It's not enough that the Liberals hate oil and gas production, now it's time to target people who are using too much electricity? What's the deal with that? And why is it a good thing that we have to get rid of electricity?
00:00:00.000Welcome back to the Wyatt Claypool Show, everyone. Remember back in 2015 when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals actually tried to come off as moderate and pragmatic to Canadians?
00:00:12.160Well, that's all out the window. They now seem to be on a mission to make sure that not one Canadian thinks that they are in touch or sane by the end of their term in 2025.
00:00:23.020They used to even pretend that they liked the Canadian oil and gas industry, and that myth has been long since busted a long time ago.
00:00:31.540They absolutely hate our oil and gas production, especially that which happens in Alberta.
00:00:38.000But now, it's not even enough for the Liberals to just be against oil and gas. They are now against electricity, or emissions, I guess, produced from electricity.
00:00:49.120Even though we kind of need it to survive, I guess it's now time for the Liberals to target people for using too much electricity, because that's a major problem.
00:00:59.280Can't have people with good qualities of life in this country now, can we?
00:01:03.080Before I get into clips about this specific issue, I just quickly want to give you guys a reminder that if you're not currently subscribed to this channel,
00:01:10.740just go and hit the subscribe button, like this video, because about 75% of people watching any particular video from me are usually not actually subscribed.
00:01:20.500And then if you want to help support this show, go click the Give, Send, Go link in the description below or pinned at the top of the comments if you want to help our legal fund.
00:01:28.320And you can also sign up on my website, wyattclaypool.com, if you want leadership or nomination recommendations,
00:01:34.820both federally and provincially across Canada, I'm putting together a list, so if there's any interesting nominations or leadership races going on,
00:01:42.440I can email people and let them know good candidates to look into, good movements to be able to join, all that sort of great stuff.
00:01:49.320Anyways, without further ado, let's get into this clip that was posted by Bruce McGonigal.
00:01:55.680He does a really good job of posting clips on X from different committee meetings, as well as question periods.
00:02:02.260So go give him a follow if you happen to use X.
00:02:05.200But here is our natural resource minister, Jonathan Wilkinson, actually saying that although he hates oil and gas and the emissions from that are bad,
00:02:14.380we also have to look at the emissions from travel and electricity as also a massively bad thing.
00:02:22.420At the end of the day, oil and gas represents 31% of emissions in this country.
00:02:27.080It must begin to go down, it must begin to go down, just as transportation and electricity and everything else.
00:02:32.920But if you are thoughtful about this, not backward looking from an economic perspective, but think about how insane that is.
00:02:39.220We actually don't need to watch much of this clip.
00:02:43.020At the end of the day, oil and gas represents 31% of emissions in this country.
00:02:47.500It must begin to go down, just as transportation and electricity and everything else.
00:02:52.500It must begin to go down, and it would be backward looking for us to just ignore that problem, I suppose, of people using oil and gas products traveling and having to keep the heat on and electricity on in their homes.
00:03:08.660I assume what he means by the oil and gas industry is only 31% of emissions is that extraction, refinement, and other things to do with oil and gas products directly are only 31% because obviously transportation and electricity also has to do with natural gas and gasoline.
00:03:25.320But that's just such an absurdly insane position that it must begin to go down.
00:03:31.580Not that it can go down over time if we have more efficient ways of using it and we can get more bang for our buck, because that's what capitalism has always been doing across human history, that we like to take the same size tank of gas much further because it saves us money.
00:03:49.500And that's the great thing about capitalism is that environmentalism and capitalism should actually be two allies.
00:03:55.220Because the definition of what a gas guzzling truck has been since the 1970s to now is very different.
00:04:02.320We're actually very good at making sure that we can use the same amount of resources to accomplish far more things.
00:04:09.500That's why if you ever see a coal power plant, although they phase them out across most of Canada, they don't have black smoke coming out their smokestacks because that's waste.
00:04:18.400And so the power plants used to now, before we shut them down, recapture all the escape and coal dust and be able to re-burn that for more power.
00:04:28.500This is the, but none of this has been accomplished by government, but now we must reduce electricity emissions and travel emissions.
00:04:37.180That's just anti-human, they are not beating the accusation that they are far left degrowth environmentalists, people who think that the best thing for the planet is not just that we become more efficient with our use of, you know, emissions heavy products or whatever.
00:04:56.880It's that we must, like, just degrow the economy, we must become smaller, we must all have smaller homes, only own one car, if even own a car or use public transportation at all.
00:05:22.160Here's another clip also posted by Bruce McGonagall saying that they want to reduce Canadian oil and gas emissions with the cap that they're putting in place in order to basically just stop us from extracting and refining.
00:05:36.460I'm proud to introduce Canada's draft regulations to cap pollution from the oil and gas sector.
00:05:43.160Those regulations will help to cut pollution by 35% below 2019 levels while providing compliance flexibility.
00:05:53.540By the way, compliance flexibility basically means bribes.
00:05:57.580If you pay the government by or invest in green tech, then they will give you more carbon credits so that you can burn more.
00:06:04.940So if, listen, if it was such a big deal, if burning oil and gas products were such a horror show, why would you ever let people have offsets to keep burning it?
00:06:15.140It's not, it's just a scam basically at this point.
00:06:18.240They are just looking for more money from the industry and these are taxes and regulations are a great way of extracting more value and shifting it towards Eastern Canada, away from Western Canada where people don't vote for them.
00:06:30.380Cap and trade system for the sector, it will reward low polluting facilities and incentivize higher polluting facilities to invest.
00:06:39.540So what this means, it means no matter what happens to production, the pollution level will go down.
00:06:45.120By the way, Stephen Gilboa here, our environmental minister, if you don't remember, actually referred to himself as a proud socialist.
00:06:56.200The man doesn't understand economics at all.
00:06:59.760If there is a plant that is a higher emissions plant and you're going to tax them to make them invest money into reducing emissions,
00:07:09.120they're not emitting for fun, they are wanting to probably be as efficient as possible and they just don't have the money together to upgrade their plants or to invest in more efficient processes.
00:07:20.820It's such a stupid lefty position that the way that we make people do things the better way, the more expensive way, is by taking their money away so they can't invest.
00:07:35.620When you put a tax in place trying to get people to do something, usually you're trying to get them to do it less in general, just stop.
00:07:44.360If you put a tax on cigarettes, you're trying to get people to stop smoking.
00:07:48.400If you put a tax on oil and gas and refining and all these emissions, you're trying to end the emissions.
00:07:55.500You're not just trying to reduce them a bit or you would probably give them a tax credit in order to reduce because that is an actual positive incentive.
00:08:03.540You're not trying to bankrupt them unless they do what you want.
00:08:07.480That is a negative incentive and negative incentives, in my opinion, have never been good.
00:08:25.100But Stephen Gilbeau is saying that we've accomplished getting Canada to our lowest emission levels ever.
00:08:31.680And it's funny whenever I see the liberals suddenly believe in per capita emissions metrics, when usually with the GDP, they never like to talk about per capita because mass immigration has shredded our per capita income and wealth in this country.
00:08:47.780Our GDP keeps going up every year, even then it's not even going up that much, but our per capita falls.
00:08:58.640But when it comes to emissions, they never talk about raw emissions because Canada's raw emissions go up every single year.
00:09:03.820So instead, they talk about per capita emissions, which is funny because now they're trying to say that it's the carbon tax that caused this, even though per capita emissions since the 50s has been going like this.
00:09:15.380Emissions have been going down because, again, capitalism is great.
00:09:19.680People are greedy and they want to use the same tank of gas to go 50 kilometers further than they used to.
00:09:25.700But because Stephen Gilbeau and the liberals put in place the carbon tax in 2019, suddenly all of the per capita emissions are because of the carbon tax.
00:09:34.940And by the way, the steeper drop off on emissions we saw after 2019 had nothing to do with the carbon tax.
00:09:41.060What happened is COVID hit and basically the Canadian government, the provincial governments around Canada shut down the economy.
00:09:49.820And so our emissions basically flopped like the GDP did.
00:09:53.300Our GDP went down and our emissions went down in line with it.
00:09:57.440And since then, it's been kind of slowly creeping up as the economy comes back on to line and comes back online.
00:10:05.300And Stephen Gilbeau is pretending that this is a big success of the carbon tax.
00:10:09.160It's not. You can't tax an inelastic good to get people to stop using it.
00:10:15.440If you tax food heavily, people are not going to suddenly figure out a way of just be photosynthesizing in the sun.
00:10:23.040They will keep eating food even if you tax it.
00:10:25.880People will keep filling up their truck even if you tax it.
00:10:29.440Some people will go to public transportation.
00:10:31.300It's a very tiny amount of people and that's usually because you push them into the floor when it comes to their incomes and they can no longer afford to even fuel up their car.
00:10:41.660So now they're having to take the bus.
00:10:43.160But that's not exactly a reality I like.
00:10:45.660As time goes on, though, the Liberals have been getting more and more radical with their rhetoric.
00:10:52.580They know the pure poly of conservative train is coming in 2025.
00:10:56.340I talked about this yesterday in a video just about the polling numbers that are out there showing that a lot of people are coping on the liberal side of things whenever a scuffed poll comes out.
00:11:08.320I don't mean a rigged poll, but just a bad poll comes out showing that they're actually up in Manitoba and Saskatchewan not realizing the sample size was 40.
00:11:16.100And ECOS also doesn't really have much of a reputation worth defending these days.
00:11:21.840Frank Graves runs ECOS, who also puts in all those very strange questions around disinformation and misinformation, where the entire questions are rigged to try and get conservatives to say that they believe in things that Frank Graves arbitrarily decides is misinformation.
00:11:36.920Like a piece of misinformation he includes is that, do you believe that can, does GDP growth is the strongest in the G7?
00:11:59.640You're not thinking that, oh, technically in some really stupid metric, our country's growth, economic growth is going up because we imported 1.3 million people.
00:12:09.360Don't we feel great about the economy?
00:12:11.020It's not because I don't think ECOS is rigging polls to help the liberals.
00:12:14.800Even their trend lines show the conservatives are ahead and are staying ahead.
00:12:18.720But it was ridiculous seeing so many liberals pretending that ECOS or NANOS farting out a plus 12 or plus 14 for the conservatives means that there is a room for a comeback for Justin Trudeau when all the other pollsters are showing a plus 18 to plus 22 lead for the Conservative Party of Canada.
00:12:37.100But here's a great clip of a Liberal MP, Adam van Kovaden, I don't know.
00:12:46.280I'm sorry to Dutch people, I'm bad at saying your name sometimes.
00:12:49.680But this Liberal MP who is having an absolute meltdown over the potential risks to Canada's democracy that pure poly opposes.
00:12:59.340This is just obviously overheated and irresponsible rhetoric, but it's okay when liberals do it.
00:13:05.400What I'm focused on is my constituents.
00:13:08.900What I'm focused on is beating Pierre Polyev in the next federal election.
00:13:12.180He poses an existential threat to Canada's democracy in my view.
00:13:15.500He also is committed to tearing down some of the institutions that Canadians rely on.
00:13:19.760An existential threat to Canada's democracy.
00:14:11.200It's hard to spend 1.4 billion people, a billion dollars staffing your news outlet and not get some good people.
00:14:17.220But for the most part, it's a complete money drain.
00:14:19.920The CBC, in fact, spends more per capita on Canada's media market than Fox News does in the United States.
00:14:28.660Because $1.4 million, when you consider the population difference, is $1.4 billion is way bigger than in Canada's population than Fox News's budget is in the United States.
00:14:40.920It's, like, not even actually that close.
00:14:43.340There is a significant, like, 30% to 40% higher budget per capita in Canada for the CBC than Fox has in the United States.
00:14:51.740But he wants to get rid of CBC, I guess.
00:14:55.540I guess maybe that's a threat to Canada because Canadians can no longer get responsible state media information.
00:15:02.280He wants to get rid of the dental care program, potentially, the $10 child care program.
00:15:10.400They're programs that are doomed to fail in the future because you can't keep having less and less people pay for more and more services for others.
00:15:19.620That is how you bankrupt a government.
00:15:21.860That's how we had the debt crisis in the 1990s in Canada.
00:15:47.200So, in fact, if we're thinking that the Conservatives cutting things are the risk to our democracy and our institutions, in fact, you should be blaming the Liberals for having ruined the budget and made it necessary to cut lots and lots of waste out of the Canadian government.
00:16:06.220Now I want to see if I can move on to some – oh, here's actually a really good – oh, actually, never mind.
00:16:10.980I want to go to another pure Stephen Gilbeau video.
00:16:13.260So this is a video that Stephen Gilbeau posted.
00:16:16.860I find it endlessly funny whenever Liberals put out attack odds on Polyev these days because there's always a few different themes.
00:16:24.420You know, Polyev is vaguely scary in some way.
00:16:28.220He believes in misinformation as well as he wants to cut the government budget in which none of those things actually appeal to Canadians right now.
00:16:36.360People don't think Polyev's spreading misinformation because he's not.
00:16:39.320But Canadians are not scared of budget cuts because 62% plus of Canadians believe it's actually necessary to reduce government spending.
00:16:47.660Nobody thinks that more than 44% of our GDP should be public sector spending.
00:16:53.380And then also, nobody actually considers pure Polyev a sinister figure that lives up to the vague kind of Polyev's a bad man.
00:17:15.480And especially on the abortion type of side of things that the Liberals keep going on about, I'm pro-life.
00:17:22.460I can tell you the Federal Conservative Party right now is not pro-life.
00:17:26.040There are many pro-life MPs, but the party itself is not pro-life.
00:17:29.920So it's always annoying to me every time the Liberals or Liberal cheerleaders online go after the Conservatives as, like, dangerous pro-lifers, which is ridiculous.
00:17:41.400The Liberals, in fact, are complete goblins on the issue of life.
00:17:45.500They literally voted down a Conservative proposal that all the Conservatives voted in favor of.
00:17:50.680And I actually believe one NDP guy voted in favor of, so credit to him.
00:19:39.940It's how anyone fundraises for anything.
00:19:42.700There are closed-door fundraisers for veterinary clinics, for free veterinary clinics, charity clinics.
00:19:49.160There are closed-door fundraisers for children's cancer charities.
00:19:53.700I don't think they're up to anything behind closed doors, and we've got to kick down the door and see what all these people are up to.
00:19:59.700I'm pretty sure they're giving money to the guy.
00:20:03.180Big oil and gas guys are giving money to Polyev?
00:20:06.000Say it isn't so. Say it isn't so that oil and gas executives would be giving the legal maximum, which is only $1,750, like $1,750, and I think like $0.40 or $0.50.
00:22:09.340Oil and gas companies like being efficient.
00:22:11.000So they've reduced their emissions on their own.
00:22:12.540You'd think that they're going to show, like, a photo on screen of, like, pure Polyev shaking hands with Kim Jong-un and Saddam Hussein at the same time.
00:22:22.300And drive innovation in clean technology, including policies supported by previous conservative leaders.
00:22:29.640During his 20 years as a member of parliament, Polyev has voted nearly 400 times against measures designed to protect the environment.
00:23:53.380I actually think that the donation caps in Canada are way too low.
00:23:57.540$1,750 is nothing when you consider the fact that in a Canadian federal election, we probably spend less than, like, a Pennsylvania Senate race.
00:24:09.660An Illinois governor's race where you know who's going to win it.
00:24:12.540Somehow, we spend nothing in Canadian politics whatsoever.
00:24:16.440It's actually pretty, like, it's actually kind of bad for democracy because it means that parties can barely spend on advertising.
00:24:23.520So the average voter is not really that well informed on what the platforms are of each of the parties.
00:24:29.460And so most people will get most of their election information through, like, the CBC, CTV News, Global, City TV, in which you're not going to be getting a non-biased take.
00:24:38.940The way the CBC, in my opinion, I've actually said this to people at the UCPA GM a lot when we were discussing it.
00:24:45.800The CBC's best tactic at pretending to be neutral is being as boring as possible.
00:24:52.520But because they talk in such boring ways and their shows lack any charisma at all, you're like, well, this must be somewhat neutral because this is making you want to fall asleep, even though it is a lot of leftist drivel sort of inserted into a lot of stories.
00:25:07.860A lot of left wing assumptions are baked into the way that they cover things.
00:25:11.620So they will be hosting tons and tons of people who are going to call parental rights bills, especially the one that just came out in Alberta, being, like, transphobic or homophobic.
00:25:56.420If we had a ranked ballot in Canada, how would Canadians vote?
00:25:59.780I created a survey with ReadForum to find out.
00:26:03.120And I actually find this decently interesting that he did this, but I just want to critique the illogic of the idea that somehow ranked choice voting in a Canadian federal election would somehow mean that we would have more democratic outcomes.
00:26:22.580I'm very much a believer in the first-past-the-post system overall, especially I'm basically in favor of whatever system we've been using for a very long time.
00:26:32.220Because our entire electoral system, our party system has already adapted to the current way we vote.
00:26:41.660And so, like, for an example, that's why I don't, like, cure proportional representation.
00:26:45.280Because every time someone takes the results from the last election and they just run it through a proportional representation algorithm with whatever threshold they have to be able to start winning seats, it's taking a first-past-the-post election and just assuming we had voted like it was proportional.
00:27:02.880You would have so many parties pop up overnight to run in a proportional representation system because you don't need that many votes to get one person across the finish line.
00:27:12.040You don't think the Christian Heritage Party or, you know, some other random parties would start being able to elect a single guy, especially if it's pure proportional representation where all you need is the exact percentage of the vote in order to get one person across the finish line.
00:27:30.160Maybe it would be regional-based, but still, even then, I find it a bit arbitrary.
00:27:34.600Oh, I believe in proportional representation.
00:27:37.160But regionalized, and you have to have 5%, and you have to, I'm like, okay, well, that's not proportional representation, and you don't actually want proportional representation.
00:27:44.080You want a version of proportional representation that gets your favorite party the most amount of seats.
00:27:50.040But anyways, here, let's go into Frank Dominic talking about proportional representation here.
00:27:54.980How would Canadian voting intentions change if we had a ranked ballot system? I was curious, so I created a survey in collaboration with the Angus Reid Forum to find out.
00:28:01.960One, the guy has to lay off the speed or the coffee. One of the two. I talk fast, but I have to give Frank Dominic an award because he talks somehow faster than I do.
00:28:12.180It stands right now, most Canadians would still be voting for the Conservative Party first.
00:28:15.560Where it gets interesting, though, is how few people would have put the Conservatives as second or third, their next big bunch of support coming from a fourth ranking.
00:28:22.340What that implies is that most people who are voting Liberal and NDP would not be ranking the Conservatives as their second vote, nor as their third.
00:28:28.860And as you can see, for first, second, and third, both the Liberals and the NDP are evenly split.
00:28:33.220Meaning that regardless of whether or not they're voting for the Conservatives and the Liberals and the NDP, a lot of people are willing to vote for the Liberals and the NDP second and third.
00:28:39.760But this is where he's, like, losing me very quickly. I don't. Why do I want more people elected into our government who people only wanted on a second or third ballot?
00:28:53.960Right now, in the polls, the Liberals and the NDP combined wouldn't be as much as the Conservatives in most polls.
00:29:02.100And even then, I don't think if the NDP just disappeared tomorrow that most of their voters would even go Liberal.
00:29:08.700I think a lot of them would either sit home, potentially vote Green, or even vote Conservative.
00:29:12.860Because there are different parties for a reason.
00:29:16.220If they actually had the same appeal, one party would have already taken a dirt nap at this point.
00:29:21.880The NDP and the Liberals keep moving closer and closer together because their party leaderships are completely, ridiculously stupid.
00:29:29.220Like, the NDP should be leaning more into their blue-collar appeal that they had under Jack Layton if they were smart.
00:29:35.320And Trudeau would stop chasing the woke voters that Jagmeet Singh has been trying to monopolize on university campuses.
00:29:41.020But this is, I don't consider this Democratic, that we would, and I'll at least let him finish and then I'll make my point at the end.
00:29:49.100...that those parties have a wider base of support.
00:29:51.580While the first ranking Conservative vote is strong, after that it dies down, whereas the Liberals and the NDP are more palatable to a wider range of voters.
00:29:59.140The Greens really shine in third place.
00:30:01.240To me, this indicates that the voters who are voting the Liberals and the NDPs first and second are then voting Greens third, and then they put the Conservatives fourth.
00:30:07.920But what's super interesting is that the PPC are a dead last.
00:30:13.480Everyone knows the PPC would be dead last.
00:30:15.480They're literally the last place party in the polls.
00:30:18.220Anyways, but that is just something very silly to me in my mind.
00:30:23.320That, like, well, see, it actually is bad if the Conservatives win, because that's the implication here.
00:30:28.340The Conservatives win the next election in 2025.
00:30:30.720Well, it's been a disservice to all these NDP and Liberal voters who they could have, like, they wouldn't have voted at the Conservative second ballot or third ballot.
00:30:48.460They know if they live in a riding, if the Liberals have a better chance of beating the Conservative or the NDP does.
00:30:55.040The reason that people don't end up consolidating behind that option is because they don't really like the option that much.
00:31:01.300The ranked ballot is making it up, is creating an artificial agreement.
00:31:07.280It's creating artificial consensus behind this, like, second or third place party saying, well, if we can consolidate all this stuff, well, then it's better because more people kind of liked them.
00:31:20.680Okay, but if 43% of Canadians like the Conservatives, what does it matter that we could technically jam all the other parties together with a few passionate people and mostly apathetic people to outweigh them?
00:31:34.000I think it means more that you can get 44%, 42% of people to say, yes, I want you, rather than just 22% saying, yes, I want you, and another 20% saying, eh, I suppose?
00:31:46.820Those, that's my problem with the stupid rank choice voting in federal elections.
00:31:52.440Rank choice voting is fine in, like, a leadership race or, like, a nomination within a singular party where everyone presumably has generally shared values and now we're mostly ranking personalities.
00:32:12.060But once, but even in those cases, you often sometimes get turkeys of candidates or leaders, like Ed Stelmack, when it goes down to, like, a fourth or fifth choice and people are just kind of picking the compromise guy.
00:32:25.060And so nobody actually is really happy.
00:32:27.380We just have a bunch of people who compromised on a bad choice.
00:32:30.640This happens in proportional representation systems all over the world.
00:32:35.960Nobody agrees, so they constantly have elections, and nobody is incentivized to stop voting for their very oddly specific interest party that holds up the government if they don't get everything they want.
00:32:48.660Proportional representation does not make everyone more representative.
00:32:51.560It makes pet issues go to the top of the issue list in government because you can make a stupid pet party around one or two issues, and you can hold up an entire government over that, even though, obviously, it's not very representative of what the entire population wants.
00:33:08.820I like first past the post because it rewards people being able to get a large chunk of people to be able to agree with something.
00:33:16.960Just because the conservatives are going to get a majority government with 45% of the vote doesn't mean anyone was disenfranchised.
00:33:24.220It means we took the biggest interest, the biggest, most coherent interest, and we're going to let them have a chance to govern.
00:33:30.300We don't need to get people, you don't need to get people on board who are voting for fringe issues and throwing 2% of their vote towards the Greens or 3% towards another fringe party in an area.
00:33:41.900That's not, those are ignorable votes for good reason.
00:33:45.460They're not ignorable in the ballot counting, but it's weird that we would then have to say, well, you know, 2% of people voted Greens, so they deserve like six, seven seats or something like that because that's 2% of the overall seats.
00:33:59.700If you can't get more than 2% of people in most ridings to agree with you, 4% of people in most ridings to agree with something, there's something incoherent about that ideology that only seems to work in very niche areas.
00:34:12.720And that's perfectly fine if you can get people in a specific area, a plurality of them to send you into parliament.
00:34:18.980I'm fine with Elizabeth May being in parliament.
00:34:21.240She represents a specific concentrated interest, and that's the great thing about first past the post.
00:34:25.980It's you have to be able to represent a concentrated interest.
00:34:30.480You can't just have shotgun support over across the entire country, or you'd incentivize a lot of PR parties, proportional representation parties, who just dump ads on social media.
00:34:40.940And as long as they get one person in every, like 1% of people in every single riding to vote for them, they get to send two or three people into parliament.
00:34:50.060Anyways, that's it for me today, guys.
00:34:52.720Hopefully, you'll like the longer form Wyatt Claypool Show version of the channel videos.
00:34:57.880If you want to support us, make sure you donate to my legal fund in the description below.
00:35:02.220It's the Give and Go link I mentioned earlier, as well as pinned at the top of the comments.
00:35:06.060And I encourage you to sign up on my website, WyattClaypool.com, and onto the contact form.
00:35:12.160It's going to allow me in the future that if there's any big things going on in leadership races, nominations, I'm able to let you know how I'd vote in that area.
00:35:20.140You can even let me know how you're voting in a local nomination or leadership race.
00:35:24.920And I can recommend that to other people if I agree with the analysis, or I can even just be able to present your take so I can find people in the same postal code areas and be able to connect everybody behind specific, real, orthodox, conservative candidates.
00:35:40.600And so we can avoid having too many red Tories representing us within conservative parties, both provincially and federally.
00:35:47.400I have two leadership races I'm probably going to be getting involved in in the next little while.
00:35:52.640Not running in them, of course, and I'm probably not going to come onto the ground, but just following, looking into, and giving you updates on.
00:35:59.080And that's Manitoba's PC leadership and the likely upcoming leadership race in New Brunswick, where I am hoping Chris Austin decides to run for the leadership.
00:36:08.580He is currently a PC MLA, but he was also the leader of the People's Alliance in New Brunswick.
00:36:14.240That was a successful small party that was able to elect three and then two MLAs in two subsequent elections.
00:36:35.640It's because I don't think the campaign was bold enough.
00:36:37.760I think the campaign went mild, and mild campaigns just almost invite people to go and vote for the other guys.
00:36:44.100And I think that there is, in general, a populist trend across Canada, not against liberal politicians, but just against incumbents in general.
00:36:52.780The situation federally is very unique to Trudeau, where it doesn't matter if Trudeau was in or out of office right now.
00:36:58.360People don't want anything from him these days.