Juno News - May 20, 2025


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


Episode Stats

Length

28 minutes

Words per Minute

205.13115

Word Count

5,946

Sentence Count

360


Summary


Transcript

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?
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
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?
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
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.