Juno News - Legacy Media bias EXPOSED by Juno News analysis. You’ll never guess the worst offender!

00:00:00.000 Hi, I'm Candice Malcolm, and this is The Candice Malcolm Show. I hope everyone had a wonderful

00:00:06.640 long weekend. I don't usually take long weekends off unless they're like religious holidays,

00:00:11.320 but given that Easter happened during the election, we didn't really take any time off

00:00:15.280 around here at Geno News. I took the day with my family, and I have to say I'm feeling

00:00:19.000 very refreshed and energized to start the week, and great to be back with you. Now, folks,

00:00:23.460 you know this, and I know this. The legacy media is lying to you. They are lying to you. They are

00:00:28.300 pretending that they are neutral, that they are the arbiters of facts and the truth, but they're

00:00:32.760 not. And so we decided here at Geno News to do an analysis. We actually worked with ChatGPT,

00:00:38.580 which is an AI search engine, and had ChatGPT analyze all of the news stories by the legacy

00:00:44.700 media during the election and assign them a score. And I'm going to walk you through this report

00:00:50.040 today on the show, and you will be surprised. I was surprised by who the worst offender, who the

00:00:54.620 absolute worst, most biased media outlet is in Canada. We're going to get to that very shortly.

00:01:00.140 First, I am pleased to be joined for this episode by my friend Hamish Marshall. Hamish is a director

00:01:05.120 at One Persuasion, which is a polling company and a government relations firm based in Ontario.

00:01:10.960 He was our in-house pollster during the 2021 federal election. Before that, in 2019, he was the national

00:01:17.580 campaign manager for the Conservative Party, and he ran Andrew Scheer's winning leadership campaign.

00:01:22.520 This time around, we had his colleague, David Murray, also of One Persuasion as our in-house

00:01:28.500 pollster. And I know we all very much enjoy having David's insights during the campaign. But

00:01:33.340 Hamish, it's great to have you back on the show. How are you?

00:01:36.600 It's great to be here. Fantastic. It was nice to take the long weekend away with the kids as well.

00:01:40.940 Great. Well, I want to walk through this report that we just put out at Geno News, because I think it

00:01:46.760 tells us what we all knew, which is that the media lies to us. The media is biased. And so I'll just

00:01:51.660 explain what we did. We worked with the search engine, the AI search engine, chat GPT, and had

00:01:56.480 them look at every single article that was published by the legacy media throughout the

00:02:00.520 course of the campaign. And we had them assign a score. So they looked at the stories that

00:02:05.440 focused on Mark Carney. And if the story was very favorable to Mark Carney, he got a plus two.

00:02:11.280 If it was somewhat favorable, plus one. If it was neutral, zero. And then if it was critical,

00:02:15.640 they got minus one and very critical, minus two. And so, and then they did the same thing

00:02:21.220 for Pierre Polyev. So first I'll talk about CTV. CTV came in third place, the third worst offender

00:02:26.680 in our list here. And overall, looking at all the stories in the campaign, Carney had a score of plus

00:02:33.820 three, whereas Polyev had a negative nine. So you could just tell just from that, that Polyev was

00:02:40.960 viewed much more negatively by CTV. Carney much more positively, plus three. Second place,

00:02:46.480 second worst offender was CBC. And this may surprise you. I would have assumed that they

00:02:50.500 were the worst, but they're not. They're the second worst. So they had Carney, Mark Carney plus

00:02:55.000 five and Pierre Polyev negative 11. I don't think that would surprise anyone that Polyev was painted

00:03:00.780 in a negative light for more, more often than not. In fact, when we looked at the stories,

00:03:05.200 we couldn't find any examples of positive, of very positive coverage of Pierre Polyev.

00:03:10.000 But the worst offender, Hamish, was the Globe and Mail. The Globe and Mail. They're seen as the

00:03:15.800 national newspaper record in Canada, like to put themselves as being, you know, honest and sincere

00:03:20.260 journalists. But they had Mark Carney at plus nine and Pierre Polyev at negative 15, which was the

00:03:26.960 biggest delta, the biggest difference, the most negative coverage. So Canadians that are consuming

00:03:31.900 their news from these outlets, I would say these are probably the biggest, the most popular

00:03:35.760 one CBC, CTV on television. And then the Globe and Mail is still probably the most read newspaper in

00:03:40.940 Canada. All of them would have given you a very negative impression of Pierre Polyev, positive of

00:03:47.560 Mark Carney. What do you make of that?

00:03:49.220 Well, I mean, I'm not entirely shocked. I would have thought the CBC would be worse as well. But

00:03:53.940 the Globe and Mail, Mark Carney is the Globe and Mail's sort of liberal. You know, he hearkens,

00:03:58.840 he presents himself, of course, as this pragmatic, business friendly liberal, and not the eco radical

00:04:05.080 that it's pretty clear from his book that he is. So he's a sort of liberal that they would have

00:04:10.240 loved to support. And I think we can see in the in the in these figures that have come out that

00:04:13.920 that's clearly where their minds at. The thing that maybe helped the CBC not get the worst place prize

00:04:19.480 was that what I found in the election is if there was a story that was bad about Carney, something had

00:04:24.120 happened, he had to fire a candidate or something objectively bad happened, the CBC just wouldn't

00:04:28.060 cover it. So they wouldn't even write a story that was they wouldn't try to make a bad story look a

00:04:32.680 bit better or put a positive spin on it. They just simply wouldn't mention it at all. So I wonder

00:04:36.940 how much that had an impact on the on making the CBC and not appear quite as bad as as the Globe and

00:04:42.360 Mail. Well, I think that there's also been like a decade of preconditioning for the CBC or probably

00:04:47.140 longer, right? But the one thing I noticed throughout the entire Trump era, the first time around his

00:04:52.240 first presidency was that the CBC lead story would always be Trump related. Like it didn't matter how big of a

00:04:57.880 scandal Justin Trudeau had gotten himself into how horrible something horrible that he had done for

00:05:02.560 our country. The lead story on the national news for CBC was always orange man bad Trump terrible. So

00:05:08.560 you're right, in some ways, it's like they don't even need to cover the Canadian election in a certain

00:05:12.140 way. It's just the choice of what stories they covered. And I'm sure that that happened during this

00:05:16.720 campaign where they were, you know, lead story was something horrible about Donald Trump, which would

00:05:21.120 make we've made Canadians who were watching feel fearful without even mentioning the Canadian

00:05:27.000 election. And this is something that we have. And so overall, we did something called the tilt

00:05:31.000 scoreboard. And so this is a number from one to 10. So if you're a one, you were tilting heavily

00:05:36.140 towards Mark Carney. If you were a 10, you would have been tilted heavily towards Pierre Poliev. A five

00:05:41.760 would be neutral. The Globe and Mail score tilt score was a one. CBC News was somewhere between a two or

00:05:47.880 three and CTV was three. So none of them even close to neutral. They were all markably heavily pro

00:05:55.160 Carney in this campaign. And, you know, in some ways, it's predictable, but it's such a disservice

00:06:01.120 when you look at how close the election was. I haven't had you on since the election results came

00:06:05.660 in. We had the conservatives coming in at around 41 percent, the liberals coming in at around 43 percent.

00:06:11.680 You know, that's a close election. Even if it didn't translate necessarily that way, it looks like

00:06:15.920 Carney's going to find a way to edge as close to a majority government as possible. But with such a

00:06:21.420 close campaign, I think it's clear that the media was the deciding factor in this campaign. What do

00:06:26.260 you think? Oh, I think they were absolutely a huge asset in Carney's arsenal. No question. I think it's

00:06:33.120 also interesting that these most biased media are, you know, in television and newspapers. And it was

00:06:40.880 a skew there towards older, older viewers and older readers, older people. We've seen that there was a

00:06:46.760 huge age difference in this campaign where younger people supported the conservatives at a much higher

00:06:51.760 level and liberals were much more likely to be over 55, over 65. And I think it's not a coincidence

00:06:58.740 that as, you know, I don't know anybody. I'm 46. I don't know anybody my age who has cable anymore.

00:07:04.840 I don't know people who watch CBC news anymore. But, you know, my who are my age, my parents do.

00:07:11.680 And I think the demographic of people who still watch the legacy media is very much older. And I

00:07:16.960 don't think there's a coincidence. That's a coincidence. It's a bit of a chicken in the egg.

00:07:20.720 Perhaps they gave their viewers who are already leading that way something that they were expecting.

00:07:25.440 They played to their audience. But on the other hand, it probably also influenced a large chunk of

00:07:28.780 their audience to, you know, give Carney a second look or to give them reasons not to vote conservative.

00:07:35.500 So, but the great news is that as this process keeps happening, as this mainstream media becomes

00:07:40.420 less and less relevant as time goes on with each passing week.

00:07:44.240 Well, I want to visit the polls with you because I know you're a pollster and we here at Juno News

00:07:49.240 are quite critical. Actually, we're still skeptical, Hamish, of the legacy media that that's why we decided

00:07:53.560 to do our own Juno polls throughout the campaign. We worked with David Murray.

00:07:56.740 And we had our own look. So, like, when I talk to friends, people are like, oh, were you surprised

00:08:01.920 or disappointed by the election outcome? I'm like, no, that's pretty much what I thought would happen

00:08:05.300 because we had the polls and the numbers that David was giving us is pretty much exactly what it turned

00:08:10.420 into on election night off by a point or two. But I did notice that the legacy media and their

00:08:15.520 mainstream polls, and specifically the polling aggravators, did not get things quite so accurate.

00:08:21.620 And so I, you know, we talked about this on the show before that many of the legacy media outlets

00:08:28.100 were projecting that it was going to be a big liberal blowout, that the liberals were going to

00:08:31.880 get historic numbers. Some of the polling at the very end had the conservatives polling in the sort

00:08:36.240 of mid to upper 30s where they ended up getting 41 percent. I don't think anyone accurately projected

00:08:41.240 the numbers as they came in. I'm curious, though, what's your perspective? Are you as skeptical

00:08:46.140 about the pollsters as I am? No, I look, I'm a professional pollster. So I and I believe most

00:08:52.620 not maybe not all, but most people in this industry are trying to do their best to get the right

00:08:57.140 numbers. There's parameters, there's things that make that difficult. But I think they're coming

00:09:00.620 there with the intention of being accurate. What I will say is that the on average, when you look at

00:09:07.180 the final results, and you look at what the what the pollsters had conservatives, they were down about

00:09:12.700 on average about 2 percent lower than what the conservatives actually got. I think it worked

00:09:16.300 out sort of 39.7 or I'm not sure. So it's 39 point something. If you look at the final poll of-

00:09:22.220 I have the final vote based on the aggregate from 338. So they had the liberal party at 42,

00:09:29.580 they projected the conservatives would come in at 39, NDP nine, block six, green two. Compare that to

00:09:35.180 what actually happened was that the liberals finished at 43.8, conservatives 41.3, NDP at 6.3,

00:09:42.140 block at 6.3 and green at 1.2. So yeah, they look like they got the conservatives wrong by

00:09:47.980 2.3 percent and the liberals by 1.8 percent. Yeah. So like that's pretty accurate. These

00:09:56.540 polls often have a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent. So those numbers are not,

00:10:00.780 they're not, I don't think that's the indictment of the industry. And they got there in the end.

00:10:05.340 It's also a bit systematic. If you go back and look at the last two elections, conservative votes,

00:10:10.060 the final projections before the election, they always underestimate conservative vote by an

00:10:15.900 average of about 2 percent, but it's not like it's 8 percent. There's a couple of pollsters that are

00:10:19.980 way off, of course, but on average, the numbers are, especially if they were down by the liberals,

00:10:24.220 by a couple of points, it's not that bad. What I think happened and what I saw in the campaign was

00:10:29.580 that we obviously saw polling that in some cases earlier in the campaign, a couple of weeks

00:10:33.100 into the campaign showed the conservatives down 8, 10, 12 points, depending on the pollster. And we were

00:10:38.460 hearing from conservative campaigners this incredible response to the door. And there was this dichotomy.

00:10:45.020 What ended up happening is that, first of all, a couple of things happened. One is I think

00:10:49.500 as the last three weeks of the campaign, the conservatives ran a very good campaign in the

00:10:52.700 last three weeks of the campaign and made up a lot of votes and actually gained momentum throughout the

00:10:56.700 campaign. And if the campaign had got another week or two, I think the results could have been very,

00:11:01.420 very different. The other thing that happened is that conservatives at the doors

00:11:04.300 were getting good results because we were, we were seeing the conservatives were finding support

00:11:09.020 of the doors at a level higher than they're ever used to being. To get 41.4% of the vote,

00:11:14.860 as the conservatives did in the end, that's a higher level than any party in Canada since 1988

00:11:21.500 federal election. So there's no concern, any conservative that's been involved in campaigning

00:11:26.700 at any point since say 1993 has been, has been used to seeing lower results of the doors overall.

00:11:33.420 This felt very good on the ground. And we heard anecdotal stories. I know your reporters found

00:11:37.820 anecdotal stories of lots of people out supporting conservatives because conservatives did far better

00:11:42.780 than they ever had historically. They got 8 million votes. I mean, no party had ever gotten more than 7

00:11:47.580 million in the past. And frankly, what Carney profited from more than anything else wasn't the strength

00:11:53.100 of the liberal party with the complete under collapse of the NDP. This is, you know, I think

00:11:57.820 Pierre Polyev said it after the election, if conservatives have gotten 41.4 in any other

00:12:02.700 election in the last 30 years, it would have been an absolute blowout. And the circumstances were

00:12:08.860 different and obviously it didn't work out this way. But the coalition that has been built that in the

00:12:14.300 end, I think it was, is extremely exciting and extremely powerful. And if Polyev can build on that

00:12:20.620 into the next election, he's going to have an incredible base.

00:12:23.500 Well, it's true. I remember talking to some friends who were out campaigning,

00:12:27.420 specifically in Toronto in the GTA. And I said, I don't care what the pollsters say. This feels

00:12:31.900 like a winning campaign. It feels like we're winning. And I was looking at the numbers and I was saying,

00:12:35.980 yeah, that's because it's possible that Polyev will get a higher percentage of the vote than Stephen

00:12:41.180 Harper ever did and still lose and still lose to a majority liberal government. I'm just pleased that the

00:12:46.940 conservatives were able to hold Carney to a minority, although it looks like it's getting

00:12:51.500 pretty close and pretty tight. So overall, Hamish, what is your analysis? Do you think that Polyev

00:12:57.500 ran a good campaign? Is he going to stay on as leader? When do you think the next election will be?

00:13:01.180 Do you think Carney will be able to put together a majority here? Or do you think that we'll have

00:13:04.860 a minority that typically lasts, you know, 18 to 24 months?

00:13:08.540 Oh, there's a lot of that. Look, I think the campaign was well run. I think the campaign,

00:13:13.740 especially the last three weeks really came together. Polyev's performance in the debates,

00:13:17.740 I think were a very strong asset for him. He did very well. And I think that we saw over that time,

00:13:25.740 the conservative base grow and got them out to vote in a good way. Obviously not enough,

00:13:30.700 more needs to be done. But I think the campaign, especially the part, particularly in April,

00:13:35.340 was very, very good. I think that Polyev should and will stay on. I think he's got the support

00:13:42.860 of the vast majority of conservatives. And, you know, even the people I know who didn't support

00:13:48.460 him in the original leadership when he ran it, when he won three years ago, are now saying things like,

00:13:53.340 well, last thing we need is more leadership turmoil. We've been dumping leaders after each

00:13:57.100 election. Let's have some continuity. Let's build from here. So I think he's going to stay on as leader.

00:14:02.540 And I don't think Carney's going to get to a majority. There's two seats left to be recounted.

00:14:10.060 The Liberals are on paper ahead in one, and the Conservatives are on paper ahead in the other.

00:14:16.220 The one the Conservatives are ahead in, I think, is by enough that it would be very,

00:14:20.380 very difficult to be overcome in a recount. The one the Liberals are ahead in is only 12 votes.

00:14:25.660 Anyway, we'll see what happens there, but I don't think he's going to get to a majority.

00:14:30.540 Look, the biggest thing for him, for Carney's ability to stay on, comes down to the revival of

00:14:36.140 the NDP. The Bloc, we'll see what they do. They said they don't want an election for a year. They

00:14:39.980 need to raise money. If their polling number, if the Bloc's polling numbers get good in Quebec,

00:14:45.180 I think we'll see them going on the warpath, but that's not enough. It's going to come down to the

00:14:49.420 NDP, or what's left of the Greens, I suppose, depending on what the actual numbers are in the

00:14:53.340 end. And the NDP leadership, I don't think it's going to be that quick. I think we're going to see the

00:14:58.060 NDP take a year, 18 months. And I don't think there's any chance of there being an election

00:15:02.940 until the NDP have a new leader and have maybe shown some signs of life and stop polling in

00:15:10.540 single digits. Well, we showed this image on the show, I think last week, that in Canada,

00:15:16.620 I think that the rebate, you get a rebate from the government, taxpayers subsidize political parties,

00:15:21.420 if you get 10% of the vote in a riding. And I think the NDP missed that in the overwhelming

00:15:26.780 majority, like 85% or something like that. So we've talked about this a lot at Juna News and on

00:15:32.780 the Candace Malcolm show that the NDP has financial problems and they take on a lot of debt to run

00:15:37.260 these campaigns. And part of the reason, I know part of the reason why Jagmeet Singh never triggered

00:15:41.820 an election was because he wanted his pension or because he wanted to be in that power seat.

00:15:45.900 And he said that he was doing everything he could to block the conservatives from getting into

00:15:49.980 government, which is not really his job. But anyway, I think a big part of it that is unspoken

00:15:54.940 is that the finances of that party are in shambles. And right now they don't have a leader. So

00:15:59.420 I don't see any incentive whatsoever for them to try to force another election when they just

00:16:03.900 aren't organized and don't have that. I do want to talk about Pierre Polyev though,

00:16:08.460 because it seems like we're going to have a parliament without Polyev at first anyway.

00:16:13.340 CTV was reporting that the clock starts ticking on the by-election of Polyev as he hopes to return

00:16:18.380 to parliament. So according to federal law, Damian Couric, who stepped aside so that Polyev could

00:16:23.660 take a seat, they're saying that he must sit as member of parliament for 30 days before he could

00:16:27.820 tender his resignation. After that, the Speaker of the House of Commons would have to report the

00:16:32.780 vacancy to the chief electoral officer, at which point the government would have 11 to 180 days to

00:16:37.980 call a by-election. By-elections can last a minimum 36 days. So the soonest that Polyev could

00:16:44.940 be elected would be early August. There's of course a holiday in early August. So we might not be talking

00:16:50.140 until the second week of August. Now Mark Carney had previously said that he won't delay and that

00:16:56.140 he'll get Polyev the opportunity with a by-election as fast as possible. We have a clip of him saying

00:17:02.300 that. Let's play that. I've already indicated to Mr. Polyev that if it's the decision of him and the

00:17:09.260 Conservative Party to trigger, if I can put it that way, a by-election, I will ensure that it happens as

00:17:16.780 soon as possible. No games, nothing, straight. Yeah, so the CBC was like applauding him and

00:17:23.420 cheering him on last week saying what a great guy. He's not even being partisan. He's just letting

00:17:27.900 Polyev have a seat right away. But then of course these convoluted rules step in and it looks like

00:17:33.180 we are going to have a summer without Polyev in the House. What do you make of all this strategically? 1.00

00:17:37.020 What do you think Polyev should be doing? Well look, I think these are the rules. The reason they have to

00:17:41.820 wait 30 days is that 30 days is the time that someone can legally challenge the outcome of an

00:17:46.780 election. So in theory, if the election, if someone could file a challenge saying Damien

00:17:53.180 Keurig cheated and therefore shouldn't be the MP, then he wouldn't be allowed to resign. So they have

00:17:56.780 to wait for that 30-day period to be gone in order for him to allow to resign. Look, I frankly think

00:18:03.980 that it's going to be a very short session of Parliament starting next week or whenever it is.

00:18:10.540 Very soon. It'll be over in three or four weeks. You know, Mr. Polyev I'm sure will be

00:18:15.660 around the House of Commons. We'll still be able to scrum in front of the House of Commons as he

00:18:19.580 always did. And we'll have a few last clips of him in question period. But he'll be back in the House

00:18:25.740 for the return of the House in September, which is when, you know, things will start getting really,

00:18:32.780 really interesting. I think, you know, Carney and most of his MPs are probably still finding their way to

00:18:36.780 the washroom right now and around the House of the Commons. I don't expect this

00:18:40.460 first session to be particularly exciting. So I don't think it makes a massive difference.

00:18:45.740 Of course, we'll have, as I said, a few last clips of Polyev tearing the Liberals to shreds 1.00

00:18:50.540 in the House. But I think we can all manage for a few weeks. So I don't think it's that big of a deal.

00:18:58.140 And it gets an opportunity for Polyev to spend the summer out

00:19:01.100 doing the barbecue circuit as well. So I don't think it's a big problem.

00:19:07.340 Now, so one of the big news stories to come out of last week was that the Carney Liberals will not

00:19:14.460 table a budget this spring. They claim that they don't have time. And so instead, we won't get one

00:19:19.660 until the fall. Of course, we didn't get one. I mean, the fall economic budget, it was kind of in

00:19:26.380 shambles. That was right when Chrystia Freeland was resigning. And it seems to me we don't have

00:19:32.060 any sort of financial accountability right now. And, you know, given that Mark Carney said that he's

00:19:38.140 here to help manage the crisis, that this is a crisis that we're dealing with with the tariffs,

00:19:42.540 it just seems wildly irresponsible for someone as professional and grown up and mature as we're

00:19:49.100 told that Mark Carney is, he's the man for crisis, that he can't even get a budget put out. So his

00:19:54.300 finance minister, Francois-Philippe Champagne, basically just said that the world has changed

00:20:01.020 in the last six weeks and that Canadians understand that, therefore we don't need a budget. Let's play

00:20:04.860 that clip. I want to ask you explicitly, will there be an actual budget in 2025? There will be a fall

00:20:11.500 economic statement when we're coming back. How are we as Canadians to hold your government accountable

00:20:16.620 for what you're promising if you're not going to be transparent about it for six months or so? And I

00:20:20.620 take your point about the timeline, their own speech, there's still another month. And I would

00:20:24.140 say this is a new government. So let's start, if we're going to start, this is a new government,

00:20:27.740 new legislature, new prime minister. So the direction is very clear. But you're still the

00:20:32.380 finance minister. Yeah, I'm still the finance minister. And I would say the world has changed

00:20:35.580 also in six weeks. So Canadians understand that. What? What do you make of that, Hamish?

00:20:41.820 I mean, I think it's outrageous, right? I think one of the most important things we always have

00:20:47.420 to remember about Liberals is what they say and what they do is different. And we should always

00:20:52.060 measure them on what they do, not what they say. Because they often say things that at first glance

00:20:55.820 seem very reasonable or smart and actually end up doing terrible things. Carney has come up with this

00:21:01.340 whole brand of being this responsible fiscal manager. And instead, we get this idea that, you know,

00:21:06.060 we might not have a budget all this year. He's now backtracked a little and indicated there might be one,

00:21:10.380 but he'll just rename the fall economic statement as a budget. The fact that he thought that it would

00:21:16.780 be acceptable for him to get elected claiming to be all new, all different as a new type of liberal,

00:21:21.660 and then not have a budget on his supposed strength and economics shows that he's actually not a new

00:21:26.380 type of liberal. He's very, very much in the vein of Justin Trudeau and everything we've seen in the

00:21:31.260 past. And that sort of arrogance and dismissal of the way the government's supposed to work,

00:21:37.260 of the accountability that Canadians desire, I think is going to become a real ring around his neck.

00:21:49.660 I think we're going to discover that Bloom is going to come off this guy very, very, very fast.

00:21:53.500 The smartest thing he ever did was call that election as fast as he did. You know, I've seen,

00:21:59.340 remember Stephen Harper getting elected in January of 2006, and there was still a budget in March.

00:22:05.900 They managed to do that. I don't know why Mr. Kearney couldn't have a budget in June. I'm not

00:22:09.980 saying he has to have one this week, but he could have one in June sometime. That's a perfectly amount,

00:22:14.540 a reasonable amount of time. He's got a platform full of things he thinks are great they should do,

00:22:19.740 that they can cut and paste that in large parts into a budget. It doesn't have to, you know,

00:22:24.460 this is something that is doable. He just didn't think he needed to do it. He isn't actually planning and

00:22:28.620 delivering the change he promised. And I think that's a real problem for him. And, you know,

00:22:33.900 Canadians have every right to be annoyed and disappointed.

00:22:36.940 Well, you're right. I think that to a lot of Canadians,

00:22:40.460 clearly, they felt that Kearney was the change that the country needed. They felt

00:22:44.140 satisfied with the change within the Liberal leadership and said, you know, we'll give Mark

00:22:48.540 Kearney a chance. And I think last week should have been a real eye-opener for many of those Canadians,

00:22:54.300 because sure, Kearney's totally different than Justin Trudeau. He was advising behind the

00:23:00.460 scene for some period of Trudeau's tenure. But still, you know, he has his own experience,

00:23:04.540 his own person. He steps in and he does represent some kind of change. But then for him to release

00:23:08.940 that cabinet and introduce all of the same characters, like, how is it that Canada is going

00:23:14.780 to turn around its fortunes when he still has Melanie Jolie, Stéphane Galbault, Chrysia Freeland,

00:23:21.660 and yes, Francois-Philippe Champagne running the show, right? Like, we're supposed to be impressed by his

00:23:28.380 resume and his Rolodex and all of his connections. Like, where are all these high profile, you know,

00:23:34.540 globalist types that could step in, right? Why isn't he pulling people from Scotiabank and RBC or,

00:23:40.380 you know, London and New York and Goldman Sachs and all of these, like, impressive people who have

00:23:45.660 saved companies and built empires? Like, why aren't any of them stepping in? Why do we have this same

00:23:50.700 pathetic group of people that were standing side by side with Justin Trudeau and destroyed the country? 0.98

00:23:56.540 That's a bit of a rhetorical question. I want to point out that Mark Carney was in Rome. He was 0.97

00:24:00.940 speaking to reporters and he said that there's not much value in a budget, that Canadians just don't

00:24:06.620 really need to know not much value. Let's play that clip. There is not much value in my judgment,

00:24:12.620 and it's considered judgment, and it's judgment based on experience, that there is not much value

00:24:18.620 in trying to rush through a budget in a very narrow window, three weeks, with a new cabinet,

00:24:26.220 effectively a new finance minister.

00:24:28.780 Effectively? No. Champagne was a finance minister before the election as well, and it's a new cabinet.

00:24:34.220 No, I mean, there's one or two new faces. I mean, there are some new faces. Many of them will be

00:24:39.100 familiar. Someone like Evan Solman is a new face, but he's a longtime liberal insider. Same with Gregor

00:24:44.780 Robertson, the longtime mayor of Vancouver, who was an abject failure in that role, and now he's a

00:24:49.740 housing minister. So, you know, you have sort of a new cabinet, but not really. Most of them are

00:24:56.060 Trudeau era liberal cabinet ministers. The new faces are not that new. What do you make of all that?

00:25:02.220 Well, look, I think he's making a huge, huge mistake with putting a lot of these traditional

00:25:06.780 ministers, these old Trudeau ministers, in these senior positions of power. Because I will tell you

00:25:10.380 something. I worked in the prime minister's office many, many years ago, and the government of Canada

00:25:14.700 is a large, unwieldy beast, and it's only become larger since I was there. It's got so many moving

00:25:21.180 parts, and the prime minister can make change. If the prime minister puts his direct personal

00:25:26.860 attention on an issue, he can get the department to do something dramatically different. But it takes

00:25:31.980 force of will, and there's just too many things for any one human to do, which is why we have a

00:25:36.860 cabinet. And, but in many cases, especially if you've got weak cabinet ministers or cabinet ministers

00:25:41.580 who don't really want to do what the prime minister, you know, wants them to do, or sort of

00:25:45.500 feels, they don't feel the urgency, is that things will just drift along. The bureaucratic inertia in

00:25:51.580 Ottawa is incredible. And if you've got a weak minister or a minister who doesn't really want to

00:25:57.260 change things, things will not change. Things will continue in exactly the same path. So even if we

00:26:03.020 take Carney at his word and believe he wants to change things, which I don't, and I think that

00:26:06.780 would be a mistake, but even if we believe he wants to change things, the fact that he's got

00:26:11.180 a bunch of Trudeau retreads who don't really want to change things, and weak other ministers, many of

00:26:15.980 whom have been elected for 15 minutes, really indicates to me that we're going to see very,

00:26:21.660 very much more of the same and very, very little change. The way he's dismissive of the budget,

00:26:26.780 I think is a big mistake. Like I spent a lot of time polling Canadians and working in politics.

00:26:31.260 There's not, you know, we all pay attention to politics far more than the average person,

00:26:35.660 but there are a few big things that people pay attention to. People know that the budget matters.

00:26:39.820 They, you know, interest in politics spikes around budgets, whether provincial budget or federal

00:26:43.660 budget. That's a thing that it's a big set piece that governments see as an asset. The fact that he

00:26:48.940 doesn't even see it as a potential asset to drive his own message says a lot about him and how sort of

00:26:55.420 dismissive he is of the way that Canadians interact with politics to understand what's going on. And

00:27:02.540 his very much attitude is, things are fine. Just trust me. I've got it under control. And, you know,

00:27:08.300 I think that's a big, big mistake on his part.

00:27:10.380 Well, I think you're right. And I think that his priorities have been shown, right? Like

00:27:14.300 he got elected, he got selected leader by the Liberal Convention. And I think the next day,

00:27:20.220 he jumped on an airplane and went to France and then the UK. Here he is in Rome. He's preparing

00:27:25.740 for the G7 meeting, which I think is going to be like the highlight for him of being prime minister,

00:27:31.180 is that he gets to host this G7 meeting in Canada. And he talks about it a lot. It seems to me that his

00:27:36.220 priorities are not inside Canada, not the budget. So him not doing a budget, I think perfectly reflects

00:27:40.700 that. You know, most prime ministers, especially ones who are long serving, go through a period where

00:27:45.580 they get elected, they're very focused on domestic issues. And six, seven, eight years in,

00:27:49.580 they domestic issues are a little less interesting. They've been dealing with them

00:27:52.780 intently for a few years, and they get more involved in international politics. And that

00:27:56.780 happens to all prime ministers, the good ones and the bad ones. There's a draw of internationalism,

00:28:01.180 usually at some point, year six or seven. With Carney, it seems to start in day six or seven,

00:28:07.420 you know, instantly, you know, the fact that he's been prime minister for, you know,

00:28:11.500 eight, nine weeks, and he's been to Europe twice, is is mind blowing. And you're right,

00:28:16.940 he's going to be his greatest disappointment of the G7 is that it's being held here and he doesn't

00:28:21.180 get to go to Europe again. Well, I think he loves hosting it. I think he's going to really lean into

00:28:26.380 that. And again, yeah, he's definitely looking forward to that much more than being held accountable

00:28:33.260 in the House of Commons. Well, Hamish Marshall, great to have you back on the show. Always appreciate your

00:28:37.740 insights and your commentary. Appreciate your time today.

00:28:40.060 Thank you so much for having me.

00:28:42.300 All right, folks. Thanks so much. It's all the time we have today. We'll be back again

00:28:45.180 tomorrow with all the news. I'm Candice Malcolm. This is the Candice Malcolm Show. Thank you and God

00:28:48.940 bless you.

Juno News - May 20, 2025

Legacy Media bias EXPOSED by Juno News analysis. You’ll never guess the worst offender!

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript