Evan Bray Show panel discusses Carney’s victory and what’s next for Canada

Monday’s election saw the Liberal Party and its new leader Mark Carney win a fourth consecutive mandate.

Carney restored the Liberals’ fortunes after the resignation of Justin Trudeau, focusing his campaign on the economic threats posed by Donald Trump and bringing the party back from a big deficit in the polls just prior to the start of the campaign. The Conservatives gained seats and a larger share of the popular vote on Monday, although party leader Pierre Poilievre lost his own riding in Ottawa. The NDP’s losses, meanwhile, were great enough to cost the New Democrats their official party status and prompt a resignation from Leader Jagmeet Singh.

Read More:

• Carney’s election victory draws mixed reaction in Saskatchewan
• Conservatives sweep Saskatchewan again, Liberals secure single seat
• Energy industry strikes hopeful tone after Liberal federal election win

On Tuesday’s edition of the Evan Bray Show, Bray was joined by his regular election panelists John Gormley, a lawyer, former Progressive Conservative MP and long-time talk show host on 650 CKOM and 980 CJME, Doug Richardson, a lawyer and former chief of staff to Liberal Prime Minister John Turner, and Cathy Sproule, who represented Saskatoon Nutana as an NDP MLA. The panel discussed the results, the surprises they saw on Monday night, and what Carney’s win means for the future of Canada and Saskatchewan.

Listen to the full panel discussion here or read the transcript below:

https://iono.fm/e/1550892

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

EVAN BRAY: John, maybe I’ll start with you. I know you were following closely the federal election. Your thoughts on what unfolded last night and what we’re now looking at here today?

JOHN GORMLEY: It’s a fascinating constellation. The polls had indicated it was going to be a very close minority one way or the other. As I was watching the results come in, I was hoping the Liberals could stay at under 160, because that way it would have been difficult for them to have coalesced with anybody but the Bloc who, of course, think we live in an artificial country. But the Liberals at 168, the Tories at 144, it is just, for the Liberals, only four seats away from a majority. They’ve got seven New Democrats now who could prop them up, but I think in many ways it’s “What is Mark Carney’s vision for the country?” It’s got to be more than simply saying he’ll stand up to Donald Trump. The Conservatives, obviously, with Mr. (Pierre) Poilievre even losing his own seat, the Tories picked up seats. They picked up popular vote, but they didn’t get over the top.

Doug Richardson, I’ll come to you next. I know you have been quite open about the fact you’ve spent a lot of time with the Liberals and as a Liberal supporter, a Liberal insider. So congratulations on the victory last night. Your thoughts on this election and the results?

DOUG RICHARDSON: Let me be clear. It is a humbling experience, no matter how these things end, Evan. Having been on both sides of winning and losing elections I understand the strong feelings that are emoted today. Obviously thrilled that we we got one seat here in Saskatchewan with a talented potential minister, I would suggest. But if I was being honest, the fact is most people who love politics were exhausted right now, physically and mentally and glad that the country turned out in relatively good numbers – maybe not quite as high as we’d hoped – but there were a number of positives in the campaign for certain, Evan.

And Cathy, over to you. Just your thoughts on the election and the results this morning?

CATHY SPROULE: Thanks, Evan. Feeling a bit disheartened, I guess, this morning. And the one word I have for the results for the NDP is irony, because as Pierre Poilievre was so disliked in this country, Trump was so feared in this country that people turned from the NDP to support one of the two major parties. And as a result we’ve lost official party status, and it will be an uphill climb to rebuild. But I have no doubt, and given the mood in the room last night, that we will indeed be rebuilding and hoping to gain back Canadians’ confidence, but it’s just a really ironic warning for me.

Let’s talk just a little bit more about that. Cathy, it doesn’t seem like a normal migration pattern for NDP votes to migrate towards a Bay Street super banker, yet that’s what happened. Would you consider the NDP votes on loan to the other parties, because the Conservatives took some NDP seats as well? What does this rebuild look like?

SPROULE: Well, obviously a new leadership race. As you know, Mr. (Jagmeet) Singh stepped down last night after losing his seat. So that’s the beginning of the rebuild, is a leadership search and race, and then beyond that, I know in our own local riding we’re already poised with fundraising to begin the battle again, and I’m pretty sure New Democrats across the country are feeling the same way. The financial impact is going to be significant, because many New Democrats didn’t even get the 10 per cent threshold to obtain the Elections Canada rebate, so that’s going to be a further part of the struggle. But we’ve been down before, and we need to lick our wounds and then get up and go again.

John, I want to come back to you. A bit of a roller-coaster ride, obviously, for the Conservatives who at one point were, I think, 24 points ahead in the polls. What do you point to, as I’ve got a list of five to seven different potential turning points in this election? From your vantage point, what was it?

GORMLEY: It really was what we talked about on all of our panels. It was: What is the ballot question? If the ballot question, as Doug Ford was defining it all the way up until two days ago, is calling Donald Trump out, saying Canada is not for sale, we’re going to show how tough we are as little Canadians, that’s all well and good, and it’s really important in a trading relationship to define that. If the ballot question was – and again, it’s all about Mr. Carney, because we don’t know who he is – if it is some lassitude with deficits, if it’s his obsession with climate policy, he’s been very clear on the record what he thinks of Western Canada’s resource policy. This is Justin Trudeau, 2.0, so I’m enough of a Canadian I want to see does he pivot to what I’m calling peace and national unity, and that’s a pivot away from a lot of the Liberal core vote. And we’re still dealing with tariffs, no doubt about that. But four months from now, tariffs are not going to occupy a fraction of the bandwidth they do today. So yes, he’s defined the ballot question. Canadians voted with him in that question. But gosh, I’m concerned now. What lies ahead for the rest of us?

Doug, what do you see as the first priority for the new prime minister, the newly elected Liberal government?

RICHARDSON: I would see four things Evan. Number one, he’s committed, time and time again, to the creation of an energy superpower. Let’s not mistake it: he means both oil and gas, and he means green tech. Number two, his minister spoke about what they will do about the agriculture issues, particularly the canola issue we’ve talked about on our show. If you want me to go into details, I will. But the third point is – and I’ve mentioned this on the show when John graciously acknowledged the fact that my son is working with the prime minister and has been traveling with him, was here for three days in advance of the rally here – I am assured that this is an individual, that listens. He is disciplined. He asks for advice. Doesn’t necessarily follow it all, but he asks for advice. And the fourth thing that I hope he will do, and you’ll think I’m playing to the audience, but I mean this quite sincerely having been in the House of Commons when the Liberals were in opposition, I hope Mr. Carney (can) build the bridges across the gaps that now exist right after an election. I hope he will accord – I mean this sincerely, Cathy – I hope he’ll accord party status to the NDP.

SPROULE: That would be something.

So what would that mean, Doug? What? They don’t have official party status because they didn’t hit the 12 seat mark. So what are you referring to?

RICHARDSON: It’s very important. Really, the House of Commons turns a lot on the committee structure. Most of your audience is saying, “well that’s not what I see,” but but in Ottawa, a lot of decision making, a lot of positive policy making, particularly during this era – we’re trying to build bridges to deal with the US threat – having everyone at the table, at the committee table in the House of Commons is very important, and I acknowledge the contribution over the last many years that the NDP have made there. The Bloc will have their seats because of their numbers and obviously – and kudos to the conservatives to how they maintain their base through a very challenging election – they’ll obviously have key roles, so I hope all parties are going to play in this. Quite frankly, we need bridge building for the good of this country right now.

Cathy, you talked about being disappointed in what resulted for the NDP. If we look at Saskatchewan, NDP, even though this is a blue province federally, have typically had better showings in the federal ridings than the Liberals in many cases. Last night, that was not the case. Last night, in fact, we saw the Liberals number two on all ballots, almost, except one where they were successful. What does that mean, provincially, for the NDP?

SPROULE: I think it’s pretty clear to me that the NDP vote last night was a loan, and actually Doug used that word here during the break. There was a concern about Canada, and the progressive voters that usually vote NDP held their nose and decided to vote for the Liberals to a great degree, and very successfully as far as the Liberals are concerned. If you would have seen my Facebook feed in the last three or four weeks, there was a huge debate going on about vote splitting. And definitely, I think that’s what happened. I think it’s temporary. And I think if you look at the turnout in Saskatoon, for example, provincially, there’s still a very strong majority for the NDP in the urban ridings.

John, I want to come to you on the question of Saskatchewan and Saskatchewan votes. The Conservatives with 13 out of 14 seats, the northernmost seat, of course, went Liberal. Some of the Conservatives won very, very handily. Some of the urban ridings, though, (saw) a much closer race. And with all due respect to the Liberal candidates that ran, they were Liberal candidates that some would consider virtual unknowns and essentially placeholders for the Liberal Party, yet they clearly got a lot of votes. John, what is that message coming from the urban centers in Saskatchewan?

GORMLEY: Exactly what our two friends have been saying. Whether it is a long term loan, whether it’s an amortized loan, who knows? But the classic NDP vote went Liberal. Remember Mark Carney’s excellent status as a guy who spreads fear. I mean, replay his Brexit commentary in the U.K. and everything that didn’t happen. So he was very, very focused on the idea that there was an existential threat in Canada on the trade front, the tariffs and Donald Trump. So anyone who wasn’t a Tory, I think in many respects, turned Liberal. And Saskatchewan is a very good example of a place where one of the Conservative growth points is, there will always be a strong New Democrat in the race, depending on the federal Liberal fortunes you know there’ll be a vote there. Buckley Belanger’s win up in DMC was absolutely expected. I think we all predicted it. Mr. Belanger, while a great mayor of Île-à-la-Crosse when he was young, and a great, many-term New Democrat cabinet minister, is not federal cabinet material, so I don’t see him being a cabinet minister. But again, the Liberals will be able to say, as my friend Doug does, the Liberals now have a foothold in Saskatchewan.

So Doug, what are your thoughts? I know you have said on this program before that you think a coalition government might not be a bad thing to consider. It seems like a frosty day that that would happen, but is that still something that you think about?

RICHARDSON: I do, 100 per cent. I said a second ago, maybe poorly, but to repeat, I the new prime minister has got to reach across party lines. He’s got to garner support. A unique move would be to offer one or two seats at the table to Conservatives – never the Bloc, for certain – a role, for sure, for the NDP, but building bridges is going to be so important. Let me just take up John’s point about fear. Yes, I acknowledge what John was trying to say. The Prime Minister elect was trying to raise the worry about the NDP. But to be fair, half of his presentations, half of his platform, half of what he said on Sunday here in Saskatoon was “This is what I’m going to do to lead the country away from these challenges.” So was it fearful only? I think there was a lot of hope in the way the leader presented himself. It’s interesting, by the way, one of the leading pundits for the Conservatives drew on the fact that the polling had shown that many supporters of the Conservatives were hopeful. Hope was important for them, and I hope they use that hope to back this bridge building that I’m talking about.

What do you see different with this Liberal government versus the one that was governing prior to the election?

RICHARDSON: Major difference is a leader who is who understands financial issues, financial industries, financial and economic changes that are needed. That’s a lifetime experience that he’s bringing to the job. I know they all like to point to the banking thing, but he is a former assistant deputy minister of finance, so contrary to where John’s worried – and I guess we all are about our levels of spending – he understands the importance of book balancing at some point.

You have some thoughts, John. Go ahead.

GORMLEY: Well, I think so much of it I agree with Doug is tone from the top, and Doug also used the word humility. I don’t know Mark Carney, but some people that I do know who know him say like most guys who are the smartest guy in the room, he’ll tell you about it really quickly, and that explain why he’s smarter than you. Humility is a problem. Others say “No, he has the ability to internalize, to not be the smartest guy in the room and take good advice.” So that’s going to remain to be seen. But the tone from the top, I mean, think about why we are as upset as we are. Mr. Trudeau set the tone from the top. Jonathan Wilkinson, who was a Saskatchewanian back in the day, Steven Guilbeault, Marie-Claude Bibeau, whether you move to firearms and you watch the response there from Marco Mendicino, I mean every single issue from resources to local issues like the importance of firearms law and what’s happening to our gun owners, the tone from the top from the beginning has been they know more than we do. “Get out of the way and let the right thing happen.” If that continues, Mark Carney is not going to be doing the kind of job that we need in western Canada.

I want to stay with you for a second here, because really what we saw is the two main parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, running very different campaigns in some ways. The Liberals focused on the threat of tariffs and Donald Trump, while the Conservatives ran their platform on cost of living and some of these problems that we’ve been talking about over the last year plus on this radio station. Had the Conservatives put their platform out earlier, would that have helped them, momentum wise? Because it felt like after the platform came out some momentum started to gain for the Conservatives. Was that a bad decision by the party?

GORMLEY: I don’t know. If the party made a decision or didn’t make a decision, I think it was much earlier on. Even (Stephen) Harper put it so well at that huge rally a few weeks ago where he simply said “Ten years of Justin Trudeau will not be excused by Donald Trump’s tariffs.” So had the Tories come out very strong with that message, the need for a strong Canadian economy is underscored when Trump does what he’s done with tariffs. So had the Tories been able to take those issues which had them 20 points ahead and interlink or weave it into the Trump tariffs… But earlier on, I give the Liberals credit, they came out of the block saying “You should be very, very, very, very afraid of Donald Trump and tariffs, and only Mark Carney, the world banker, is going to be able to fix it.” So the Tory campaign got some heat later on, but I think they could have done it a bit earlier by linking the issues.

Cathy, I want to come to you. Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives, of course, were very hard on Justin Trudeau, very hard on Jagmeet Singh. Had the Conservatives not gone so hard on Trudeau and Trudeau had not resigned, stayed in power, do you think that would have spelled a different outcome in this election for the NDP?

SPROULE: Without a doubt. I mean, it’s very clear that the hatred of Trudeau was was driving the Conservative success. And again, it leads to the irony where Poilievre was I don’t know how many points down in his own popularity. His party was very popular. He wasn’t. And Trudeau was unpopular, but then they had Carney, who became very popular. And the irony, again, of that is that it drove progressives to vote for a Conservative banker in an election. So it’s astounding to me how this has really shaped everything. But no, I think the NDP would probably have 20 or 30 seats if Trudeau had stayed on, but we would have a Conservative government and there’d be no doubt about that. The change of leadership was critical, and the timing, and I always say, Mark Carney is a very lucky man, but he could have easily have run as leader for the Conservatives if there had been a void in that party. He worked for Stephen Harper. You know, he’s a conservative, so we’ll see what happens.

GORMLEY: He’s never been accused of being a conservative, but I get what Cathy saying.

SPROULE: From a progressive perspective, yes.

RICHARDSON: But he’s way more than a world banker. He’s a born and raised western Canadian, and is a sea change for government in this country. It’s not something the Liberals have ever had before, and I hope your audience, Evan, will wake up to some of this man’s other strengths and not simply get hinged on the banking part of it. I acknowledge I’m the one who said there’s a distinction between he and the former prime minister on economic issues, but I’ve got to provide one small correction to John. With all due respect, Buckley Belanger is ideally suited to serve a cabinet.

SPROULE: I don’t agree.

RICHARDSON: Well, I get it but, but everyone says that they want western representation in a Liberal government. This man has done what others haven’t been able to do. And one of the big pluses he brings is some understanding of the Indigenous issue, which is an important step as we go forward.

Why don’t you agree?

GORMLEY: I’ll defer to Cathy. Cathy was in caucus with him. I’ll defer to her. Buckley is a great guy, but he ain’t federal cabinet material.

SPROULE: I love Buckley Belanger. He’s a wonderful human being. He’s well into his 60s and maybe he’ll be a great source of in-depth cabinet experience. But I do believe that if you’re going to govern – and Mark Carney said this last night – you govern for all of Canada, and the fact that there’s one lonely Liberal hanging around in northern Saskatchewan, I don’t think will be enough to make the changes that are needed to bring western Canada the leadership it needs love. I love Buck, and don’t get me wrong, I do. I just think that we need really, really, seriously experienced people in cabinet to make some of those decisions. Buckley’s an experienced politician, and he’s very good at that. I’ll leave it at that.

RICHARDSON: I’ll add to this. John; he criticized the resume of Mr. Wilkinson. Here is somebody who’s got roots in Saskatchewan and I can tell you from a myriad of files that I’ve worked on, has been hugely helpful. And that will be another voice that that will support people like Buckley. Everybody kept saying “Why don’t we have voices from western Canada on the Liberal side?” We knew if the Tories were going to win there’d be lots of voices there. But now we’ve got some voices, for Heaven’s sake, give them a chance.

Doug, here’s the question. Do you think we will see purposeful moves by Mark Carney, by the Liberals, away from things that cause them to look like the same old Liberals?

RICHARDSON: Yes, 100 per cent yes.

OK, here’s my list, and you probably won’t like it, but equalization payments, energy corridor including a pipeline, investment and priority to the ag sector, and electoral or senate reform. Those are things that I hear from Saskatchewan people on this station all the time. Do you think we’ll we’ll hear anything in those categories Doug?

RICHARDSON: Yes. And if you recall I listed four things, and energy was one of them. On the ag side, I honestly believe we’ve got a good ag minister, and one of your callers or one of your online people have praised him. So again, let’s give this guy a chance to respond to that. Let’s deal with equalization. I wish there was an easy answer. Cathy and John know that the Harper government tried very hard (and) that Premier (Lorne) Calvert started a lawsuit on this. Premier Moe is talking again about it, but very simply for your audience, my opinion is this: unless Manitoba and Quebec are going to give up the power – they have the hydro power advantage they have – I just don’t see how anybody is going to push this forward, even though I think we should remodel the equalization formula.

Just before the break, Doug talking about some of the things that newly elected Prime Minister Mark Carney could do to impress upon western Canada that they are we are a priority and included in the vision of Canada for this government. John, the question for you is simple: what could Mark Carney do that would have you sit up and say “Wow, that was not expected. That’s positive, and that’s moving us in the right direction”?

GORMLEY: One thing. Since 1937, Canada has had the most restrictive handgun ownership and licensing laws on planet Earth, among the industrialized countries. Since the 1990s, rigidly regulated long gun ownership. The anti-gun stakeholders, who live mainly in Toronto and Montreal and some in Vancouver, convinced Mr. Trudeau to outlaw, to prohibit, over 2,000 models of long guns. They also convinced him to prevent – ever – the sale or the buying of a handgun in Canada. In Saskatchewan, in the west and among people who are legal, licensed and law abiding, this has been, first of all, a cost for some people of tens of thousands of dollars. Secondly, a sense of “Why did you behave this way Marco Mendicino? Jon Wilkinson? Justin Trudeau? Why did you not do it differently, or not at all?” They didn’t have to do this. If Mr. Carney said “We’re stopping, pausing, taking a big breath,” I would be the first person, Evan Bray, to say, “Wow, I didn’t see that coming.”

I don’t agree with Western separation. I don’t feel that that’s the way to go. That said, we cannot ignore the fact that there are not hundreds but thousands of people in our province and in Alberta that feel that way. Cathy, what needs to happen to try and unite this country?

SPROULE: Well, I think it comes from leadership, and I look first to Scott Moe and second to Danielle Smith, who have used western separation as a political baseball bat, and it’s time for them to stand up for Canada. And I’m just tired of hearing it come out of their mouths that we’re being ignored. And there are things absolutely I agree with, John, 100 per cent, if the Liberals would make those changes to the gun laws, that would be in a conciliatory move for sure. And so there’s work for the Liberals to do. There’s work for the federal government to do. There’s also work for our provincial leaders to do to build Canada as a strong nation.

Cathy, can I just push back a little bit? We’ve seen both Scott Moe and Daniel Smith say that, but are they not reflecting what a lot of people in this province are saying? Not all, but a lot of people in this province?

SPROULE: Well, a lot, Evan? I mean, we talked about this earlier. It’s less than 30 per cent.

I’ve got 33 per cent.

SPROULE: It’s growing, as you pointed out. But is it growing because it’s being fed and nourished? I think we need to take a step back. I think if Carney would do something about the canola tariffs immediately, that would be a signal and a sign, and people would appreciate that. And let’s continue doing what we do well with our resources in our Saskatchewan economy, Alberta’s economy, and then carry on from there and move forward. But the criticizing, I’m done with.

Doug, your thoughts on bringing this country together. Can the Liberals do it?

RICHARDSON: Yes. The important thing will be Mr. Carney remaining humble in his approach to the issues that are raised. Obviously, I like to hear what Cathy said, because I worry about the two premiers, but if this new prime minister is a good as good a listener as I’m told he is, and makes an effort to reach out, reach out, reach out, reach out, then I think there is good hope.

John, does Canada weather the storm of feeling fractured?

GORMLEY: It’s all up to Mark Carney, if he continues the policy trajectory the Trudeau Government. I will never use the words western separation, but I will say we cannot develop our resources (and) we cannot find our place in Canada and the world under the present constitutional formula. And that’s not our problem; that’s Canada’s problem. And I’m going to be with those people who say “Hey Canada, you’ve got to redo some things to accommodate us.”

Thank you, all three, for your passionate and educated responses and dialogue that we’ve been able to have over the last month and a bit. We appreciate you joining the show.