 hours until the G7's over. Lack of a better term. I think it is, actually. 24 hours or so.
Zain: Advice for Carney over the next 24 hours. What would they be? Keep
Carter: doing what you're doing. The photos are great. The imagery that's coming out of the G7 is exactly what it should be. Some modest inconvenience for Calgarians. But overall, I'd say that the G7 is
Carter: is functioning the way, you
Carter: you know, better than anybody would dream of.
Carter: And coming to Calgary and doing it in the Kananaskis region
Carter: region looks
Carter: fairly inspired right now. The photos that are coming out are absolutely
Carter: absolutely wonderful.
Zain: Give me one second on this, Shannon, before I come to you. Explain more to me about why it's looking so good. Like, is it just the photos? Because you mentioned that twice. So I want to dig into this a bit more. Like, what is giving you the keep doing what you're doing, Carney? Like, is it the reporting? Is it the photo? Like, give me the package, Carter. What are you buying at such great quantities that you're loving right now? The
Carter: such great
Carter: The one-on-one photographs, the stuff that's coming out, you know, with Starmer taking photographs of the G7 site, the interactions with Donald Trump, the one-on-one nature of this G7 to this point, the way that it looks like Mark Carney is everywhere talking to everyone all at once. That to me is really driving the agenda. And it's the photographic video intensive
Carter: intensive outcome of all of this. I'm not sure that the man sat down for 48 hours, but he doesn't need to. He just needs to get out and
Carter: and and
Carter: and have
Carter: have as many meetings as humanly possible and have those photographs taken. And the Canadian people will be like, that
Carter: that looks pretty great. And the backdrop is phenomenal. It is one of the most beautiful places on earth, and it looks like one of the most beautiful places on earth.
Zain: I think that's such an important point, both the geography, but I also love your point about actually hosting. Hosting is not just providing the space for facilitation. We've seen any good house party, the host introduces people to one another, is the person who knows the guest list the best, is the person who can circulate, is the person that I can make introductions. And I think to that point you just made, Carter, Carney seems to be doing quite well. Now, I might be overreaching, you and I might be overreaching, which is why we have Shannon. Shannon, advice you'd be giving to Carney over the next 24, what would they be?
Shannon: Oh, I think they've played this pretty beautifully. Like, I guess we're all Carney-pilled in some ways, but I'm finding a hard way to find fault with this, right? I mean, we'll see what comes out of the communique and we'll see what happens in the next 24 hours on the Israel-Iran conflict Because it could just kind of sort of pull the whole thing off in a different direction and even cause conflict in the attendees. It could possibly. But what he's done is he's recreated essentially the big countries of the G20 at the G7. He's provided some of those opportunities for Canada to look like a leader on the world stage. And despite the fact that when Trudeau became prime minister in 15, the whole thing was Canada is back on the world stage.
Shannon: We were not necessarily, I think, because of the defense piece,
Shannon: considered to be the player that even Australia is with a smaller population. And, you know, for geopolitical reasons, Australia has become sort of more important on the world stage, right? China and relationship
Shannon: relationship with Southeast Asia and so on. And
Shannon: And so watching that happen, kind of going back to some of that, you know, Pearson era kind of leadership is something that I think a lot of Canadians, particularly the Canadians that elected Mark Carney because they were, you know, old people, are really looking for. And he is giving them what they want there and what they voted for. So I don't think there necessarily needs to be a tariff deal as long as, as Trump is like saying, like sort of nice mumbles like he already did.
Shannon: And some of the bilat stuff, you know, that can go out and become headlines in their own right that don't even maybe have to do with Canadians. If the Aussies conclude some sort of deal with somebody or, you know, Brazil does some trade stuff, it kind of places us within to take our rightful place, I think, and as more of a player than we have been historically. And that is only a good thing, I think, as we go into some more turbulent global times. Two
Zain: Two more questions. Shannon, I'll start with you again on this one. Overrated or underrated, the
Zain: the Carney commitment for the 2% on
Zain: on the NATO defense spending. What overrated or underrated in your mind? And, of course, we're saying this with the still
Zain: still active and alive G7, which I've mentioned multiple times, but on
Zain: on its own, overrated,
Zain: overrated, underrated.
Shannon: Well, people don't really care. So, you know, the polling data, the reason why Canada has never done it is because the polling data puts that pretty low. And it's expensive. Billions of dollars. It's not just expensive. It will displace a lot of programs when Canadians go, oh, yes, we need to tighten our belts. We should displace programs. And then when it's the stuff that comes into their bank account, they get mad. Right. Right. Because I don't think people quite get the extent to which that child tax benefit is a massive amount of money every month. And, you know, the seniors benefits are quite generous in this country compared to many other countries indexed to inflation, all the rest of it.
SPEAKER_01: And it's expensive. Billions of dollars.
SPEAKER_01: Because I don't
Shannon: You know, there's there's a bunch of different ways in which the government of Canada supports our daily lives. And then there's the health and social transfers on top of that that supports our provinces. So the fiscal situation becomes extremely tight for something that people only
Shannon: only theoretically actually want. Right.
Shannon: So there are risks and downsides to doing this once you start cutting things like employment, social development, Canada programs. Once you start cutting Indigenous services or, you know, seniors benefits of various kinds, workforce development, stuff of various kinds, even border or passport services or you name it, the kind of stuff, CRA, that the government of Canada does. I still think there are risks in doing it. He's made the commitments. I have no earthly idea how he's going to get $9 billion extra out the door this year. Out the door, yeah. I leave that to them.
Zain: this year. Out the door, yeah. I
Zain: Carter, overrated or underrated, the 2% commitment?
Carter: I think that it's underrated for the relationship with Trump. It's one of those things that Trump has demanded kind of as the minimum entry point to any negotiations. And we've met that minimum entry point now. And I think that that is an important number that we'll be talking
Carter: talking about. Donald Trump will certainly be impressed by it. Whether
Carter: Whether we actually get $9 billion more. And potentially take credit for it. Yeah. Yeah.
Zain: $9 billion more. And potentially take credit for it. Yeah. Yeah.
Zain: Yeah. You
Carter: You know, we
Carter: may, we may not, you know, but we've committed to it. We've committed to it. That's what matters, Carter. It's something that's matter. That's all that matters. Yeah.
Zain: That's what matters, Carter. It's something that's
Zain: Final question. I'm going to start with you. Yes or no? No. By the end of tomorrow, do we have a Canada-U.S. trade deal?
Carter: No. By
Carter: do we
Carter: No. Shannon,
Zain: by the end of tomorrow, G7 officially wrapping up. Do we have a trade deal?
Shannon: Canadians have briefed on background that probably not. So unless they're really trying to set expectations, I'd say no. We're
Zain: going to leave it there. That's a wrap on episode 1875 of The Strategist. My name is Zane Velji. With me as always, Shannon Phillips, Stephen Carter, and we shall see you next time.
SPEAKER_01: account at CIBC.com slash big A now. Terms and eligibility requirements apply. CIBC. Ambitions made real.