Political panel breaks down election issues on The Evan Bray Show

As Canadians get ready to head to the polls and choose the country’s next federal government, there are a lot of issues at play.

On Thursday’s edition of The Evan Bray Show, host Evan Bray was joined by a political panel to analyze what we’re seeing in the campaign so far and discuss some of the biggest issues that are on the minds of many voters, in Saskatchewan and across the nation.

Read More:

• Trump’s auto tariffs derail Carney’s federal election campaign plans
• Andrew Scheer seeking re-election in Regina-Qu’Appelle
• Taxes, trade, tariffs key election topics for federal leaders on Monday

Joining Bray were John Gormley, a lawyer with Seiferling Law, former Progressive Conservative MP and long-time host on 650 CKOM and 980 CJME, Doug Richardson, a former lawyer and Liberal supporter who served as chief of staff to Prime Minister John Turner, and Cathy Sproule, a former NDP MLA representing Saskatoon Nutana.

Listen to the full panel discussion here:

https://iono.fm/e/1540875

The following questions and answers have been edited for length and clarity.

BRAY: How big is this election? Is this the biggest election you’ve ever voted in? I’d like to get your thoughts on the important decision we have and where it sits in Canadian history. Doug, maybe I’ll start with you.

RICHARDSON: Well, to maybe be a bit of a contrarian on this, I could make an argument that, say, for example, the 1917 election, where the country was split over conscription and the conservatives and NDP formed a coalition. The 1930 election and ‘35 elections were in the midst of a very difficult depression. People were riding the rails. Millions were out of work. The 1988 election was a free-trade election in which we thought a lot of us would see half the country given away to the United States. And might I suggest that the 1984 election was particularly relevant to this country, because but that election both Mr. Gormley and I were candidates, so we probably thought it was important to be voting in that election.

GORMLEY: How did you do in that one?

RICHARDSON: The people, the people of North Battleford could see the value of having Gormley. The people of Saskatoon were not fooled by my candidacy. But to answer your question, I think there’s an argument that all campaigns are significant. One thing I would say, we’ve been building automobiles in this country for 100 years, we’ve been shipping grain from the beautiful, talented farming communities of Saskatchewan for 125 years. I think we need to take a pause and not overreach on where this one campaign is.

Well, you’ve made a case for why every election is important, dating back 100 plus years. John, same question to you: How important is in Canadian history?

GORMLEY: Same answer as Doug, but shorter. The issue is, every election is significant. There’s a lot of rhetorical overreach. I mean, remember Justin Trudeau told us in 2021 this was the most significant election since the Second World War… which was bunk. Every election is important. I want to start though, Evan, and the three panelists all agree on this – federal elections are really tough to decode, because it’s 343 elections. I don’t know what’s going on right now. In Antigonish, I don’t know how to seek community. In Surrey is really liking Jagmeet (Singh). I don’t know up even in just Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River in Saskatchewan. So you’ve got 343 elections, very important for each of those ridings, but every one’s important.

It’s so true that that really, this is a fabric of many decisions that are going to be made throughout Canada. And we have seen, and the three of you along with me will get into this discussion, about how regionally we have different focuses and different priorities, and I want to talk about that. But before we go on, Kathy, (let’s) bring you into the same conversation the importance of this election with everything going on over the last few years.

SPROULE: I’m no history expert, but I appreciate what Doug brought into the conversation. I have heard over and over, in each election that happens – provincial, federal – that this is the most important election. That’s how we all feel when we’re in the moment. For me, this is more about the existential crisis that we’re in. Whatever happens in internally, in Canada, domestically, we will find our way through it, but it’s the threat that we’re facing currently from a very unstable American administration. Already this week, first week of the election, they’ve they’ve upset the apple cart again with huge tariffs on the auto industry. So I think that’s what makes this election particularly critical, and I think it’s why we see what’s happening in the polls.

On the notion of this, the interference – and maybe that’s a big word, because it gets thrown around a lot today – but this influence that the United States and Donald Trump and tariffs is having on this election, is that ultimately what is going to decide the outcome of this; how people view that threat and who they think is best to deal with it? Kathy, what do you think?

SPROULE: Certainly. Absolutely. A hundred per cent. I think we’ve seen that already in terms of the polls shift that’s completely stymied all the pundits, for sure, and the radical change in what the key message is here, and what the ballot question is. So we are influenced by our neighbor. It’s the it’s a large, influential neighbor, and I think that is really determining people, the voters’, choices.

GORMLEY: I came armed with the word “ballot question” because, again, three of us have been in politics. That defines everything. The national media, the CBC and the Liberals have quite helpfully told us the ballot question is “Who can go nose and nose with Donald Trump?” Others, and I’m in this camp, would say “How did you like the last 10 years of Justin Trudeau?” How did you like what they did to destroy parts of the western economy, a million immigrants when, historically, we went from 275,000 to 350,000, and what that’s done to housing prices, housing availability, opportunities for young people. I can do a litany of sins that if I can get the ballot question to be a referendum on not just Justin Trudeau, but the man who pulled the strings on Justin Trudeau as his moral exemplar and mentor, Mark Carney, the liberals get thrashed. But, as Kathy says, there’s been an outstanding flip in the polls for the Liberals, because right now – I mean, today’s Angus Reid – 56 per cent of vote switchers have said it’s because of Mark Carney. So if Mark Carney is able to sell himself as the guy who goes nose-to-nose with Trump, the Liberals have a chance. So who frames the ballot question? And of course, the answer is the parties, and who does best will determine the results.

If we look at the polls, the Liberals have done something that many – I think before Christmas – would not have thought possible, and have more than revived the party. Is this new Liberal Party under Mark Carney markedly different than Justin Trudeau? What do you attribute the swing in the polls to?

RICHARDSON: I think there is a significant change. The new leader has a completely different personality, a different approach. A number of ministers, I acknowledge, have been held over, but those ministers that have been held over are bringing briefs that I think are important to the nation; the Indigenous brief, the child-care brief, the child-care benefit brief, the dental plan – which, by the way, I acknowledge the NDP played a pivotal role in. So the leadership, also at the top, has changed in a different way. The prime minister’s office who, quite frankly, used to exasperate parts of the PMO (not all of them, there’s some talented people there), but who used to exasperate the party, is a whole new team there. And I think as people watch the leader, they can see that this is a different led party by a person who has got a resume that’s second to none.

John, I want to talk about that same question with you. Clearly, not just outside of the Liberal Party, but inside the Liberal Party, we heard and saw cracks that ultimately developed, that saw Justin Trudeau step away. Was that all it was? Was it more about the person, less about the party? How do you see this in the polls?

GORMLEY: Well, I would indict the entire party. Of course my friend Doug would say “Well, it was just the person.” Pull out the worst prime minister in our lifetime. Progressive. You know, the identitarian that he’d become. You know he used the word progressive four times in his resignation speech. Every New Democrat rolled their eyes and said “Wait, we’re progressives.” So Trudeau, he destroyed parts of Canada. Carney is exactly Trudeau 2.0 but you know who’s Carney’s chief of staff? You know, like Doug Richardson was chief of staff for John Turner. Oh, Marco Mendicino, the man who did so much damage to truth telling in Canada, and the man who did damage to firearms policy. So it’s the same group of Liberals. Oh, Steven Guilbeault? He’s running again in Montreal. So the net-zero crazy people who have taken western Canada and held our head underwater for 10 years, they’re still here.

Kathy, you’ve been involved in politics for a while. Are these polls telling to you of what we’re going to see unfold, or is there lots of this book to be written yet?

SPROULE: Well, I’m just laughing here. Seeing John in action is very entertaining. I think what I’m seeing is the same old Liberal Party. I mean, you cannot change stripes just by putting a new head on. And certainly, I would think, from the NDP perspective, we’ve seen our leader pointing that out, that Mark Carney is only really interested in big money, big business, big banks, and that’s why you’ll see the NDP taking a different tactic here, and that is to focus on the little people. Like this morning, (Singh is) in Windsor, where the workers are going to be severely impacted by these tariffs. So I find it hard to believe that there’s this much faith in one man, because I do see this very much a Carney decision in terms of the polls, but it’s still a honeymoon phase. He hasn’t had an opportunity to mess up yet, and so that’s why he’s striking while the iron is hot and calling a quick election. I would if I were him. I mean, the polls tell us that’s the smart thing to do, but the jury’s out. We’re going to see what kind of leader this man will be, and I’m not sure he’s in it for the little people.

Now any time we’ve got an election going on, there are numerous voices, and they aren’t always voices that are directly involved. This time with the overlay of the tariffs and the trade war with the States, we are seeing provincial leaders speak up in many ways more loudly than they normally would. I draw attention to (Alberta Premier) Danielle Smith and what some people are criticizing and others are praising, her recent ask of the U.S. administration to pause the tariff threat until after the election. Just recently we saw Premier (Scott) Moe decide to make a change with regard to the carbon tax that I don’t think there’s any way but to think it is a push to the federal politicians. John, how important and how unique is the voices we’re hearing provincially in this federal election?

GORMLEY: I think it’s the nature of the federation. I mean, premiers ought to be heard. I mean, 2016, Trump brought in tariffs. By 2018 we had tariffs on steel and aluminum, and we all survived. So this tariffs thing again – notwithstanding the existential thing – this is going to pass. The extent and depth of these tariffs, though, are inexplicable, and they will hurt the single largest trading relationship on the planet – $1.3 trillion a day goes back and forth, or a year goes back and forth. Fifty-four per cent of our 54 billion we export from Saskatchewan goes to the U.S. So this auto thing could destroy jobs and livelihoods in Canada. So I want Doug Ford, I want Danielle, (and) Scott Moe speaking up. But the issue is, how do you rein in the tariffs, and again, later on, how do you recalibrate what Canada needs?

RICHARDSON: I think the premiers are making an enormous contribution to the overall initiative across Canada. I think Premier (Wab) Kinew in Manitoba has taken the right approach. He sees the value in supporting the national initiative without selecting one party to support. I wouldn’t be surprised if he went with Jagmeet Singh, but the premier of Saskatchewan has made a huge mistake, in my opinion. First of all, he attacks the federal government more vigorously than he does China or Washington. Premier (Doug) Ford has taken the high road throughout. I suspect the leader of the Conservative Party is frustrated because Doug Ford is not putting his machinery behind him, and the machinery behind an election is significant from the provincial level. Just think of, John, the 1984 campaign. Mr. (Bill) Davis got behind Mr. (Brian) Mulroney. That helped create the largest election win in the country. Premier (François) Legault has made it clear he’s not taking sides in this, but Premier Smith decided to get into this, and I don’t think she helped Mr. (Pierre) Poilievre when she went to the States, suggesting we should hold off on tariffs until after the government changes, or worse still, Premier Smith elicited a response where someone said, you know, Mr. Poilievre is very much like this Republican government. That’s the sort of thing that I don’t think Canadians want.

Kathy, I invite you to weigh in on this discussion. Are these voices helpful that we’re hearing? Are they going to influence? Are they going to hinder? Some are saying that what Danielle Smith is doing is actually hurting Pierre Poilievre’s chances.

SPROULE: I tend to agree that the methods that some of our western provincial premiers are taking is damaging. I’m upset with Premier Moe for a few reasons, and I know that he’s got his reasons, but I find most of the time when he’s complaining about the federal government, it’s just a ploy to get more votes, and it’s divisive and it’s not helpful at this point in time. We need to come together as a nation and recognize that resources are Canadian, and that there will be collateral damage in these kinds of trade wars. We’re in a trade war, and it’s time for us to pull together. And I think nothing makes Donald Trump happier than to see people fighting amongst themselves. He loves sewing dissent. He loves creating division. And I think what we see Danielle Smith doing and Premier Moe doing is feeding right into that, so it will just encourage Trump to behave worse. And I don’t think it’s helpful at this point in time.

GORMLEY: I agree with the necessity, especially on tariffs, for a united front. But remember, Danielle Smith is particularly vulnerable because – Cathy and I will disagree – she said Alberta oil is Canadian oil. And yes, but to what extent do you trade off? And of course, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, with some authority on what he did with Canadian oil – see bankruptcies in Calgary and all the people handing their keys to their homes back – so what Danielle doesn’t want is an export tax. You do that, you really hurt five million barrels of oil a day. So as a western Canadian I’m all there for oil, and so I get even part of Scott Moe’s reasoning on the carbon tax. But if you take a step back to 35,000 feet, it’s better for Canada if we’re all saying, “Hey Trump, these tariffs are not a good idea. In fact, they’re really, really a bad idea for Canada.”

SPROULE: And for the U.S.

We are seeing this east-versus-west fight. Now, if I do the math, the auto industry in Canada worth about $14 billion to the Canadian economy, and we see the prime minister yesterday coming out swinging with support, with harsh comments, with a strategic plan on how these auto tariffs will be dealt with. Canola is worth 200 per cent more to the Canadian economy than auto – maybe half the number of jobs, but still worth $43.7 billion. These Chinese tariffs are devastating. We are hearing people screaming from western Canadian rooftops “We need to deal with this.” And I don’t feel like that priority is there does this.

GORMLEY: I challenge the Liberals: Who, in their right mind, last August, thought following Joe Biden and putting 100 per cent tariff on Chinese Evs (was a good idea)? Because Trudeau gave the auto industry $37.7 billion to try to finance battery plants in Canada. “Oh, so we better stop the Chinese for who have already developed the batteries,” and then somehow we’re surprised when China puts a reciprocal retaliatory tariff of 100 per cent on canola. So if I was a Liberal, Doug, and I know the party does take your advice, and your son is very active in the PMO and has been a great advocate for Saskatchewan, would you tell Carney before the election day, “Get rid of the tariff, revisit what EVs are going to mean to the Canadian auto industry, and for God’s sake, save Saskatchewan”?

RICHARDSON: Let’s just talk about canola, because it is very, very important, and we should be demonstrating a lot of empathy for our producers. Those out there have got to make seed decisions. But here’s some facts that I’m not sure all of your audience would be aware of. And, with all due respect, you’ve been pretty hard on both Trudeaus. Well, here’s the good news: neither of them are running in this election. But here’s a story that you’re not aware of that demonstrates that some care has been made over the years. Back in 2018, remember we went through this very same historic pattern in 2018 and what happened at that time was, Prime Minister Trudeau had fired his Canadian ambassador (John) McCallum, and was looking for a new ambassador, unbeknownst to Saskatoon – and the story can now be told because Prime Minister Trudeau has retired… The prime minister of Canada offered the ambassadorship of China to Premier (Brad) Wall, and this was started by a group of business leaders asking for help. Now, in the end, Premier Wall decided not to do it…

GORMLEY: Blaming Brad Wall for China?

RICHARDSON: No, I’m not blaming. I’m trying, if you just hear me out, John for two seconds, (to) demonstrate that the Government of Canada has tried to make and take initiatives. Think about how bold that is. An individual who has condemned the federal government, turned around and offered an ambassadorship. Let’s go a little farther than that. Last year, our agriculture minister gave $9 million to the canola industry to expand our trade. We’ve entered into 15 trade agreements with 52 countries to expand sale of canola, our new agriculture minister Kody Blois out of Nova Scotia, so people throw up their hand, forgetting that Kody is a farmer. It has been Saskatchewan numerous times, and the agriculture minister of Saskatchewan has praised his selection. What did the new federal agriculture minister due four days ago? Most people probably glossed over this. He announced major changes to the ag stability, AgriStability fund. He said, “I will change advanced payments levels from 250 to 350, if that’s what producers want.” And he set our negotiatorsm who are considered by the canola group leaders in this country as some of the best – I’m talking about our Ottawa negotiators, John – he set our Ottawa negotiators to work on some efforts. Now, let’s pause on your major point, John, and that is, do we lift the tariffs on autos? On EVs, I would say yes to that. But bear in mind, we agreed to that because the Europeans and the Americans, both groups, asked us to do it.

GORMLEY: A canola farmer (might) say “Doug, you gave a great answer. But how do I get my canola shipped?” And your point on diversification is very good. Ottawa and Regina – Premier Moe – they’ve diversified into areas of south Asia that we never sold canola to before, but our big market is still China, and that tariff directly at the feet of Justin Trudeau is hurting canola.

Cathy, I want to give you a second to jump in.

SPROULE: It’s fascinating watching these two go at it. I love it. No, I think that was then, this is now. Carney has a big decision ahead of him if he becomes prime minister, as would Poilievre, or whoever becomes prime minister. This needs to be revisited, because you start a trade war, you’re in it. And at what point do you back down? What point do you go harder? And the tariff on EVs is now hurting Saskatchewan canola producers directly. What’s going to happen? It’s time to deal with it. And do you up the ante? Do you back down? Those are all political decisions that the next prime minister is going to have to make. We could go back into how these things came to be, but I think, before we’re looking at this point in time, Trump has started this tariff war, and other countries are hopping in and getting on it. And, you know, I don’t blame China. It’s a move that obviously has got a lot of attention. So that’s the kind of world that we’re in.

Where do the leaders in the parties need to score their points with those undecided voters? Those voters that are soft yet not committed. Where do they score their points? Is it leaders? Is it promises? Is it ground game? Smear campaign? Kathy, I’ll give you the first word.

SPROULE: All of the above. A bit of all of those things. I think what the NDP really needs to focus on is their incumbent ridings and shoring those up. So I think you’ll see the leaders spending a lot of time in the incumbent ridings, making sure that those seats are protected as best they can. The messaging for the NDP, I think, is “What’s in it for the little guys?” There’s a lot of turmoil coming. With these trade wars, a lot of pain is going to be felt, and how is our government going to look after people as we go through this difficult time? And I see that’s the messaging that the NDP are going with. So I expect you’ll see more of that.

RICHARDSON: The one thing we do not need is negative campaigning. John and Kathy and I were chatting about a previous election; the Kim Campbell, Brian Mulroney changeover election. In the election, the Conservative Party, if I might say, made the mistake of going negative on Mr. (Jean) Chrétien and his face – you may recall the side the issue of his paralysis. For sure, Liberals have done that in a silly way somewhere along the way in history, but I think for the importance of this election is no division, no negativity, no downside. I know it’s a high risk – John, I get your point – but (that’s) the last thing the campaign needs, because we do need to look united and I’ve now gone the whole show without meant mentioning his name once, and I’m hoping to continue to do that.

GORMLEY: If I was a Liberal, I wouldn’t want anybody to question Mark Carney, either. So I applaud your your tenacity, but Carney has to be held accountable. This is the puppet master of Justin Trudeau. This is the net-zero guy. This is the World Economic Forum guy, the Glasgow banking guy, and, of course, Brookfield Asset Management. So yeah, there’s going to be division over Mark Carney, because he’s got to explain himself. Is he in this for Canada? Is in it for Mark Carney?

I’m not going to ask you for a seat count yet – we might get there towards the end of the month – but who forms government? Majority or minority? John, who do you say?

GORMLEY: Currently, I think it’s a knife edge. It’s a minority. However, Kim Campbell takes governing Tories to two seats. John Turner takes the governing Liberals to the biggest Conservative win – 211 seats – in history. Carney, at a certain point, can propel Poilievre to a 200-seat win. I’m not ruling that out, but ask me today, it’s a minority either way.

RICHARDSON: In order to encourage our candidates in the field, I’m going to say a minority Liberal government.

SPROULE: I’m with these guys. A minority government. We’ll be back where we were in 2019, 2021, likely. I’m going to say likely Liberal at this point.