December 1, 2025 • 52 mins
Tonight on The Brian Crombie Hour, Brian is joined by one of Canada’s most respected political pollsters, Nik Nanos of Nanos Research, for a timely and revealing look at the shifting currents of Canadian politics. Together, they break down what the latest data is really saying, why the Conservatives can’t seem to break through even with low NDP support, the surprising uptick in Liberal momentum around Mark Carney, and how razor-thin margins in key ridings helped shape the last federal election. Their conversation also explores the bigger forces influencing Canada’s political future, including the Alberta–Canada pipeline deal, Indigenous participation and legal challenges, public opinion on energy exports, and growing separatist sentiment in Alberta — including talk of closer ties to the U.S. They examine how the evolving Canada–U.S. relationship is impacting confidence, the economy, and national direction, and whether the country is ready to take risks or remain stuck in a political holding pattern.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views expressed in the following program are those of
the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of
SAGA nine sixty am or its management.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Brian Crombie Radio.
While it's a real honor for me to have Nick
Nanos with us tonight. He is the chief dot scientist,
the board director, the head of Nanos Research and someone
that probably all of us have heard on the radio
or TV and read newspapers articles about because he has
got to be Kenna's leading data scientists. And so it's
(00:39):
a real pleasure and honor to have you with us today, sir,
thank you so much for joining us. Tell us what
are we all thinking about. Let's start with overall politics.
What's happened with the political party since the budget?
Speaker 3 (00:50):
If we could, well, there's been a little bit of
an uptick for the Liberals. You know. The thing is
this statistical that heat Brian between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Now,
the liberal they're at around forty two percent, the Conservatives
at thirty seven, so five point advantage. But the kicker,
the killer number for the Conservatives is not their number,
because thirty seven is a pretty good number for the
Conservatives nationally. It's the NDP number. They're at nine percent nationally.
(01:14):
If we remember the winning franchise for former Conservative leader
and former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, it was to split
the vote between the Liberals and the New Democrats. That's
how he won three mandates. Right now, you know, the
thing is, with the NDP at nine percent, it's very
difficult for the Conservatives, even when their popular support is strong,
(01:35):
to win an election. So, you know, the thing is
is a little bit of an uptick for the for
the Liberals, but mostly at the expense of the NDP
and the Conservatives steady in terms of national support in
the high thirties.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
You know, I hear you, and maybe you've got a
pull on this, or maybe you don't. I'm not sure,
because it'd be interesting to see where Pier Paoliev stands
on preferred prime minister and I think you've done polls
on that. I think the issue is, isn't it that
the NDP typical voter is scared of Poliev and so
therefore parking their votes with the Liberal or can you
(02:09):
analyze that?
Speaker 3 (02:10):
Well, that's part of it.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
You know.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
The thing is to your point, Brian. When we ask
Canadians who they would prefer as prime minister, and we
asked this every week, Mark Kearney has a massive advantage.
He's at around fifty three percent nationally, Peer Pauliev's at
around twenty six. So, you know, think of it this way,
it's a twenty seven point advantage for Mark Karney. And
you know, the thing is, I think one of the
ways that I look at it at least is yes,
(02:32):
some of those NDP voters are are with the Liberals.
I think the other interesting thing is, you know, for
the Liberal advantage today, it's not about people liking the
Liberal Party, it's not about people being happy with the
last ten years. It's actually about Mark Kearney. It's specifically
focused on one person. The Conservative numbers are kind of
(02:53):
like the opposite. You know, It's obviously not about Pierre Pauliev.
It's about voters who want chain, voters who believe that
the Liberals have been in power to belong. And you
know what, I'm not sure if it really makes a
big difference who the leader of the Conservative Party was.
There are people that just want the Liberals out, period,
full stop.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
It doesn't matter who the leader is seriously with all
of the you know, the statistics that you've got in
regards to preferred prime ministers, in regards to you know,
all the people that loved Pierre pauliev enjoined the Conservative
Party and joined his leadership campaign because they thought that
he was the second coming, and then frankly a lot
of people that were read Tories or Progressive Conservatives that
(03:34):
felt uncomfortable. You don't think it matters who the leader
is thin for.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
I think you know what, if you're voting for the
Conservatives today, you just want the Liberals out. And you
know the thing is is that even for peer paulyiev
he lost his seat in the last federal election. You
know that's not ideal for any federal party. You know,
he's had to deal with, you know, the Premier of Ontario,
the Progressive Conservative Premier of Ontario, taking shots at him
and his leadership throughout the last campaign. Like, let's face it, Brian,
(04:03):
that's not helpful. Ontario is the big prize when it
comes to votes, and to have what I'll say, the
top Conservative in Ontario criticize the Conservative Party leader federally
is just not so. Even with all of this stuff
going on. You know, support for the Conservatives has been steady.
So what this says to me at least is that
(04:23):
they're just people that fundamentally want change and believe that
the Liberals have been in power too long. Now, Pierre
PAULI I can't mess up. But the thing is is
that I think there's a reality that there he is
part of a movement of change. He just happens to
be the person at the front of the parade.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
With respect. They disagree with you, and I have no
idea whether there'd be a poll that you could do
to analyze my hypothesis, but I think if the Conservatives
had a more progressive Conservative, a more red Tory leader
that was less scary to the center and to the
left and to the d like a Doug Ford, or
like a Stephen Harper, yeah, or like Jean Charet, who
(05:05):
was a competian obviously with pauliev in the last election,
I think Conservatives would do better. I think that the
issue they've got is that they've got a leader that
you know, some people described incredibly negatively during the last campaign.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
I know, but I hear what you're saying. But let's
just talk to the numbers. The Conservatives in the last
federal election got forty one percent of the sport In
the history of the Conservative Party in its many variations
since confederation, I think that was the five or sixth
best showing ever for the Conservative movement in its different variations. Right, So,
(05:41):
you know Pierre Paulyiev and his advisors when they say
that it was a good election for the Conservatives empirically,
with the exception of them not winning more seats, it
was an exceptionally good election for the Conservatives in terms
of the number of individual Canadians that supported the party,
but it was the vote split, and you know, this
(06:02):
is where the Liberals have the advantage. So you know,
the thing is is that maybe another way to look
at it, I think Pierre Paualiev is not in control
of his destiny. There are two other politicians that are
in control of his destiny or one party. One is
the New Democrats. They have to do better. The other
one is Mark Carney. If Mark Carney messes up, the
reality is is that there will be Canadians that are
(06:23):
currently voting Liberal that will probably drift back perhaps to
the Conservatives, but probably to the New Democrats. So you know,
in a way for the Conservatives, their destiny in terms
of winnability is not directly in their control because the
people that want change are with them, and it doesn't
matter who the leader of the party is. It's the
configuration of the vote between the Liberals and the new Democrats.
(06:46):
If Mark Carney falters or if the new Democrats start
picking up steam, that will create an environment with the
same number of votes for the Conservatives for them to
win a mandate.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
So, if I'm right, there should be enough people that
vote against him in the leadership review and they should
be looking for a new leader that is more progressive, conservative,
less extreme. If you're right, he should win in the
leadership review. What's your prediction.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
I wouldn't be surprised he should win more than seventy
five percent of the leadership review. That would be very
I would be very surprised. You know. The other thing
Brian is for him to not do as well. He
needs someone to knife him in the back and knife
him in the front, like there needs to be an alternative.
You know, Conservatives, I don't think are going to go
to a convention and knife their leader, not knowing that
(07:37):
there might be someone else in the wings. Right. And
you know, the thing is is, if we look at
Joe Clark, for example, there was Brian mulrooney. If we
look at Jean Fretchen, there was Paul Martin. So you
know the thing is is that when you go through
those processes, there needs to be an alternative. Right now, Brian,
I don't see anyone that's putting their hand up to
be the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. So
going into this vote, unless something dramatically changes, I think
(08:00):
the reality is that he will win his vote. The
big question is how big will it be. I wouldn't
be surprised if it's anywhere from seventy five to eighty percent,
and that should be enough to kind of have them
keep going at least as the leader.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
Okay, so what about the NDP. Tell me about the
NDP is can they do anything or.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
They don't know?
Speaker 2 (08:21):
For Mark Karney to stumble.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
Yeah, you know the here's one of the ironic things
in polling. I'd done polling for now thirty five years,
and one of the phenomenon that I've always seen is
that leaders, Oh sorry, parties without leaders are more popular
than parties with leaders. Do you give me like it's
like there's nothing to repel people because they go, oh,
maybe this person will be the leader, maybe that person
(08:44):
will be the leader, so they you know, the parties
is kind of interesting when we've seen the Conservative Party
leader step down, the Liberal Party leader step down, even
for you know, the numbers go up for those parties
because there are alternatives. This is the first leadership that
I've seen in a while for the New Democrats where
the leader steps down and then their numbers are still
(09:04):
in the tank. You know. The thing is that last
election for the for the federal New Democrats was one
of the worst elections at least in the modern era
for that party. And you know, they're still in our polling,
they're still in the single digits. So you know, for
the New Democrats, you know, they have to hope that
somehow Mark Kearney makes a mistake. The other thing, if
(09:25):
you remember earlier this week, Brian we had Guibaut resigned
from cabinet because of the deal with Alberta and also
he stepped down obviously because he wasn't happy as someone
that I was very in favor and supportive of the environment,
with the direction that the government is going in the
question is is are there other grumpy liberals who are
(09:47):
environmentalists that might be a little uncomfortable with what I'll
say the centrist position that Mark Kearney is taking. And
the reality is for them, I think the only parties
that they can go to the New Democrats and perhaps
the Green Party. I might provide a little bit of
hope for the New Democrats, but they need they're going
to need to kind of embrace some of these progressive
policies that Mark Kearney is putting on the back burner
(10:09):
right now.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
So it's interesting. I had a fascinating discussion with some
people a little I guess a week ago about Mark
Carney's strategy on the budget, and I'd be interested in
your point of view that some people said that he
was taking a huge risk going into that budget vote
not knowing exactly where the votes were, and he should
have done some deal with the NDP, and other people said, no,
you don't want to give any credence to the DP,
because if you give any creeds to AAP, then people
(10:32):
will feel comfortable voting for them. So what do you
think was Carney's strategy right or wrong?
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Well, it was risky, but it's probably the right strategy
for him. The fact of the matter is, when we
look at the previous Justin Trudeau government, they were doing
deals and they were spending money in order to politically
stay alive, which is why the NDP were at the
table and why we had a lot of those policies,
why they exist. It's clear at least that the Carney
government doesn't want to fall into the same track where
(10:58):
they're shopping and horse trading for votes in order to
politically survive. But here's the number for you and your
listeners and viewers to chew on. Sixty. Remember this number sixty.
In the last federal election, if sixty voters out of
nineteen point seven million votes cast changed their vote in
three ridings, just three federal writings, the Liberals would have
(11:21):
won a majority government. So you have to think of
the Liberals with the threat of an election, thinking can
they persuade sixty people in three ridings to vote liberal?
And that's how close the Liberals were to a Liberal
majority last time.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
What were those writings, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
Those writings were the riding in Newfoundland Bona Vista. There
was a riding in uh oh Jesus not off the
top of my head, but I can send you a
lit with those ridings. It's a great stat.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
It's a great stat and it says what people always
say and no one believes, is that every vote counts,
because sixty votes is certainly not that many.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
Yeah, out of nineteen point five or nine ten point
seven million, it's nothing.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Unbelieve what We're going to take a break for some
messages when we come back in and ask you about
this resignation from cabinet, about this this pipeline energy deal
and what polling you've got on that, and does this
have a chance of actually getting improved in BC? It
certainly appears that Carnie and the Premier of Alberta have
(12:22):
done a great job of sort of walking down an
enter an interesting middle line. Stay with the zeveryone back
in just two.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
Minutes stream us live at SAGA nine sixty am dot CA.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
We'll come back everyone to the Bran crimeby Radio. Our
incredible honor for me to have Nick Danis a poster
that we all read and heard and followed with us
said today to talk about what's going on in Canada.
We've just chatted a little bit about where the federal
political parties and leaders are I want to ask you
about an issue because I think this is really interesting
and I wonder what analysis, what polls you've got on
(13:09):
this deal that the Premier of Alberta and the Prime
Minister of Canada have made to support a privately funded
pipeline for Bitchamen from Alberta to the West coast. It
would appear from what I've seen that Canada in general
is supportive. Alberta is really supportive, but BC, I don't know,
(13:31):
And so what do you think?
Speaker 3 (13:34):
You know, as survey we just did with the University
of Ottawa, the Positive Energy Initiative, we completed before the deal,
but it was on energy issues and some key things
that we learned from that survey that kind of help
us inform what Canadians likely think about this deal that
has just been struck in the last couple of days.
You know, first of all, when we ask Canadians where
(13:54):
they want to diversify our energy exports to, at the
very top of the list or what the priority should be,
at the very top of the list is Europe, followed
by Asia. The United States is third, and only nineteen
percent of Canadians think there should be more energy exports
to the United States. So on that front, any kind
of project that looks to diversify markets either to Asia
(14:17):
or Europe is probably going to be positively looked upon
about from a significant proportion of Canadians. The other kicker
is is that this whole objective that the government has
set to kind of double the non US exports. When
we asked about the different sectors in this positive energy
pool for the University of Ottawall, when we ask the
different sectors that were more likely to kind of achieve
(14:39):
this goal, energy was at the very top of the list,
followed by minds and minerals and then agrifood. So at
a very high level, this at least has been packaged.
It seems in a way that would be appealing to
many Canadians in terms of the configuration because it has
to do with exports to places other than the the
(15:00):
United States, and it's a focus on energy. But to
your point, Brian, the kicker is British Columbia.
Speaker 4 (15:06):
You know.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
The thing is in other research that we did, we
ask Canadians about whether provinces that were against a particular project,
a national project, whether they should whether they should have
the power to hold it up, and a pretty strong
majority of Canadians say, you know what, if a project
is deemed in the national interest, a single project should
not be able to hold up an energy project like
(15:29):
a pipeline for example. But what we don't know is
how Canadians feel is if it was in their backyard.
And this is where British Columbia comes into place. You know.
The other thing that's important, This will be my last
comment on this is British Columbia from a polling perspective,
is like multiple provinces, the interior of British Columbia is
very resource driven, forestry, energy minds. It's very much like Alberta.
(15:51):
You get to the lower mainland and it is much
more urban, it is much more into environmental issues. So,
you know, politically within the province of British Columbia, you know,
there's significant proportion of people that support the project, but
there are also people that oppose, and there's a significant
division within that province at least as anyone.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Have you done any polling within the indigenous communities that
are going to be obviously impacted and have.
Speaker 3 (16:16):
A say no. But the thing is is that the
indigenous dimension of all of this, what's clear is that
this government at least has said that Indigenous participation in
the project is mandatory. I think that's what they said,
that it's got to exist. But you know, the thing
is is in the same survey that we did with
the university, we asked if an Indigenous if some Indigenous
(16:38):
peoples opposed a project, should the project move forward or not?
And we got kind of similar numbers where Canadian said,
you know what, if a majority of Indigenous peoples that
were directly impacted by a project supported the project, one
holdout should not be able to stop that. But we
have to remember this is within the contact stuff, all
(17:00):
the stuff that's been going on in the courts about
and the court's interpretation of the rights of Indigenous people.
So I don't know how quickly if this can even happen,
And then if it does happen, you know what this
might mean in terms of what might be in the courts. So,
you know, I guess the only thing we do know
now is that maybe a project could happen, and that
(17:22):
the federal government has made it a little easier. But
some of these conditions in terms of rounding up private
sector investment and Indigenous support. Those are real tough.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
Have you done polls with NBC?
Speaker 3 (17:33):
You know?
Speaker 2 (17:34):
My sense is that the I don't even know what
the party's called these days, but the two opposition parties
are nowhere and there's fights within the leadership and so
therefore EB the premier has got, you know, a reasonably
easy path to support it. And I was at a
party just last night where people were saying, he's going
(17:54):
to reluctantly agree. He's going to try to fight it
just the way that some ward counselors could develop, but
know what's happening, so that in the end he'll reluctantly agree.
What's your sense of EB in his strategy.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
Well, the thing is is for EB, we have to
remember that he's actually it's a minority government, right, This
guy doesn't have a majority, so he has to deal
with that. I think a pipeline to the Lower Mainline
is going to be like a new pipeline to the
Lower Mainland is going to be much more difficult. It's
going to be more difficult to permit, it's going to
be more difficult to build, it's going to be more
difficult to kind of get approvals for that. I think
(18:27):
the lower hanging fruit is to kind of twin the
existing pipeline that goes through northern Alberta out through the
north of the province, because the thing is is that
the path is already there. You know, they already worked
out all the indigenous peoples. Although they have to consult
with them again, that's already been done once and that
could probably happen much faster. So, you know, the thing
is is, I think a pipeline through the northern part
(18:50):
of the province has a much higher likelihood of potentially
happening compared to a brand new pipeline through southern in British.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Columbia, didn't we have it Northern Gateway or something.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
Like that exactly. So it's kind of twinning. So think
of it just putting another lane on the highway. Why
don't we just call it that from Alberta to the
Energy Highway from Alberta through to the Pacific coast.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
Tell me about Alberta then, Daniel Smith, you know, it
seems that she sort of threaded a needle here supportive
of this agreement with the federal government, who she's been
you know, arguing against and providing you know, almost extortion
like negotiating parameters. Have you got to do this or
we're gonna we're gonna separate and it's going to be
a you know, a unity issue. Has she threaded the
(19:35):
needle or is she going to risk support because of this?
Speaker 3 (19:39):
Well, you know the thing is, I'm out and I'm
out West a lot for work. She's definitely threaded the
needle in terms of getting the federal government to relax
issues related to kind of the environment, tanking tankers and
and stuff like that. So she'd been able to get that.
She was obviously happy, Brian, I don't if you saw
(20:00):
the press conference, it's kind of like she was extremely
happy about the about the agreement with the federal government.
But you know, the thing is, the other thing is
is that you know she has she's she's had a
leadership like a party meeting in Alberta, and we have
(20:20):
to remember that there's a significant proportion of UCP United
Conservative Party members who actually believe and are advocating for sovereignty, independence,
whatever you want.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
To call it.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
I was out there and I was told that there
are upwards between six to eight separatists within her caucus.
So for them, what they want is greater control in Alberta.
You know, they want Alberta police force, they want an
Alberta pension fund, they want all this, all this kind
of stuff. And I'm not sure this is going to
be enough to appease those voters because they have they
(20:59):
have different agenda. So she's actually got a fine line
to tread because she has part of her you know,
part of her voting base actually believes that that Alberta's
future is stronger outside of Canada. You know, here's a
numb here's a number for you to chew on. We
did a survey just among Alberton's. We asked them whether
they thought that Alberta's economic future would be stronger under
(21:25):
a number of certain a number of different scenarios. One
of them was staying within Canada, one of them was
joining the United States, another one was forming their own country.
About six out of it, every ten Alberton's are thereabouts
believe that their strongest economic path forward was within Canada.
Twenty percent thought as that it was it would be
(21:46):
better for them to be an independent country. Ten percent
of Albertan's thought that it would be better to be
part of the United States. But the thing is is
that those separatists are more likely to be in rural
areas and they're more likely to be UCP supporters, so
they over index in that group. So she's she's got
a fine line to walk between being too chunny with
(22:11):
Ottawa in Canada and kind of making sure that she
stands up for her province like a lot of her voters.
I think I'll want her two.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
So I don't know if it's an interesting data point
or not, but I found an inition. I was in
the United States on business last week. I was in Kansas,
I was in Texas, and I was in Florida, and
probably with some people that were primarily Fox viewers, but
in each one of those states, I had drinks or
dinners with people that said, we hear Alberta is separating
joining US. So the news in the United States within
(22:43):
the right wing of the Republican Party is that Alberta
is separating and joining the United States.
Speaker 3 (22:50):
And you know, I think a lot of that has
to do with the fact that there are Alberton's Alberton
has a Republican Party, not to be connected with the US,
but sounds like a US party. They have a Republican
Party that that is advocating for Alberta to be a
republic and the people that are leading that particular movement
have been going down to the United States and they've
(23:10):
been talking to Republicans. So should we really be surprised
that people within the Republican Party of the United States,
when they have Alberton's come down and talk about independence,
that they you know, they're not talking about it. So
I think within Republican circles this is definitely on the
agenda you mentioned.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
I think his name is Stephen Gilbert Jolbolt, who resigned
from cabinet, but I don't believe he resigned from caucus.
I'd like to know what your opinion of that is.
And again, probably too soon to have any polling data
on it. But again I was at a cocktail party
where someone said, this is the best thing that could
ever happen to Carney because it proves that he's got
a different government. When he put jibbot In Jilbert in cabinet,
(23:57):
people were concerned it was just the Trudeau government and
that he was still going to continue the same climate policies.
But having this guy actually leave cabinet is the best
possible thing for him. To prove that he's actually different.
Speaker 3 (24:09):
What do you think, Well, I think part of that
is true in terms of reinforcing. You know. The thing
is is that people didn't you know, by the end
of the Trudeau government, people wanted Trudeau out, they wanted
the Liberals out. They just wanted massive change. And that's
where if you remember, you know, I think the Conservatives
were twenty seven points ahead in terms of ballot support
before Justin Trudeau stepped down.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
The Guibaut.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
Resignation is good for Carney in terms of him showing
that he's different from the past. The big question is
is how many people in that caucus agree with Gibout
and the direction that Mark Kearney is taken. We have
to remember, I think, in fairness there's a big chunk
of that caucus who believed that the last ten years
(24:54):
were good and that the Liberals are a great party
and all that kind of stuff. So, you know, it's
a bit dicey. The other thing is is I can't
see dey vote voting against the government on a confidence motion.
But here's a prediction for you. If there's an environmental
bill that is a non confidence motion, he might not
side with the government if he doesn't believe in the legislation.
(25:15):
So you know, in a government that is a minority
vote and every vote counts, not having him as a
locked vote, even on confidence or non confidence votes is
not optimal at least from a parliamentary perspective for the Liberals.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
Do you have a bet on how long this minority
government's going to last.
Speaker 3 (25:39):
I think we're going to have an election next September
for two reasons. First of all, I don't think we're
going to have a deal of any sort with the
United States. And I think one of the reasons why
we're not going to have a deal with the United
States is because it is not in the interest of
Donald Trump to have a deal with Canada. Donald Trump
is going to go into the midterms. He's going to
do everything that he can for the Republic to try
(26:00):
to get through the midterms, which are traditionally bad for
sitting presidents. And I think if the Canada US trade
agreement is still up in the air, he gets to
talk tough about repatriating jobs into the United States and
talk about what he's done. So I don't think he
has an interest in having a deal. And I think
(26:21):
perhaps Mark Kearney might not have an interest in having
a deal before the next election because whatever deal we get, Brian,
I don't think is going to be as good as
what we've got. So think of it this way. If
you're Peer Pauliev and Mark Kearney has a deal and
there's some sort of terroriffs, Peer Paulief is going to say, yeah,
here's the guy who said he was going to fix
the relationship and get a deal quick and all this
(26:43):
kind of stuff, and you know, how long did it
take you to get this deal? And it's not a
good deal. I think for the Liberals it's probably a
lot easier to run in an election not defending a
deal that is worse than what we have. It's probably
easier for them to go into an election without deal
and to ask for a mandate, kind of like another
(27:03):
free trade election like we saw in nineteen eighty eight.
So I think I think the world is conspiring towards
a September or Fall federal election. And because for the Liberals,
it's going to be tough to defend a free Chade
deal if it's not as good as what we've got.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Fasting absolutely fascinating September twenty twenty six next federal election.
You heard it here. First, we're going to take a
break and come back with Nick Nanos of Nanos Research
in just two minutes to stay with everybody.
Speaker 1 (27:39):
No Radio, no Problem. Stream is live on SAGA ninety
sixty AM dot.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
CAA welcome back everyone. You've got Nick Nanos at Nanos
Research with us. We've been chatting about about Canadian politics,
the leaders. We've been talking about the deal to get
(28:04):
a pipeline to the West Coast. I wonder just you know, generally, Nick,
where Canadians are we comfortable? Are we going to be
spending money? You know? How's Canadian consumer confidence?
Speaker 3 (28:15):
They're worried right now. You know. The thing is is that,
you know, we track consumer confidence with Bloomberg News every
week and have been for well like decades, and you know,
right now consumer confidence has been in a holding pattern.
It's been sputtering and neutral, neither positive nor negative. The
other interesting thing is that, literally because we track basically
(28:36):
every day pretty well literally, the day after Donald Trump
was elected president back last November, consumer confidence in Canada
started to slide. And I think for a lot of
Canadians they wondered what a Trump administration might mean for
the Canadian economy, and you know, so we see that
as kind of a mark. And then we also see
(28:56):
you know, Trump starting to put tariffs in the earlier
this year. And you know, what we have is a
situation where Canadians are much more likely to think that
the economy will get weaker rather than stronger in the
next six months. They're not as bullish about the value
of real estate in their neighborhood. And you know, just
generally Canadian there's a significant amount of anxiety. You know,
(29:20):
in our numbers, about a little more than one out
of every four young people, for example, are worried about
paying for the groceries in the next week. So you know,
you have to think of that as the environment. People
are worried about their jobs, people are wondering what's going
to happen with our relationship with the United States. Inflation
and the cost of everything from groceries to housing is
(29:41):
going up, and it's kind of like there's not a
lot of great news for Canadians on the economic front.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Well, I think we were, you know, very close to
having a technical recession. I think we just what we're
a point or two points of a percentage point away
from the technical definition of recession. So yeah, you know,
tough as time is. Now. You were at I saw
a real estate conference recently. What are you telling people
about the real estate market and how are people feeling?
(30:08):
You know, rents are down, which is good, but prices
are down, which is bad.
Speaker 3 (30:13):
Yeah, you know. The interesting thing is that when you
look at prices, when you look at say, for example,
the trend line on prices according to the CMHC over
the last five years, prices are down when you look
at the last three years, but prices are still check
out this number, twenty percent higher than they were in
twenty twenty. So when you look at kind of the
(30:35):
you know, just before the pandemic and during the pandemic,
you know, the thing is prices, the prices of homes
is still significantly higher. It's just what we've seen in
the last three years according to the CMHC, is that
the price of homes has been declining. The other thing
that's interesting is that when we look at the building
(30:55):
of new homes is that there's a lot more purpose
built rental homes that are being built compared to condominiums
and single detached homes, which speaks to the market slowly
adjusting to a world where because a single detached home
is not affordable, that there's just more rental properties that
are coming into the coming out into the market.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
But as we you know, lose some net worth in
our houses. Even if you can tell us while you're
fine versus at twenty twenty, you're going to feel that
you've got less you got less money. And sixty percent
of home mortgages come do and have to be renewed
in the next eighteen months. And those are people that
were have financed in twenty twenty and twenty twenty one.
Speaker 3 (31:37):
Yeah, and you know the interesting thing, Brian, is that
when we track some of this consumer confidence against when
interest rates went up when inflation was a little hotter,
people will really word. So you know, the thing is
is watch the interest rate coming out of the Bank
of Canada and also out of the United States interest rate,
because those two things are interconnected. What's that interest rate
as an indicator. If we see anything that suggests that
(31:58):
interest rates might go up, that'll that'll be bad news
for consumers, and that will also not be not be
good news for you know, incumbent governments, which is why
Donald Trump has been purposefully focused, laser like focused on
trying to have lower interest rates. But you know, I
think in this particular environment, we're probably looking at interest
(32:21):
rates being steady. But you know, the thing is is
when you talked about the results from the third quarter
of last year that just came out that kind of
screwed the recession. The interesting thing as part of that
is that a lot of that had to do with
imports being down and people buying Canadian So there's a
little bit of a positive spin off from what's been
(32:43):
happening with Donald Trump because there are Canadians that are
focused more and are looking more for Canadian products to
replace some of the American products that they've had, and
it looks like that has had a positive impact, at
least in the short term on the Canadian economy.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
I saw a chart that showed that purchases of California
wine was like down to down to zero.
Speaker 3 (33:04):
Oh, I wouldn't be surprised.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
You know.
Speaker 3 (33:07):
The thing is is that it's you know, the when
we ask Canadians about this whole idea of boycotting American goods,
about almost eight out of every ten Canadians are good
with that and I think it has to do with
the fact that people feel that it's one thing that
they can do to send a message to America and
to Donald Trump. And you know, as a result, Canadians
(33:31):
are consuming more Canadian goods even like think of it
this way, stuff like cheesy's. Have you ever had Hawkins
cheeses from Belleville?
Speaker 2 (33:39):
No, I haven't. Are the good kid out of here.
Speaker 3 (33:41):
You're killing me. They're like, you know, it's like the
crunchy cheeses. They're actually they're great, and they're all I'm
from Trenton, so Belvill is beside Trenton, so I'm into
I'm into cheeses from Hawkins Hawkins.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
You heard Hawkins.
Speaker 3 (33:55):
Cheesyes, And I just like to say that none of
my relatives work there, and I have no shares or
financial interest in Hawkins cheeses. They're just great products. But
you know, there's just an example where now Canadians are
discovering Canadian made and produced alternatives to American products, and
as a result, it's just been a little better for
the Canadian economy.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
I got to ask you one last question. A week ago,
wrote an article that was titled Canada's Appetite for boldness
meets harsh realities. Yeah, you know, when you think about
Premier doug Ford and his ad when you think about
you know, the elbows up when you think about, you know,
the the what you've described is the challenge that both
(34:37):
Carnie and Trump have coming into the trade negotiations. What
would be your advice, given given your polling to people
and our appetite for boldness, is that something that you
you play with or have you got to be scared of?
Speaker 3 (34:52):
Yeah, you know, it's interesting this survey we did with
Shift Canada, which is a nonprofit and there are two
elements that I thought were quite interesting about this survey
that Canadians believe that we should be bold, but when
we ask them about them being bold individually, even if
there was a financial risk, they're kind of a little
more timid, so to speak. So we have a bit
of a cultural issue in terms of encouraging more entrepreneurship,
(35:16):
ambition and risk taking. I think if I had a
piece of advice for any elected official, whether it be
the Premier of Ontario or the Prime Minister of Canada,
it would be we need certainty instability in the relationship
with the United States, regardless of what anybody thinks about
the politics in the US, the US will always continue
to be our most important trading partner just because of geography,
(35:39):
so we need stability there. I worry about politicians in
Canada trying to score points domestically because it plays well
with Canadian audiences, when the reality is is that what
plays even more, what plays even more importantly with Canadian
audiences is having a job and being able to pay
(36:00):
for the bills. So I think tamping down the conflict
with the United States, being tough in the negotiations with them,
but also having a strategy to promote entrepreneurship. You know,
I'd always kind of say, you know, the social contract.
We need to make sure that the social contract is strong.
The social contract is something as simple, in my view
(36:21):
at least, as if you work hard, you should be
able to pay the bills. The social contract is something
as simple as if you're an entrepreneur, if you work
hard and do a good job, you should be able
to provide for your family. Those are the things that
we need to encourage, and those are the things we
need to create an environment so that they can happen,
(36:41):
because the reality is is that for us to have
a strong economy. Yes, the government's important, but foundationally it
will be Canadian entrepreneurs and Canadians as individuals that will
build that prosperity.
Speaker 2 (36:53):
Your idea of a social contract. That's something that Peer
polyev is talking about over and over over again, so
much so that you can almost report the line that
he repeats.
Speaker 3 (37:02):
Actually I think he's repeating my line.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
But anyways, does Mark Karney need to focus more on that?
Speaker 3 (37:09):
Yeah, Well, you know the thing is is that I
think that's the next step. And you know, Peer Polio's
already ahead of him on this on this front, and
the same way Peer polyU was ahead of Justin Trudeau
on the cost of living. That's why the Conservative is
so strong on issues like the cost of living because
of their first on it. So what we've seen from
Mark Karney is his strategy at a high level.
Speaker 4 (37:30):
To invest in these big projects, big infrastructure projects, mining, energy, oil,
whatever you want to call it, all that kind of
stuff in order to jumpstart the economy.
Speaker 3 (37:43):
But at the same point, we need something on the ground, right,
We need something that encourages entrepreneurs to make investments. We
need something on the ground that encourages productivity within our enterprises.
Within Canada. We need something that small enterprises. So you know,
let's face it, your smaller medium sized enterprise and you
hear that there might be a pipeline from Alberta to
you through British Columbia, or a new mine in northern
(38:06):
Ontario or an energy project in the North, and you're
kind of like, Okay, I don't know what that means
to me, because the fact of the matter is, for
most Canadian small businesses, it doesn't mean anything to them, right,
So I think the next shoe that needs to drop,
doesn't matter who's leading the country, is a strategy for
small and medium sized enterprises, for them to thrive and succeed,
(38:27):
to provide for themselves and to create jobs for everyone.
Speaker 2 (38:31):
I interviewed a gentleman who wrote an article about how
culture overcomes strategy all the time and that we need
to have this culture of entrepreneurialism and dynamism in Canada
and we just don't. So I think that you're completely right,
Nick Nannis, Thank you so much for joining us. I
really appreciate this's been an excellent overview of what's going
on in Canada and interesting predictions for what's ahead of
(38:52):
us in twenty twenty six. Thanks so much, I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (38:55):
Make it easy.
Speaker 2 (38:55):
We're going to take a break back in two minutes.
Stay with us, everybody, stream us live at SAGA nine
sixty am CA. Welcome back to the Brian Crombie Radio
(39:18):
Hour tonight. I want to take a few minutes to
look back at what has been a really remarkable week
last week on the Brian Crombie Radio Hour, A week
that took us from war and diplomacy in Eastern Europe,
to taxes and transparency in Mississauga, to pluralism, clean energy,
art and the future of Canadian innovation. If there's a
common thread, it's this who leads, who decides, and who
(39:39):
benefits from policy, from power and from progress. Let's start
on Monday. Ukraine, the leaked peace Plan and the risk
of Another Munich. I was joined by Peter Dickinson, the
Ukrainian editor at the Atlantic Council, to dig into what
the leak so called US peace proposal for Ukraine was.
At twenty eight point document that frankly looks like it
was written in Moscow and just ran through Google Translate.
(40:00):
We walked through how the language is steeped in Russian
diplomatic framing, how it contemplates forced territorial concessions in an
esque and how once again there's a peace process happened,
happening largely without Ukraine. Even in the room, Peter laid
out whyle Ukrainians simply don't trust Western security guarantees after
the Budapest memorandum, why the proposed guarantees look weak and unenforceable,
(40:21):
and why Russia is suddenly so eager for a deal
even if a grind's forward on the battlefield. We talked
about Ukrainian strikes or on Russian energy infrastructure, the mood
in European capitals, the US election calendar, and what it
all means for NATO and the global order. At its core,
that show was about the cost of confusion and weakness
in a great powered diplomacy and the danger of repeating
(40:44):
the mistakes of Munich with a nuclear armed autocrat. On Tuesday,
we brought it home to Mississauga. If Monday was about
geopolitical accountability, Tuesday was about municipal accountability. I was joined
by three incredibly diligent local residents. George Tavari's Kimpines and
Athena Tech, people who have spent hours and hours going
line by line through Mississauga's budget because frankly, someone had to.
(41:07):
We asked a simple question, why are Mississauga taxes rising
faster than inflation two and three times faster than inflation
year after year after year while transparency and service quality
seems to be going the other way. We talked about
the blended rate trick, dividing your bill into city, region,
and education, so the headline increase looks smaller even though
(41:27):
the city portion you actually control is climbing far more aggressively.
We dig into the governance and balance, where Mississaga funds
about sixty two percent appeal police but doesn't have equivalent
voting power around the table. We explored the myth that
there's no room to cut even when discipline analysis suggests
two to three percent savings are possible without touching core services,
(41:47):
and we connected to what people feel rising crime, slower transit, congestion,
stalled projects, and growing frustration with a system that we
don't think people listen. Tuesday show is about demockocracy at
the local level, about whether city hall treats taxpayer dollars
with the same discipline families bring to Theirrome budgets. On Wednesday,
(42:08):
we zoomed out again, but this time to the big
ideal of pluralism. My guest was Meredith Preston McGee, Secretary
General of the Global Center for Pluralism and one of
the world's most experienced conflict resolution practitioners. For nearly thirty years,
She's been at the front lines from North East India
to Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan and Somalia and beyond, and what
she's learned is that pluralism isn't some soft, idealistic word,
(42:31):
It's strategy. We talked about how societies managed deep differences
under stress, ethnicity, religion, language, history. We asked whether pluralism
is essential for democracy, simply complementary to it. We looked
at real examples, communities that broke down and others that
pulled back from the brick because teachers, youth workers, artists
and local leaders made the hard choice to build bridges
(42:52):
instead of walls, bridges instead of walls. What I loved
about the conversation was the optimism was grounded in reality.
Meredith isn't naive about conflicts. She's lived in it around
the world. But she believes that ordinary people you and
I can build pluralism in very practical ways. Who we
listen to, who we stand up for, and how we
design our institutions. On Thursday, we turned to the future
(43:14):
of energy with Greg Vesna. Greg the president of Hydrofuel Inc.
Walked us through a vision of clean tech that is
much more practical and frankly, more exciting than a lot
of the political slogans we're hearing today. We talked about
ammonia as a carrier for hydrogen, microminiar plants and petrochemical
reactors that can turn methane into clean hydrogen and valuable
carbon products using only light. We compared pipelines to power lines.
(43:38):
We discussed why Grade nine math and science actually matter
for policy, and what it would take for Canada to
stop talking about being an energy superpower and actually becoming one.
It was one of the most forward looking conversations we've had,
and it fits squarely into a theme that kept coming
back this week. Canada has incredible scientific talent. The question
is whether we have the will, the capital, and the
courage to commercialize it here From there, at the end
(44:01):
of the week, we shifted into art identity and overcoming
with Steep Daniels, also known as Jesus Guggenheimer. Steep is
the twenty twenty five resident artist at the Yekrand Polish
Film Festival. This story is extraordinary. We talked about how
a spontaneous act plastering Prince Tribute prints around Toronto after
Admission's death, led to festival producers noticing his work, inviting
(44:23):
him in commissioning more, and eventually making him a central
artistic voice at Ekron. We exploit his exhibition of fourteen paintings,
his film Overcoming Steep, his Polish heritage and the symbolism
and humor that ran through Polish cinema. And we talked
about Sick Kits, how the hospital gave him crayons as
a child, and how we turned that early gift into
almost one hundred grand raising through projects like Jump for
(44:43):
Sick Kids, convincing nearly one hundred people to skydive to
mirror the bravery of hospitalized kids. That show was about
how art becomes action, how creativity becomes community, and how
one person's story can inspire others to overcome their own
steep climbs. And then we closed the week by talking
about Canadian innovation with Professor Neil Seman. Neil is an entrepreneur, professor,
(45:05):
researcher and now a business columnist, and he voiced something
I've heard over and over on the show. Canada doesn't
have a creativity problem. We have a commercialization problem. We
invent the future of the science behind the m N, mRNA, vaccines, GLP,
WON drugs, AI cleantech, and then we watch someone else
build the factories, create the jobs, and capture the wealth.
(45:25):
We talked about why real innovation doesn't happen on big,
glossy conference stages, but in honest conversations, late night arguments,
and messy collaborations. We discuss why vulnerability, not bravado, builds
better entrepreneurs, why young Canadians are leaving, why we underinvest
in capital, equipment, R and D and scaling, and what
it takes to keep our talent here in Canada and
(45:47):
rip here at home. It was a sharp, candidate and
at times uncomfortable look at where Canada stands in the
twenty first century.
Speaker 3 (45:55):
Counting.
Speaker 2 (45:56):
When you put all these shows last week together, Ukraine, Mississauga, Plurer,
clean Energy, Art and Innovation, a bigger pert picture emerges
we at a moment where global security is in flux,
local democracy is understrained, diverse societies are being tested, the
energy transition is accelerating, culture is pushing us to rethink
(46:17):
identity and purpose, and our economy is asking whether we
want to be makers or really markets. My hope is
that The Brian Crombie Hour can be a place where
we wrestle with all of that honestly, respectfully, and with
a bias towards solutions. If you missed any of these conversations,
you can find the replaces on YouTube to search the
Brian Cromby Hour or on Podcacast. Platforms are on my
(46:38):
website Briancrimey dot com. And as always, thank you for listening,
for thinking along with us, and for being a part
of this ongoing conversation about how we build a better community,
a better country, and a better world together. And now
this week everyone is going to be exposed to I
think an even more exciting week. This week we've got
(47:00):
one of the most compelling lineups I've ever put together.
Five nights, five conversations, each shining a light on a
different part of Canadian life, from politics and real estate
to immigration, democracy, and then the human spirit. Let me
walk you through what's happening this week. On Monday, I've
got Nick Nanos on Canada's political crossroads. We begin the
week with one of the sharpest minds in political polling
(47:20):
and political analysis, Nick Nanos of Nanos Research. Nick and
I dive into the shifting political landscape in Canada, why
the concerners can't seem to break through even as the
NDP struggles, why the Liberals have seen a slight uptick,
and how much of that is connected to the very
strong public impressions Canadians have of Prime Minister Mark Kearney.
We look at the incredible statistic that several federal writings
(47:40):
were decided by as few as sixty votes and what
that means for the next election. Every vote counts, and
then we zoom out to questions of energy pipelines, indigenous involvement,
Alberta politics, and even why Someonel Burton's are talking about
joining the United States. It's data, it's analysis, it's the
story behind the headlines, and it's one of Canada's respected
(48:00):
political voices. On Tuesday, I've got Frek Cassano on the
future of real estate. We shift to the economy, specifically
the real estate market, with Fred Cassano, who's the national
real estate leader at PwC Canada. Fred brings insights from
PWC's massive industry survey of over two hundred and fifty leaders,
and together we break down what's really happening the frozen
(48:22):
condo market, the surprising resilience of triple A office labor shortages,
ESG pressures, and the explosive demand for purpose built rentals.
We talked about the housing crisis, why Canada needs to
build five hundred thousand homes a year, and why we're
nowhere close. We explore the data centers, infrastructure constraints and
why Calgary may be beating Ontario to be the emerging
(48:42):
AI and cloud economy, and we ask the big question,
what will it take to build enough homes fast enough
for the next generation to actually afford to live in
our country? Wednesday, I've got Parisa Macaruby on rebuilding Canada's
immigration system. She's with the cd HOW Institute, one of
Canada's leading voices and immigration reform priests. Argues that something
(49:04):
many policymakers are finally starting to realize, more is not
always better. What matters most is who we welcome, their skills,
their language ability, their education, and their capacity to contribute.
We talk about temporary form workers, the explosion of international students,
and a permanent residency system that has become unpredictable and
frustrating for newcomers. We discuss how immigration pressures are affecting housing,
(49:27):
infrastructure and public confidence, and what reforms are actually needed
to get this system right. Paressa combines deep research with
their own lived experiences of family class immigrant, giving us
both the evidence and the humanity behind this issue. On Thursday,
I've Got Joan Roberts on voter turnout and lowering the
voting age from eighteen to sixteen. Joan Roberts is a
(49:49):
writer or former interim leader of the Green Party and
an author of a book called Storm the Ballot Box
for a passionate discussion about voter turnout and the future
of civic engagement in Canada. Using voters turnout is falling,
and among en Canadians the numbers are staggering. Only forty
six point seven percent of eighteen to twenty four year
olds voted in the last for election. Joanna argues that
(50:11):
lowering the voting age to sixteen could be one of
the smartest reforms we can make, and she brings evidence
from Austria, Brazil, Scotland, Wales and soon in the UK
showing that sixteen and seventeen year olds actually vote and
vote more reliably than new voters at eighteen. We also
talk about civics education, electoral reform, recall elections, term limits,
(50:31):
and the Supreme Court case that could push Canada to
expand the franchise once again. If you care about democracy,
this is a conversation you'll want to hear. And then
on Friday, we finished the week with one of the
most emotional and inspiring interviews I've ever done. My guest
is Amanda Caruso, a survivor, an advocate, an entrepreneur, a lawyer,
and author of Becoming the Brave One, My Journey to Justice.
(50:54):
Amanda has lived through an extraordinary trauma, multiple sexual assaults,
a violent childhood, and the horrific murder of her sister
and her sister's family, but she has emerged as a
powerful advocate for healing, restorative justice, and emotional courage. We
talk about shame, resilience, forgiveness, parenting relationships, community, anger, love,
and how she transformed her pain into purpose. Amanda's message
(51:18):
is extraordinary. No matter what you've been through, you can heal,
you can reclaim your voice, you can become brave. It's
one of the most powerful conversations we've ever aired. So
join me this week all this week at six pm
on Saga nine sixty or stream me alive at Saga
nine sixty am dot CA, and every show is available
(51:39):
afterward on my YouTube channel and on podcast servers and
on my website Briancromby dot com. That's our show for tonight.
Thank you everyone for joining us. I'm on every Monday
through Friday at six o'clock on nine to sixty am.
You can stream me online at Triple W Saga ninety
sixty am dot ca. Can you out all my podcasts
videocasts on Briancromby dot com, on YouTube, on Facebook and Instagram,
and on Audible podcasts, on Apple podcasts and on speakeasy.
(52:03):
Thank you, check me out, goodnight, everybody.
Speaker 1 (52:05):
Thank you, No radio, no problem. Stream us live on
Saga nine sixty am dot co.
The views expressed in the following program are those of
the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of
SAGA nine sixty am or its management.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Brian Crombie Radio.
While it's a real honor for me to have Nick
Nanos with us tonight. He is the chief dot scientist,
the board director, the head of Nanos Research and someone
that probably all of us have heard on the radio
or TV and read newspapers articles about because he has
got to be Kenna's leading data scientists. And so it's
(00:39):
a real pleasure and honor to have you with us today, sir,
thank you so much for joining us. Tell us what
are we all thinking about. Let's start with overall politics.
What's happened with the political party since the budget?
Speaker 3 (00:50):
If we could, well, there's been a little bit of
an uptick for the Liberals. You know. The thing is
this statistical that heat Brian between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Now,
the liberal they're at around forty two percent, the Conservatives
at thirty seven, so five point advantage. But the kicker,
the killer number for the Conservatives is not their number,
because thirty seven is a pretty good number for the
Conservatives nationally. It's the NDP number. They're at nine percent nationally.
(01:14):
If we remember the winning franchise for former Conservative leader
and former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, it was to split
the vote between the Liberals and the New Democrats. That's
how he won three mandates. Right now, you know, the
thing is, with the NDP at nine percent, it's very
difficult for the Conservatives, even when their popular support is strong,
(01:35):
to win an election. So, you know, the thing is
is a little bit of an uptick for the for
the Liberals, but mostly at the expense of the NDP
and the Conservatives steady in terms of national support in
the high thirties.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
You know, I hear you, and maybe you've got a
pull on this, or maybe you don't. I'm not sure,
because it'd be interesting to see where Pier Paoliev stands
on preferred prime minister and I think you've done polls
on that. I think the issue is, isn't it that
the NDP typical voter is scared of Poliev and so
therefore parking their votes with the Liberal or can you
(02:09):
analyze that?
Speaker 3 (02:10):
Well, that's part of it.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
You know.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
The thing is to your point, Brian. When we ask
Canadians who they would prefer as prime minister, and we
asked this every week, Mark Kearney has a massive advantage.
He's at around fifty three percent nationally, Peer Pauliev's at
around twenty six. So, you know, think of it this way,
it's a twenty seven point advantage for Mark Karney. And
you know, the thing is, I think one of the
ways that I look at it at least is yes,
(02:32):
some of those NDP voters are are with the Liberals.
I think the other interesting thing is, you know, for
the Liberal advantage today, it's not about people liking the
Liberal Party, it's not about people being happy with the
last ten years. It's actually about Mark Kearney. It's specifically
focused on one person. The Conservative numbers are kind of
(02:53):
like the opposite. You know, It's obviously not about Pierre Pauliev.
It's about voters who want chain, voters who believe that
the Liberals have been in power to belong. And you
know what, I'm not sure if it really makes a
big difference who the leader of the Conservative Party was.
There are people that just want the Liberals out, period,
full stop.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
It doesn't matter who the leader is seriously with all
of the you know, the statistics that you've got in
regards to preferred prime ministers, in regards to you know,
all the people that loved Pierre pauliev enjoined the Conservative
Party and joined his leadership campaign because they thought that
he was the second coming, and then frankly a lot
of people that were read Tories or Progressive Conservatives that
(03:34):
felt uncomfortable. You don't think it matters who the leader
is thin for.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
I think you know what, if you're voting for the
Conservatives today, you just want the Liberals out. And you
know the thing is is that even for peer paulyiev
he lost his seat in the last federal election. You
know that's not ideal for any federal party. You know,
he's had to deal with, you know, the Premier of Ontario,
the Progressive Conservative Premier of Ontario, taking shots at him
and his leadership throughout the last campaign. Like, let's face it, Brian,
(04:03):
that's not helpful. Ontario is the big prize when it
comes to votes, and to have what I'll say, the
top Conservative in Ontario criticize the Conservative Party leader federally
is just not so. Even with all of this stuff
going on. You know, support for the Conservatives has been steady.
So what this says to me at least is that
(04:23):
they're just people that fundamentally want change and believe that
the Liberals have been in power too long. Now, Pierre
PAULI I can't mess up. But the thing is is
that I think there's a reality that there he is
part of a movement of change. He just happens to
be the person at the front of the parade.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
With respect. They disagree with you, and I have no
idea whether there'd be a poll that you could do
to analyze my hypothesis, but I think if the Conservatives
had a more progressive Conservative, a more red Tory leader
that was less scary to the center and to the
left and to the d like a Doug Ford, or
like a Stephen Harper, yeah, or like Jean Charet, who
(05:05):
was a competian obviously with pauliev in the last election,
I think Conservatives would do better. I think that the
issue they've got is that they've got a leader that
you know, some people described incredibly negatively during the last campaign.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
I know, but I hear what you're saying. But let's
just talk to the numbers. The Conservatives in the last
federal election got forty one percent of the sport In
the history of the Conservative Party in its many variations
since confederation, I think that was the five or sixth
best showing ever for the Conservative movement in its different variations. Right, So,
(05:41):
you know Pierre Paulyiev and his advisors when they say
that it was a good election for the Conservatives empirically,
with the exception of them not winning more seats, it
was an exceptionally good election for the Conservatives in terms
of the number of individual Canadians that supported the party,
but it was the vote split, and you know, this
(06:02):
is where the Liberals have the advantage. So you know,
the thing is is that maybe another way to look
at it, I think Pierre Paualiev is not in control
of his destiny. There are two other politicians that are
in control of his destiny or one party. One is
the New Democrats. They have to do better. The other
one is Mark Carney. If Mark Carney messes up, the
reality is is that there will be Canadians that are
(06:23):
currently voting Liberal that will probably drift back perhaps to
the Conservatives, but probably to the New Democrats. So you know,
in a way for the Conservatives, their destiny in terms
of winnability is not directly in their control because the
people that want change are with them, and it doesn't
matter who the leader of the party is. It's the
configuration of the vote between the Liberals and the new Democrats.
(06:46):
If Mark Carney falters or if the new Democrats start
picking up steam, that will create an environment with the
same number of votes for the Conservatives for them to
win a mandate.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
So, if I'm right, there should be enough people that
vote against him in the leadership review and they should
be looking for a new leader that is more progressive, conservative,
less extreme. If you're right, he should win in the
leadership review. What's your prediction.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
I wouldn't be surprised he should win more than seventy
five percent of the leadership review. That would be very
I would be very surprised. You know. The other thing
Brian is for him to not do as well. He
needs someone to knife him in the back and knife
him in the front, like there needs to be an alternative.
You know, Conservatives, I don't think are going to go
to a convention and knife their leader, not knowing that
(07:37):
there might be someone else in the wings. Right. And
you know, the thing is is, if we look at
Joe Clark, for example, there was Brian mulrooney. If we
look at Jean Fretchen, there was Paul Martin. So you
know the thing is is that when you go through
those processes, there needs to be an alternative. Right now, Brian,
I don't see anyone that's putting their hand up to
be the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. So
going into this vote, unless something dramatically changes, I think
(08:00):
the reality is that he will win his vote. The
big question is how big will it be. I wouldn't
be surprised if it's anywhere from seventy five to eighty percent,
and that should be enough to kind of have them
keep going at least as the leader.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
Okay, so what about the NDP. Tell me about the
NDP is can they do anything or.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
They don't know?
Speaker 2 (08:21):
For Mark Karney to stumble.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
Yeah, you know the here's one of the ironic things
in polling. I'd done polling for now thirty five years,
and one of the phenomenon that I've always seen is
that leaders, Oh sorry, parties without leaders are more popular
than parties with leaders. Do you give me like it's
like there's nothing to repel people because they go, oh,
maybe this person will be the leader, maybe that person
(08:44):
will be the leader, so they you know, the parties
is kind of interesting when we've seen the Conservative Party
leader step down, the Liberal Party leader step down, even
for you know, the numbers go up for those parties
because there are alternatives. This is the first leadership that
I've seen in a while for the New Democrats where
the leader steps down and then their numbers are still
(09:04):
in the tank. You know. The thing is that last
election for the for the federal New Democrats was one
of the worst elections at least in the modern era
for that party. And you know, they're still in our polling,
they're still in the single digits. So you know, for
the New Democrats, you know, they have to hope that
somehow Mark Kearney makes a mistake. The other thing, if
(09:25):
you remember earlier this week, Brian we had Guibaut resigned
from cabinet because of the deal with Alberta and also
he stepped down obviously because he wasn't happy as someone
that I was very in favor and supportive of the environment,
with the direction that the government is going in the
question is is are there other grumpy liberals who are
(09:47):
environmentalists that might be a little uncomfortable with what I'll
say the centrist position that Mark Kearney is taking. And
the reality is for them, I think the only parties
that they can go to the New Democrats and perhaps
the Green Party. I might provide a little bit of
hope for the New Democrats, but they need they're going
to need to kind of embrace some of these progressive
policies that Mark Kearney is putting on the back burner
(10:09):
right now.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
So it's interesting. I had a fascinating discussion with some
people a little I guess a week ago about Mark
Carney's strategy on the budget, and I'd be interested in
your point of view that some people said that he
was taking a huge risk going into that budget vote
not knowing exactly where the votes were, and he should
have done some deal with the NDP, and other people said, no,
you don't want to give any credence to the DP,
because if you give any creeds to AAP, then people
(10:32):
will feel comfortable voting for them. So what do you
think was Carney's strategy right or wrong?
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Well, it was risky, but it's probably the right strategy
for him. The fact of the matter is, when we
look at the previous Justin Trudeau government, they were doing
deals and they were spending money in order to politically
stay alive, which is why the NDP were at the
table and why we had a lot of those policies,
why they exist. It's clear at least that the Carney
government doesn't want to fall into the same track where
(10:58):
they're shopping and horse trading for votes in order to
politically survive. But here's the number for you and your
listeners and viewers to chew on. Sixty. Remember this number sixty.
In the last federal election, if sixty voters out of
nineteen point seven million votes cast changed their vote in
three ridings, just three federal writings, the Liberals would have
(11:21):
won a majority government. So you have to think of
the Liberals with the threat of an election, thinking can
they persuade sixty people in three ridings to vote liberal?
And that's how close the Liberals were to a Liberal
majority last time.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
What were those writings, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
Those writings were the riding in Newfoundland Bona Vista. There
was a riding in uh oh Jesus not off the
top of my head, but I can send you a
lit with those ridings. It's a great stat.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
It's a great stat and it says what people always
say and no one believes, is that every vote counts,
because sixty votes is certainly not that many.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
Yeah, out of nineteen point five or nine ten point
seven million, it's nothing.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Unbelieve what We're going to take a break for some
messages when we come back in and ask you about
this resignation from cabinet, about this this pipeline energy deal
and what polling you've got on that, and does this
have a chance of actually getting improved in BC? It
certainly appears that Carnie and the Premier of Alberta have
(12:22):
done a great job of sort of walking down an
enter an interesting middle line. Stay with the zeveryone back
in just two.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
Minutes stream us live at SAGA nine sixty am dot CA.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
We'll come back everyone to the Bran crimeby Radio. Our
incredible honor for me to have Nick Danis a poster
that we all read and heard and followed with us
said today to talk about what's going on in Canada.
We've just chatted a little bit about where the federal
political parties and leaders are I want to ask you
about an issue because I think this is really interesting
and I wonder what analysis, what polls you've got on
(13:09):
this deal that the Premier of Alberta and the Prime
Minister of Canada have made to support a privately funded
pipeline for Bitchamen from Alberta to the West coast. It
would appear from what I've seen that Canada in general
is supportive. Alberta is really supportive, but BC, I don't know,
(13:31):
And so what do you think?
Speaker 3 (13:34):
You know, as survey we just did with the University
of Ottawa, the Positive Energy Initiative, we completed before the deal,
but it was on energy issues and some key things
that we learned from that survey that kind of help
us inform what Canadians likely think about this deal that
has just been struck in the last couple of days.
You know, first of all, when we ask Canadians where
(13:54):
they want to diversify our energy exports to, at the
very top of the list or what the priority should be,
at the very top of the list is Europe, followed
by Asia. The United States is third, and only nineteen
percent of Canadians think there should be more energy exports
to the United States. So on that front, any kind
of project that looks to diversify markets either to Asia
(14:17):
or Europe is probably going to be positively looked upon
about from a significant proportion of Canadians. The other kicker
is is that this whole objective that the government has
set to kind of double the non US exports. When
we asked about the different sectors in this positive energy
pool for the University of Ottawall, when we ask the
different sectors that were more likely to kind of achieve
(14:39):
this goal, energy was at the very top of the list,
followed by minds and minerals and then agrifood. So at
a very high level, this at least has been packaged.
It seems in a way that would be appealing to
many Canadians in terms of the configuration because it has
to do with exports to places other than the the
(15:00):
United States, and it's a focus on energy. But to
your point, Brian, the kicker is British Columbia.
Speaker 4 (15:06):
You know.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
The thing is in other research that we did, we
ask Canadians about whether provinces that were against a particular project,
a national project, whether they should whether they should have
the power to hold it up, and a pretty strong
majority of Canadians say, you know what, if a project
is deemed in the national interest, a single project should
not be able to hold up an energy project like
(15:29):
a pipeline for example. But what we don't know is
how Canadians feel is if it was in their backyard.
And this is where British Columbia comes into place. You know.
The other thing that's important, This will be my last
comment on this is British Columbia from a polling perspective,
is like multiple provinces, the interior of British Columbia is
very resource driven, forestry, energy minds. It's very much like Alberta.
(15:51):
You get to the lower mainland and it is much
more urban, it is much more into environmental issues. So,
you know, politically within the province of British Columbia, you know,
there's significant proportion of people that support the project, but
there are also people that oppose, and there's a significant
division within that province at least as anyone.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Have you done any polling within the indigenous communities that
are going to be obviously impacted and have.
Speaker 3 (16:16):
A say no. But the thing is is that the
indigenous dimension of all of this, what's clear is that
this government at least has said that Indigenous participation in
the project is mandatory. I think that's what they said,
that it's got to exist. But you know, the thing
is is in the same survey that we did with
the university, we asked if an Indigenous if some Indigenous
(16:38):
peoples opposed a project, should the project move forward or not?
And we got kind of similar numbers where Canadian said,
you know what, if a majority of Indigenous peoples that
were directly impacted by a project supported the project, one
holdout should not be able to stop that. But we
have to remember this is within the contact stuff, all
(17:00):
the stuff that's been going on in the courts about
and the court's interpretation of the rights of Indigenous people.
So I don't know how quickly if this can even happen,
And then if it does happen, you know what this
might mean in terms of what might be in the courts. So,
you know, I guess the only thing we do know
now is that maybe a project could happen, and that
(17:22):
the federal government has made it a little easier. But
some of these conditions in terms of rounding up private
sector investment and Indigenous support. Those are real tough.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
Have you done polls with NBC?
Speaker 3 (17:33):
You know?
Speaker 2 (17:34):
My sense is that the I don't even know what
the party's called these days, but the two opposition parties
are nowhere and there's fights within the leadership and so
therefore EB the premier has got, you know, a reasonably
easy path to support it. And I was at a
party just last night where people were saying, he's going
(17:54):
to reluctantly agree. He's going to try to fight it
just the way that some ward counselors could develop, but
know what's happening, so that in the end he'll reluctantly agree.
What's your sense of EB in his strategy.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
Well, the thing is is for EB, we have to
remember that he's actually it's a minority government, right, This
guy doesn't have a majority, so he has to deal
with that. I think a pipeline to the Lower Mainline
is going to be like a new pipeline to the
Lower Mainland is going to be much more difficult. It's
going to be more difficult to permit, it's going to
be more difficult to build, it's going to be more
difficult to kind of get approvals for that. I think
(18:27):
the lower hanging fruit is to kind of twin the
existing pipeline that goes through northern Alberta out through the
north of the province, because the thing is is that
the path is already there. You know, they already worked
out all the indigenous peoples. Although they have to consult
with them again, that's already been done once and that
could probably happen much faster. So, you know, the thing
is is, I think a pipeline through the northern part
(18:50):
of the province has a much higher likelihood of potentially
happening compared to a brand new pipeline through southern in British.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Columbia, didn't we have it Northern Gateway or something.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
Like that exactly. So it's kind of twinning. So think
of it just putting another lane on the highway. Why
don't we just call it that from Alberta to the
Energy Highway from Alberta through to the Pacific coast.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
Tell me about Alberta then, Daniel Smith, you know, it
seems that she sort of threaded a needle here supportive
of this agreement with the federal government, who she's been
you know, arguing against and providing you know, almost extortion
like negotiating parameters. Have you got to do this or
we're gonna we're gonna separate and it's going to be
a you know, a unity issue. Has she threaded the
(19:35):
needle or is she going to risk support because of this?
Speaker 3 (19:39):
Well, you know the thing is, I'm out and I'm
out West a lot for work. She's definitely threaded the
needle in terms of getting the federal government to relax
issues related to kind of the environment, tanking tankers and
and stuff like that. So she'd been able to get that.
She was obviously happy, Brian, I don't if you saw
(20:00):
the press conference, it's kind of like she was extremely
happy about the about the agreement with the federal government.
But you know, the thing is, the other thing is
is that you know she has she's she's had a
leadership like a party meeting in Alberta, and we have
(20:20):
to remember that there's a significant proportion of UCP United
Conservative Party members who actually believe and are advocating for sovereignty, independence,
whatever you want.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
To call it.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
I was out there and I was told that there
are upwards between six to eight separatists within her caucus.
So for them, what they want is greater control in Alberta.
You know, they want Alberta police force, they want an
Alberta pension fund, they want all this, all this kind
of stuff. And I'm not sure this is going to
be enough to appease those voters because they have they
(20:59):
have different agenda. So she's actually got a fine line
to tread because she has part of her you know,
part of her voting base actually believes that that Alberta's
future is stronger outside of Canada. You know, here's a
numb here's a number for you to chew on. We
did a survey just among Alberton's. We asked them whether
they thought that Alberta's economic future would be stronger under
(21:25):
a number of certain a number of different scenarios. One
of them was staying within Canada, one of them was
joining the United States, another one was forming their own country.
About six out of it, every ten Alberton's are thereabouts
believe that their strongest economic path forward was within Canada.
Twenty percent thought as that it was it would be
(21:46):
better for them to be an independent country. Ten percent
of Albertan's thought that it would be better to be
part of the United States. But the thing is is
that those separatists are more likely to be in rural
areas and they're more likely to be UCP supporters, so
they over index in that group. So she's she's got
a fine line to walk between being too chunny with
(22:11):
Ottawa in Canada and kind of making sure that she
stands up for her province like a lot of her voters.
I think I'll want her two.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
So I don't know if it's an interesting data point
or not, but I found an inition. I was in
the United States on business last week. I was in Kansas,
I was in Texas, and I was in Florida, and
probably with some people that were primarily Fox viewers, but
in each one of those states, I had drinks or
dinners with people that said, we hear Alberta is separating
joining US. So the news in the United States within
(22:43):
the right wing of the Republican Party is that Alberta
is separating and joining the United States.
Speaker 3 (22:50):
And you know, I think a lot of that has
to do with the fact that there are Alberton's Alberton
has a Republican Party, not to be connected with the US,
but sounds like a US party. They have a Republican
Party that that is advocating for Alberta to be a
republic and the people that are leading that particular movement
have been going down to the United States and they've
(23:10):
been talking to Republicans. So should we really be surprised
that people within the Republican Party of the United States,
when they have Alberton's come down and talk about independence,
that they you know, they're not talking about it. So
I think within Republican circles this is definitely on the
agenda you mentioned.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
I think his name is Stephen Gilbert Jolbolt, who resigned
from cabinet, but I don't believe he resigned from caucus.
I'd like to know what your opinion of that is.
And again, probably too soon to have any polling data
on it. But again I was at a cocktail party
where someone said, this is the best thing that could
ever happen to Carney because it proves that he's got
a different government. When he put jibbot In Jilbert in cabinet,
(23:57):
people were concerned it was just the Trudeau government and
that he was still going to continue the same climate policies.
But having this guy actually leave cabinet is the best
possible thing for him. To prove that he's actually different.
Speaker 3 (24:09):
What do you think, Well, I think part of that
is true in terms of reinforcing. You know. The thing
is is that people didn't you know, by the end
of the Trudeau government, people wanted Trudeau out, they wanted
the Liberals out. They just wanted massive change. And that's
where if you remember, you know, I think the Conservatives
were twenty seven points ahead in terms of ballot support
before Justin Trudeau stepped down.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
The Guibaut.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
Resignation is good for Carney in terms of him showing
that he's different from the past. The big question is
is how many people in that caucus agree with Gibout
and the direction that Mark Kearney is taken. We have
to remember, I think, in fairness there's a big chunk
of that caucus who believed that the last ten years
(24:54):
were good and that the Liberals are a great party
and all that kind of stuff. So, you know, it's
a bit dicey. The other thing is is I can't
see dey vote voting against the government on a confidence motion.
But here's a prediction for you. If there's an environmental
bill that is a non confidence motion, he might not
side with the government if he doesn't believe in the legislation.
(25:15):
So you know, in a government that is a minority
vote and every vote counts, not having him as a
locked vote, even on confidence or non confidence votes is
not optimal at least from a parliamentary perspective for the Liberals.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
Do you have a bet on how long this minority
government's going to last.
Speaker 3 (25:39):
I think we're going to have an election next September
for two reasons. First of all, I don't think we're
going to have a deal of any sort with the
United States. And I think one of the reasons why
we're not going to have a deal with the United
States is because it is not in the interest of
Donald Trump to have a deal with Canada. Donald Trump
is going to go into the midterms. He's going to
do everything that he can for the Republic to try
(26:00):
to get through the midterms, which are traditionally bad for
sitting presidents. And I think if the Canada US trade
agreement is still up in the air, he gets to
talk tough about repatriating jobs into the United States and
talk about what he's done. So I don't think he
has an interest in having a deal. And I think
(26:21):
perhaps Mark Kearney might not have an interest in having
a deal before the next election because whatever deal we get, Brian,
I don't think is going to be as good as
what we've got. So think of it this way. If
you're Peer Pauliev and Mark Kearney has a deal and
there's some sort of terroriffs, Peer Paulief is going to say, yeah,
here's the guy who said he was going to fix
the relationship and get a deal quick and all this
(26:43):
kind of stuff, and you know, how long did it
take you to get this deal? And it's not a
good deal. I think for the Liberals it's probably a
lot easier to run in an election not defending a
deal that is worse than what we have. It's probably
easier for them to go into an election without deal
and to ask for a mandate, kind of like another
(27:03):
free trade election like we saw in nineteen eighty eight.
So I think I think the world is conspiring towards
a September or Fall federal election. And because for the Liberals,
it's going to be tough to defend a free Chade
deal if it's not as good as what we've got.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Fasting absolutely fascinating September twenty twenty six next federal election.
You heard it here. First, we're going to take a
break and come back with Nick Nanos of Nanos Research
in just two minutes to stay with everybody.
Speaker 1 (27:39):
No Radio, no Problem. Stream is live on SAGA ninety
sixty AM dot.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
CAA welcome back everyone. You've got Nick Nanos at Nanos
Research with us. We've been chatting about about Canadian politics,
the leaders. We've been talking about the deal to get
(28:04):
a pipeline to the West Coast. I wonder just you know, generally, Nick,
where Canadians are we comfortable? Are we going to be
spending money? You know? How's Canadian consumer confidence?
Speaker 3 (28:15):
They're worried right now. You know. The thing is is that,
you know, we track consumer confidence with Bloomberg News every
week and have been for well like decades, and you know,
right now consumer confidence has been in a holding pattern.
It's been sputtering and neutral, neither positive nor negative. The
other interesting thing is that, literally because we track basically
(28:36):
every day pretty well literally, the day after Donald Trump
was elected president back last November, consumer confidence in Canada
started to slide. And I think for a lot of
Canadians they wondered what a Trump administration might mean for
the Canadian economy, and you know, so we see that
as kind of a mark. And then we also see
(28:56):
you know, Trump starting to put tariffs in the earlier
this year. And you know, what we have is a
situation where Canadians are much more likely to think that
the economy will get weaker rather than stronger in the
next six months. They're not as bullish about the value
of real estate in their neighborhood. And you know, just
generally Canadian there's a significant amount of anxiety. You know,
(29:20):
in our numbers, about a little more than one out
of every four young people, for example, are worried about
paying for the groceries in the next week. So you know,
you have to think of that as the environment. People
are worried about their jobs, people are wondering what's going
to happen with our relationship with the United States. Inflation
and the cost of everything from groceries to housing is
(29:41):
going up, and it's kind of like there's not a
lot of great news for Canadians on the economic front.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Well, I think we were, you know, very close to
having a technical recession. I think we just what we're
a point or two points of a percentage point away
from the technical definition of recession. So yeah, you know,
tough as time is. Now. You were at I saw
a real estate conference recently. What are you telling people
about the real estate market and how are people feeling?
(30:08):
You know, rents are down, which is good, but prices
are down, which is bad.
Speaker 3 (30:13):
Yeah, you know. The interesting thing is that when you
look at prices, when you look at say, for example,
the trend line on prices according to the CMHC over
the last five years, prices are down when you look
at the last three years, but prices are still check
out this number, twenty percent higher than they were in
twenty twenty. So when you look at kind of the
(30:35):
you know, just before the pandemic and during the pandemic,
you know, the thing is prices, the prices of homes
is still significantly higher. It's just what we've seen in
the last three years according to the CMHC, is that
the price of homes has been declining. The other thing
that's interesting is that when we look at the building
(30:55):
of new homes is that there's a lot more purpose
built rental homes that are being built compared to condominiums
and single detached homes, which speaks to the market slowly
adjusting to a world where because a single detached home
is not affordable, that there's just more rental properties that
are coming into the coming out into the market.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
But as we you know, lose some net worth in
our houses. Even if you can tell us while you're
fine versus at twenty twenty, you're going to feel that
you've got less you got less money. And sixty percent
of home mortgages come do and have to be renewed
in the next eighteen months. And those are people that
were have financed in twenty twenty and twenty twenty one.
Speaker 3 (31:37):
Yeah, and you know the interesting thing, Brian, is that
when we track some of this consumer confidence against when
interest rates went up when inflation was a little hotter,
people will really word. So you know, the thing is
is watch the interest rate coming out of the Bank
of Canada and also out of the United States interest rate,
because those two things are interconnected. What's that interest rate
as an indicator. If we see anything that suggests that
(31:58):
interest rates might go up, that'll that'll be bad news
for consumers, and that will also not be not be
good news for you know, incumbent governments, which is why
Donald Trump has been purposefully focused, laser like focused on
trying to have lower interest rates. But you know, I
think in this particular environment, we're probably looking at interest
(32:21):
rates being steady. But you know, the thing is is
when you talked about the results from the third quarter
of last year that just came out that kind of
screwed the recession. The interesting thing as part of that
is that a lot of that had to do with
imports being down and people buying Canadian So there's a
little bit of a positive spin off from what's been
(32:43):
happening with Donald Trump because there are Canadians that are
focused more and are looking more for Canadian products to
replace some of the American products that they've had, and
it looks like that has had a positive impact, at
least in the short term on the Canadian economy.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
I saw a chart that showed that purchases of California
wine was like down to down to zero.
Speaker 3 (33:04):
Oh, I wouldn't be surprised.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
You know.
Speaker 3 (33:07):
The thing is is that it's you know, the when
we ask Canadians about this whole idea of boycotting American goods,
about almost eight out of every ten Canadians are good
with that and I think it has to do with
the fact that people feel that it's one thing that
they can do to send a message to America and
to Donald Trump. And you know, as a result, Canadians
(33:31):
are consuming more Canadian goods even like think of it
this way, stuff like cheesy's. Have you ever had Hawkins
cheeses from Belleville?
Speaker 2 (33:39):
No, I haven't. Are the good kid out of here.
Speaker 3 (33:41):
You're killing me. They're like, you know, it's like the
crunchy cheeses. They're actually they're great, and they're all I'm
from Trenton, so Belvill is beside Trenton, so I'm into
I'm into cheeses from Hawkins Hawkins.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
You heard Hawkins.
Speaker 3 (33:55):
Cheesyes, And I just like to say that none of
my relatives work there, and I have no shares or
financial interest in Hawkins cheeses. They're just great products. But
you know, there's just an example where now Canadians are
discovering Canadian made and produced alternatives to American products, and
as a result, it's just been a little better for
the Canadian economy.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
I got to ask you one last question. A week ago,
wrote an article that was titled Canada's Appetite for boldness
meets harsh realities. Yeah, you know, when you think about
Premier doug Ford and his ad when you think about
you know, the elbows up when you think about, you know,
the the what you've described is the challenge that both
(34:37):
Carnie and Trump have coming into the trade negotiations. What
would be your advice, given given your polling to people
and our appetite for boldness, is that something that you
you play with or have you got to be scared of?
Speaker 3 (34:52):
Yeah, you know, it's interesting this survey we did with
Shift Canada, which is a nonprofit and there are two
elements that I thought were quite interesting about this survey
that Canadians believe that we should be bold, but when
we ask them about them being bold individually, even if
there was a financial risk, they're kind of a little
more timid, so to speak. So we have a bit
of a cultural issue in terms of encouraging more entrepreneurship,
(35:16):
ambition and risk taking. I think if I had a
piece of advice for any elected official, whether it be
the Premier of Ontario or the Prime Minister of Canada,
it would be we need certainty instability in the relationship
with the United States, regardless of what anybody thinks about
the politics in the US, the US will always continue
to be our most important trading partner just because of geography,
(35:39):
so we need stability there. I worry about politicians in
Canada trying to score points domestically because it plays well
with Canadian audiences, when the reality is is that what
plays even more, what plays even more importantly with Canadian
audiences is having a job and being able to pay
(36:00):
for the bills. So I think tamping down the conflict
with the United States, being tough in the negotiations with them,
but also having a strategy to promote entrepreneurship. You know,
I'd always kind of say, you know, the social contract.
We need to make sure that the social contract is strong.
The social contract is something as simple, in my view
(36:21):
at least, as if you work hard, you should be
able to pay the bills. The social contract is something
as simple as if you're an entrepreneur, if you work
hard and do a good job, you should be able
to provide for your family. Those are the things that
we need to encourage, and those are the things we
need to create an environment so that they can happen,
(36:41):
because the reality is is that for us to have
a strong economy. Yes, the government's important, but foundationally it
will be Canadian entrepreneurs and Canadians as individuals that will
build that prosperity.
Speaker 2 (36:53):
Your idea of a social contract. That's something that Peer
polyev is talking about over and over over again, so
much so that you can almost report the line that
he repeats.
Speaker 3 (37:02):
Actually I think he's repeating my line.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
But anyways, does Mark Karney need to focus more on that?
Speaker 3 (37:09):
Yeah, Well, you know the thing is is that I
think that's the next step. And you know, Peer Polio's
already ahead of him on this on this front, and
the same way Peer polyU was ahead of Justin Trudeau
on the cost of living. That's why the Conservative is
so strong on issues like the cost of living because
of their first on it. So what we've seen from
Mark Karney is his strategy at a high level.
Speaker 4 (37:30):
To invest in these big projects, big infrastructure projects, mining, energy, oil,
whatever you want to call it, all that kind of
stuff in order to jumpstart the economy.
Speaker 3 (37:43):
But at the same point, we need something on the ground, right,
We need something that encourages entrepreneurs to make investments. We
need something on the ground that encourages productivity within our enterprises.
Within Canada. We need something that small enterprises. So you know,
let's face it, your smaller medium sized enterprise and you
hear that there might be a pipeline from Alberta to
you through British Columbia, or a new mine in northern
(38:06):
Ontario or an energy project in the North, and you're
kind of like, Okay, I don't know what that means
to me, because the fact of the matter is, for
most Canadian small businesses, it doesn't mean anything to them, right,
So I think the next shoe that needs to drop,
doesn't matter who's leading the country, is a strategy for
small and medium sized enterprises, for them to thrive and succeed,
(38:27):
to provide for themselves and to create jobs for everyone.
Speaker 2 (38:31):
I interviewed a gentleman who wrote an article about how
culture overcomes strategy all the time and that we need
to have this culture of entrepreneurialism and dynamism in Canada
and we just don't. So I think that you're completely right,
Nick Nannis, Thank you so much for joining us. I
really appreciate this's been an excellent overview of what's going
on in Canada and interesting predictions for what's ahead of
(38:52):
us in twenty twenty six. Thanks so much, I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (38:55):
Make it easy.
Speaker 2 (38:55):
We're going to take a break back in two minutes.
Stay with us, everybody, stream us live at SAGA nine
sixty am CA. Welcome back to the Brian Crombie Radio
(39:18):
Hour tonight. I want to take a few minutes to
look back at what has been a really remarkable week
last week on the Brian Crombie Radio Hour, A week
that took us from war and diplomacy in Eastern Europe,
to taxes and transparency in Mississauga, to pluralism, clean energy,
art and the future of Canadian innovation. If there's a
common thread, it's this who leads, who decides, and who
(39:39):
benefits from policy, from power and from progress. Let's start
on Monday. Ukraine, the leaked peace Plan and the risk
of Another Munich. I was joined by Peter Dickinson, the
Ukrainian editor at the Atlantic Council, to dig into what
the leak so called US peace proposal for Ukraine was.
At twenty eight point document that frankly looks like it
was written in Moscow and just ran through Google Translate.
(40:00):
We walked through how the language is steeped in Russian
diplomatic framing, how it contemplates forced territorial concessions in an
esque and how once again there's a peace process happened,
happening largely without Ukraine. Even in the room, Peter laid
out whyle Ukrainians simply don't trust Western security guarantees after
the Budapest memorandum, why the proposed guarantees look weak and unenforceable,
(40:21):
and why Russia is suddenly so eager for a deal
even if a grind's forward on the battlefield. We talked
about Ukrainian strikes or on Russian energy infrastructure, the mood
in European capitals, the US election calendar, and what it
all means for NATO and the global order. At its core,
that show was about the cost of confusion and weakness
in a great powered diplomacy and the danger of repeating
(40:44):
the mistakes of Munich with a nuclear armed autocrat. On Tuesday,
we brought it home to Mississauga. If Monday was about
geopolitical accountability, Tuesday was about municipal accountability. I was joined
by three incredibly diligent local residents. George Tavari's Kimpines and
Athena Tech, people who have spent hours and hours going
line by line through Mississauga's budget because frankly, someone had to.
(41:07):
We asked a simple question, why are Mississauga taxes rising
faster than inflation two and three times faster than inflation
year after year after year while transparency and service quality
seems to be going the other way. We talked about
the blended rate trick, dividing your bill into city, region,
and education, so the headline increase looks smaller even though
(41:27):
the city portion you actually control is climbing far more aggressively.
We dig into the governance and balance, where Mississaga funds
about sixty two percent appeal police but doesn't have equivalent
voting power around the table. We explored the myth that
there's no room to cut even when discipline analysis suggests
two to three percent savings are possible without touching core services,
(41:47):
and we connected to what people feel rising crime, slower transit, congestion,
stalled projects, and growing frustration with a system that we
don't think people listen. Tuesday show is about demockocracy at
the local level, about whether city hall treats taxpayer dollars
with the same discipline families bring to Theirrome budgets. On Wednesday,
(42:08):
we zoomed out again, but this time to the big
ideal of pluralism. My guest was Meredith Preston McGee, Secretary
General of the Global Center for Pluralism and one of
the world's most experienced conflict resolution practitioners. For nearly thirty years,
She's been at the front lines from North East India
to Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan and Somalia and beyond, and what
she's learned is that pluralism isn't some soft, idealistic word,
(42:31):
It's strategy. We talked about how societies managed deep differences
under stress, ethnicity, religion, language, history. We asked whether pluralism
is essential for democracy, simply complementary to it. We looked
at real examples, communities that broke down and others that
pulled back from the brick because teachers, youth workers, artists
and local leaders made the hard choice to build bridges
(42:52):
instead of walls, bridges instead of walls. What I loved
about the conversation was the optimism was grounded in reality.
Meredith isn't naive about conflicts. She's lived in it around
the world. But she believes that ordinary people you and
I can build pluralism in very practical ways. Who we
listen to, who we stand up for, and how we
design our institutions. On Thursday, we turned to the future
(43:14):
of energy with Greg Vesna. Greg the president of Hydrofuel Inc.
Walked us through a vision of clean tech that is
much more practical and frankly, more exciting than a lot
of the political slogans we're hearing today. We talked about
ammonia as a carrier for hydrogen, microminiar plants and petrochemical
reactors that can turn methane into clean hydrogen and valuable
carbon products using only light. We compared pipelines to power lines.
(43:38):
We discussed why Grade nine math and science actually matter
for policy, and what it would take for Canada to
stop talking about being an energy superpower and actually becoming one.
It was one of the most forward looking conversations we've had,
and it fits squarely into a theme that kept coming
back this week. Canada has incredible scientific talent. The question
is whether we have the will, the capital, and the
courage to commercialize it here From there, at the end
(44:01):
of the week, we shifted into art identity and overcoming
with Steep Daniels, also known as Jesus Guggenheimer. Steep is
the twenty twenty five resident artist at the Yekrand Polish
Film Festival. This story is extraordinary. We talked about how
a spontaneous act plastering Prince Tribute prints around Toronto after
Admission's death, led to festival producers noticing his work, inviting
(44:23):
him in commissioning more, and eventually making him a central
artistic voice at Ekron. We exploit his exhibition of fourteen paintings,
his film Overcoming Steep, his Polish heritage and the symbolism
and humor that ran through Polish cinema. And we talked
about Sick Kits, how the hospital gave him crayons as
a child, and how we turned that early gift into
almost one hundred grand raising through projects like Jump for
(44:43):
Sick Kids, convincing nearly one hundred people to skydive to
mirror the bravery of hospitalized kids. That show was about
how art becomes action, how creativity becomes community, and how
one person's story can inspire others to overcome their own
steep climbs. And then we closed the week by talking
about Canadian innovation with Professor Neil Seman. Neil is an entrepreneur, professor,
(45:05):
researcher and now a business columnist, and he voiced something
I've heard over and over on the show. Canada doesn't
have a creativity problem. We have a commercialization problem. We
invent the future of the science behind the m N, mRNA, vaccines, GLP,
WON drugs, AI cleantech, and then we watch someone else
build the factories, create the jobs, and capture the wealth.
(45:25):
We talked about why real innovation doesn't happen on big,
glossy conference stages, but in honest conversations, late night arguments,
and messy collaborations. We discuss why vulnerability, not bravado, builds
better entrepreneurs, why young Canadians are leaving, why we underinvest
in capital, equipment, R and D and scaling, and what
it takes to keep our talent here in Canada and
(45:47):
rip here at home. It was a sharp, candidate and
at times uncomfortable look at where Canada stands in the
twenty first century.
Speaker 3 (45:55):
Counting.
Speaker 2 (45:56):
When you put all these shows last week together, Ukraine, Mississauga, Plurer,
clean Energy, Art and Innovation, a bigger pert picture emerges
we at a moment where global security is in flux,
local democracy is understrained, diverse societies are being tested, the
energy transition is accelerating, culture is pushing us to rethink
(46:17):
identity and purpose, and our economy is asking whether we
want to be makers or really markets. My hope is
that The Brian Crombie Hour can be a place where
we wrestle with all of that honestly, respectfully, and with
a bias towards solutions. If you missed any of these conversations,
you can find the replaces on YouTube to search the
Brian Cromby Hour or on Podcacast. Platforms are on my
(46:38):
website Briancrimey dot com. And as always, thank you for listening,
for thinking along with us, and for being a part
of this ongoing conversation about how we build a better community,
a better country, and a better world together. And now
this week everyone is going to be exposed to I
think an even more exciting week. This week we've got
(47:00):
one of the most compelling lineups I've ever put together.
Five nights, five conversations, each shining a light on a
different part of Canadian life, from politics and real estate
to immigration, democracy, and then the human spirit. Let me
walk you through what's happening this week. On Monday, I've
got Nick Nanos on Canada's political crossroads. We begin the
week with one of the sharpest minds in political polling
(47:20):
and political analysis, Nick Nanos of Nanos Research. Nick and
I dive into the shifting political landscape in Canada, why
the concerners can't seem to break through even as the
NDP struggles, why the Liberals have seen a slight uptick,
and how much of that is connected to the very
strong public impressions Canadians have of Prime Minister Mark Kearney.
We look at the incredible statistic that several federal writings
(47:40):
were decided by as few as sixty votes and what
that means for the next election. Every vote counts, and
then we zoom out to questions of energy pipelines, indigenous involvement,
Alberta politics, and even why Someonel Burton's are talking about
joining the United States. It's data, it's analysis, it's the
story behind the headlines, and it's one of Canada's respected
(48:00):
political voices. On Tuesday, I've got Frek Cassano on the
future of real estate. We shift to the economy, specifically
the real estate market, with Fred Cassano, who's the national
real estate leader at PwC Canada. Fred brings insights from
PWC's massive industry survey of over two hundred and fifty leaders,
and together we break down what's really happening the frozen
(48:22):
condo market, the surprising resilience of triple A office labor shortages,
ESG pressures, and the explosive demand for purpose built rentals.
We talked about the housing crisis, why Canada needs to
build five hundred thousand homes a year, and why we're
nowhere close. We explore the data centers, infrastructure constraints and
why Calgary may be beating Ontario to be the emerging
(48:42):
AI and cloud economy, and we ask the big question,
what will it take to build enough homes fast enough
for the next generation to actually afford to live in
our country? Wednesday, I've got Parisa Macaruby on rebuilding Canada's
immigration system. She's with the cd HOW Institute, one of
Canada's leading voices and immigration reform priests. Argues that something
(49:04):
many policymakers are finally starting to realize, more is not
always better. What matters most is who we welcome, their skills,
their language ability, their education, and their capacity to contribute.
We talk about temporary form workers, the explosion of international students,
and a permanent residency system that has become unpredictable and
frustrating for newcomers. We discuss how immigration pressures are affecting housing,
(49:27):
infrastructure and public confidence, and what reforms are actually needed
to get this system right. Paressa combines deep research with
their own lived experiences of family class immigrant, giving us
both the evidence and the humanity behind this issue. On Thursday,
I've Got Joan Roberts on voter turnout and lowering the
voting age from eighteen to sixteen. Joan Roberts is a
(49:49):
writer or former interim leader of the Green Party and
an author of a book called Storm the Ballot Box
for a passionate discussion about voter turnout and the future
of civic engagement in Canada. Using voters turnout is falling,
and among en Canadians the numbers are staggering. Only forty
six point seven percent of eighteen to twenty four year
olds voted in the last for election. Joanna argues that
(50:11):
lowering the voting age to sixteen could be one of
the smartest reforms we can make, and she brings evidence
from Austria, Brazil, Scotland, Wales and soon in the UK
showing that sixteen and seventeen year olds actually vote and
vote more reliably than new voters at eighteen. We also
talk about civics education, electoral reform, recall elections, term limits,
(50:31):
and the Supreme Court case that could push Canada to
expand the franchise once again. If you care about democracy,
this is a conversation you'll want to hear. And then
on Friday, we finished the week with one of the
most emotional and inspiring interviews I've ever done. My guest
is Amanda Caruso, a survivor, an advocate, an entrepreneur, a lawyer,
and author of Becoming the Brave One, My Journey to Justice.
(50:54):
Amanda has lived through an extraordinary trauma, multiple sexual assaults,
a violent childhood, and the horrific murder of her sister
and her sister's family, but she has emerged as a
powerful advocate for healing, restorative justice, and emotional courage. We
talk about shame, resilience, forgiveness, parenting relationships, community, anger, love,
and how she transformed her pain into purpose. Amanda's message
(51:18):
is extraordinary. No matter what you've been through, you can heal,
you can reclaim your voice, you can become brave. It's
one of the most powerful conversations we've ever aired. So
join me this week all this week at six pm
on Saga nine sixty or stream me alive at Saga
nine sixty am dot CA, and every show is available
(51:39):
afterward on my YouTube channel and on podcast servers and
on my website Briancromby dot com. That's our show for tonight.
Thank you everyone for joining us. I'm on every Monday
through Friday at six o'clock on nine to sixty am.
You can stream me online at Triple W Saga ninety
sixty am dot ca. Can you out all my podcasts
videocasts on Briancromby dot com, on YouTube, on Facebook and Instagram,
and on Audible podcasts, on Apple podcasts and on speakeasy.
(52:03):
Thank you, check me out, goodnight, everybody.
Speaker 1 (52:05):
Thank you, No radio, no problem. Stream us live on
Saga nine sixty am dot co.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.