Let's Talk Politics

Ep 12: Politics & Pucks - How Trump Changed the Game

• Julia Pennella • Season 1 • Episode 12

Share episode

The political landscape in Canada stands at a critical juncture as the 2025 federal election looms just one week away. In this riveting conversation with Conal Slobodin, Vice President at Crestview Strategy, we unpack the seismic shifts reshaping voter demographics and campaign strategies across the country.

A fascinating phenomenon emerges as young men gravitate toward Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives while older women align with Mark Carney's Liberals—a complete reversal from the 2015 election dynamics. Social media has revolutionized political outreach, with Poilievre masterfully engaging disaffected young voters by validating their frustrations and offering pathways forward. Meanwhile, candidates struggle to balance domestic affordability concerns with the looming specter of Trump-era tariffs.

The conversation takes a critical turn as we examine the surprising absence of comprehensive campaign platforms so late in the election cycle. While the Liberals and NDP have released costed plans with significant spending, the Conservatives have opted for high-level messaging—a strategy that might prove either brilliant or disastrous. We dive deep into natural resource development, particularly the contentious Ring of Fire project, exploring whether economic growth can proceed while respecting Indigenous sovereignty.

Perhaps most compelling is our discussion of Northern Affairs and Arctic sovereignty—issues receiving insufficient attention as climate change transforms Canada's northern frontier. Slobodin delivers a passionate assessment of Canada's unpreparedness for defending its Arctic interests, arguing convincingly that military presence alone cannot secure our northern territories without parallel investments in community infrastructure and quality of life.

Ready to understand what's truly at stake in this watershed election? This episode delivers expert analysis on how Canada's political future hangs in the balance between competing visions for prosperity, sovereignty, and national identity. Subscribe now and join the conversation about who will lead Canada through the gathering storm.

Just a quick note: this episode was recorded on April 22, 2025, so while the news may have changed since this conversation was recorded, the thoughts and ideas still remain relevant. 


Julia Pennella:

Welcome back to let's Talk Politics. We're just one week away from the 2025 federal election and the campaign trail is buzzing. Candidates are traveling across the country making their final pitches to voters. Yesterday, mark Carney was out in BC promising to protect key social programs, while Jagmeet Singh rallied crowds in Alberta reassuring voters. The NDP will be there for them. On Tuesday, the Conservative Party finally released their platform. It included $34 billion in new spending, $75 billion in tax cuts and a fiscal plan that's already raising a few eyebrows.

Julia Pennella:

Meanwhile, in economic news, the Bank of Canada hit pause on its easing campaign last week, holding the benchmark interest rate steady at 2.75% after seven consecutive cuts. But concerns are growing Due to the ongoing trade war. Economists and the Bank of Canada alike are warning of downward pressure on the economy, and just yesterday North American stock markets got a boost fueled by renewed hope in US-China trade talks and a rare moment of calm from President Trump, who reassured markets he has no intention of firing Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Joining me today to unpack all of the political and economic chaos both in Canada and the US is Conal Slobodin, vice President at Crestview Strategy in Ottawa.

Julia Pennella:

Originally from the Yukon, conal is an expert in public policy and government relations. He spent nearly a decade working across sectors like natural resources, immigration, retail and life sciences, both in the public and private sector. Today, he's here to break down how this election is shaping up, which parties and policies are standing out, and what he's seeing and hearing about the move of the country right now. Just a quick note this episode was recorded on April 22, 2025. So, while the news may have changed since this conversation was recorded, the thoughts and ideas still remain relevant. So let's talk politics with Conal Slobodin. Conal, thanks so much for coming.

Conal Slobodin:

My pleasure. Thanks for having me.

Julia Pennella:

So I want to kick it off right off the bat. We're in the thick of the 2025 election, one week away until Election Day. What's your read on the mood of the country right now?

Conal Slobodin:

Is there an appetite for change or do you think we'll see another liberal government form? That's a great question. I would say that there is an overwhelming desire to change. The question is whether you think that we've realized that change. I think, if you go back four months ago, everybody wanted Justin Trudeau gone, largely speaking.

Conal Slobodin:

But now that he's gone, now that even the carbon tax and you could even see the capital gains taxes off the table, mark Carney's in play and the Trump specter has loomed over Canadian politics, I think a lot of Canadians are thinking they've got the change that they need.

Conal Slobodin:

Now they want the steady hand, but it's really a tale of two cities, in a way, where you've got that one group of people that tend to skew older and then the other group of people that tend to skew younger, who feel like for the past, even 10 years in some ways, the economy and the country has not been going away. That helps them, and so there's still that desire for change and that's the base that the conservative party is tapping into. And this is an interesting one to watch, because in 2015, it was a lot of the young people that delivered the liberal party to government. But if the conservatives win on Monday, it'll be the youth vote that turned around and delivered it to the Conservatives, so it's certainly a unique shift in how things have played out over the past 10 years, but I would say we're definitely in a desire for change. Election.

Julia Pennella:

There's definitely a unique aspect with the demographics in this election. As you pointed out, we're seeing youth, primarily younger men, going towards the Conservatives. We're also seeing older women, I think over 55, are predominantly more pro-Carney, and there's also that in-between of women voters as well who seem to maybe not necessarily trust the Conservatives and Polyev maybe based on his comments. But what are your thoughts from observing different elections, the shift in demographic Like? What is it? Do you think it's social media? Do you think it's the issues? I'm curious on your take around that?

Conal Slobodin:

I think social media has absolutely enabled it. The conservatives, particularly Pierre Polyev, have been very good at reaching men where they're at, and I think a lot of men for many years just kind of withdrew. It's a product of COVID. It's a product of changing workforce dynamics. In many ways it's a product of a lot of other stuff that I even see through some of my board work. But the conservatives have found a way to not just reach them but speak to their problems and in a way that provides a manifestation of the frustrations, a validation of the frustrations and then a path forward to resolve those frustrations.

Conal Slobodin:

And it was the same thing the way Trudeau did it in 2015. It was a different tack. It wasn't a divide of young men versus young women, versus older voters, but it was a sense of young people that wanted a different direction for their country and he encapsulated it very well Arguably began to lose that demographic over the last few years and he's handed it over to Polyev and credit to Polyev for really recognizing a generation that is calling out for a little bit of assistance and he's leaning into it. And I think that is something that the next prime minister really should think about is what we could do to bring young men, in particular people under the age of 40 to 35, you know, families trying to find their way in the workforce back into the fold and make this more inclusive political constituency.

Julia Pennella:

Good points and I want to dive into Polyev's messaging and this need for change. That's been his shift in slogan before it was axed to tax. But what is it about the change? Because here Polyev has been criticized by many people, both voters and politicians, strategists about he was a bit late to the game with shifting his campaign strategy to focusing on tariffs. There was very much this prominent Canada's broken. We need to fix all the damage that was caused. But there was that late in the game shift. Do you agree with that and why do you think maybe that happened?

Conal Slobodin:

Well, I definitely agree. You know it's funny. I mean, we're in the hockey playoffs, so I use a bit of analogy Donald Trump has sort of become the semifinal game for this election and the final is an affordability piece. But if you're not speaking on the Donald Trump piece, you're not going to be able to speak to the affordability piece, because for a lot of that centrist vote, that sort of Gen X vote and sort of male boomer vote, that is what they want you to speak about. Know that you handle it.

Conal Slobodin:

And Polly has done a couple of things where I feel like he's not maybe taken full advantage of that or recognized the moment. An example would be when he shows up in places like Sault Ste Marie and Hamilton and Windsor, it doesn't really acknowledge that the Trump thing is going on at all. Even when Chrystia Freeland pushed Justin Trudeau out, or began the process of pushing Trudeau out in December and she gave this big long letter about how we need to be prepared for the moment of dealing with Donald Trump, he came out and he said that day this is why we need a carbon tax election and that, to my mind, is our own goals. To stay on the hockey analogy here, and he's missed that moment just a little bit, even though he's had the right narrative. He's got the fundamentals right. I think he just needs to recognize that there's an extra game he needs to play.

Julia Pennella:

Well said. And as we're talking about Trump and as you mentioned, he and the threat of US tariffs have become really the unexpected star of the election. I think if we look back before he got elected, the conversation was very different. The polls were very different as well. We'll get into that, but it sucked a lot of oxygen.

Julia Pennella:

I think out of the room and maybe it's just me, but I want to lean into this point about. I feel like this is the first time in recent memory that we've seen so many Canadian politicians popping up on American news and from your communications background I'd be interested in your take on this. And we could point to Mark Carney. He kind of soft launched his leadership on the Daily Show. We could point to Mark Carney he kind of soft launched his leadership on the Daily Show. Chrystia Freeland went on real time with Bill Mayer and Doug Ford rather has been doing his rounds on CNN and Fox News, especially when he came out about that energy security piece with the US. So what do you make of this? What's the strategy behind showing up on US media and do you think it actually benefits these politicians?

Conal Slobodin:

and their popularity back at home. I love that question for a number of reasons. One is, yes, I think it definitely plays very well with the base back home. People want to see their candidates on TV. They want to see them out there. If it's a good hit, it can be cut and pasted for social media time and time again. That was one of the benefits of some of the Mark Carney stuff poly-up, even with Jordan Peterson. Even though Peterson is a Canadian, it's more of an American audience.

Conal Slobodin:

So if you go back about seven years ago when we were in the middle of negotiating the NAFTA agreement to what became KUSMA, there was a lot of focus bilaterally on Canadian politicians going to the United States, meeting with particularly Republican border state Southern US congressmen, senators, governors for that political pressure on the Trump administration. That kind of went away as a product of taking a victory lap on the negotiation, a product of COVID, and then, I think, a little bit of complacency. Now that's also shifted to. You've got to race the actual voter. That is the one that is going to start to move the Americans, particularly the Trump White House, more than anything the concern about their well-being, the concern about their financial security, the concern about their jobs.

Conal Slobodin:

I mean, going to where Americans are at on Fox, on CNN, on MSNBC is a very effective tactic. I think what's really missing, though, is the ground. The air war, where the hits are great, but you got to reach Americans on a greater presence, and we took all those ads, those billboards in different US states about how a tariff is really a tax on your food or your products, and that's great. But we run ads on Canadian tourism and all these different markets. We should be running social media ads, television spots, multimillion dollar campaigns to really drive home the value of Canada and begin to try to move that US metric, Because right now, the only real person they're hearing this from is Donald Trump and the people around him. We got to get our story out there in the Rust Belt, in the US South, in the border states, and we got to see more than just our politicians speaking in the news.

Julia Pennella:

What do you think the story is that we have to tell? And, like Canada, there's so many, I think, things we can point to with our diversity, multiculturalism, healthcare. You know the commercial that comes to mind and I'm sad I haven't seen it in a while. But like the good things grow in Ontario, like I want to step back. I get a lot of Newfoundland ads, but you know, I'm just curious what does storytelling mean to both Canadians and Americans? And will that be enough to? I don't know if the purpose of it is to drive tourism or give them an understanding of what's actually going to happen to their wallets.

Conal Slobodin:

It's a great follow up. First of all, it shouldn't try to be clever. It should be very direct. It should speak to the financial, economic and even just security well-being of the Canada-US relationship. How we are different but unique. We've got that long history.

Conal Slobodin:

I think it was summed up in many ways very well by Justin Trudeau in one of his last press appearances where he talked about Canadian soldiers fighting in Kandahar, fighting in the beaches of Normandy I think it was back when the tariff response first hit but then also how our jobs are interlinked and what it means and what it does and how we are those reliable trade partners. I think when we focus on rhetoric like the 51st state with the Americans, we're playing yesterday's game. If we're focusing on the fentanyl argument, we're already behind and I think we've got to get ahead of the curve and that's been a bit of a problem on, I think, the response to the Americans to date. Talk about what they need, what they want, what they're looking for, why we're not that problem and you've got to get to the voters. We should be doing some deep public opinion research on some of that stuff and really getting ahead of it and understanding what they want us to say as well no-transcript.

Julia Pennella:

And as we're talking about messaging, what is your hot take on how the major parties are running their campaigns this time around? You know what's standing out for you good or bad from each of them.

Conal Slobodin:

I don't think this has been a very great campaign, to be honest, and there are a number of reasons. One is we talked a little bit about the conservatives failing to adapt to Donald Trump, but part of it is also the liberals failing to drive that point home. In the past 10, 15 days they've really stopped talking about Donald Trump and the 51st day, peace and the new world order. Carney's quick to jump on that. Everything has changed, but he stops reminding people why. And I think for the liberals you're starting to see things soften up a little bit and that's a risk. But for the conservatives at the beginning they really, as I said, failed to get into that qualifying match. The other piece that I think is a little sloppy and I'm not a campaign strategist, so I sit here from my armchair general position. But everybody knew this thing was coming. This wasn't a snap election per se. Everybody was asking for it six months ago. It's been a minority for three and a half years.

Conal Slobodin:

Why do we have no candidates? I understand from the liberal perspective maybe that they didn't have a lot of people wanting to run in a losing proposition, but the conservatives didn't seem to have a lot of star candidates. They had a lot of people wanting to run in a losing proposition, but the conservatives didn't seem to have a lot of star candidates. They had a lot of candidates that they kicked out last minute. Liberals had the same problem. It's surprising that they seem to be caught flat footed. So from that perspective, that is just very confusing. It's the same with some of the ad buys that they just don't seem to resonate. It's like they kind of thought, hey, we already bought these, let's just run them, see if they work.

Conal Slobodin:

That's probably been the wrong approach overall and then to give a shout out to the other two opposition parties. The bloc seems to struggle to find its place, though probably do better than I think some people expect, just due to vote efficiency. But the NDP just seems to take its worst instincts. If you read its platform, it's very much from 2019, very much an 2019, very much an older platform. It doesn't look at Trump either. Very much we're going to do wealth redistribution, we're going to get ahead of inflation, we're going to support workers, but it's not how we're going to grow the economy. It's not how we're going to unite as a country. It even digs into a lot of provincial jurisdiction, things like trying to control prices of products, for example, or rent control.

Julia Pennella:

You can't even do that as a federal government, so it's a very unserious platform and I think in the moment it's absolutely not helping them if they're at risk of losing party status. And I would also add as well, with the candidates and this kind of very quick scramble to get people in, the Green Party wasn't even able to participate, or the candidate wasn't even able to participate in the leaders debates because have enough candidates across the country. So, um, unfortunate, and it was a really good debate. So if anyone hasn't watched it, I highly recommend it. But as we're talking about platforms, you mentioned it, over the long weekend, both the liberals and the ndp dropped their fully costed platforms with big price tags, big promises, and the green party and Quebecois have also released their platforms earlier in the campaign. Meanwhile, we're one week out from election day.

Julia Pennella:

The Conservatives haven't released a full platform yet. There's rumors it might be coming out, maybe today, and the only thing we've got from them are one-off announcements and just a video starring former Prime Minister Stephen Harper endorsing Pierre Polyev kind of coming out of his retirement, I guess, you could say which has some undecided voters wondering. You know where are the details? If we do want to vote for you, where are they? Do you think that this is all part of Polyev's strategy of holding off and releasing a full platform. He's been getting heat for not laying out a clear plan on how he'd handle tariffs, as we mentioned, and instead of sticking to that, canada's broken message, it seems to be this change message. Is that kind of delayed typical for the Conservatives? I mean, you know, doug Ford didn't release a full platform in the last Ontario election and what also comes to mind is Aaron O'Toole's platform that looked more like a GQ cover than a policy document.

Conal Slobodin:

So you know what's going on here with the conservatives? I remember that GQ one that was great. So I mean tying back to your previous question on my hot take on the campaign and what's going right and wrong. Three months ago, the conservatives were in a tremendous poll position where they didn't even need a platform. Their four main messages were well-known and they've gotten them a 25-point lead in the polls and introducing specificity, which is just a liability, particularly if you look at some of the costing elements. If you were to do it, it starts to raise the specter of cuts and those concerns too.

Conal Slobodin:

I think from the conservative perspective and I think even from the liberals and the NDP, a costed platform is a dangerous exercise politically. First of all, I can say as a lobbyist, none of those plans survive contact with the public service or the lobbying sector or stakeholders or constituencies or MPs on the way down. You look at the cost of building TMX, while the $30 billion overrun wasn't in the 2015 black one, for example. But you look at as well the narrative it drives. Well, people have been saying for years that we're got to get our spending under control and I think arguably you can say the floor is probably going to fall out of our fiscal position a little bit, but promising massive amounts of spending when you don't need to, when you're already five to eight points up in the polls, it just gives people a bit of a pause right before they go to vote. Go to vote For the conservatives, it's the same thing.

Conal Slobodin:

I think that they should just stick to the high-level messaging, and they've largely done that. But they've also avoided talking about tariffs, as you've said, which undermines them. So they'll introduce this platform. It's probably going to be what they've already announced largely, and unless it speaks to the issue on the table, I don't think it's necessarily going to be a great thing for them either. I think it's a bit of a distraction.

Conal Slobodin:

I talked to people who are considering voting liberal and now they're looking at the specifics of the platform and saying, well, maybe that's not as far along as it should have been. What does that mean? Why do they stop there? You didn't even need to have those conversations, not released it on any front, to be honest, or just say, if elected, I'm going to do these four priorities very much to what Stephen Harper did in 06, or just narratively, as Doug Ford did to the most recent election in Ontario. That works. I don't think people were looking at Mark Carney and saying you know, you're four weeks on the job. We want you to have the most detailed platform you can think of or we won't vote for you. They were voting for him based on his management competency. So I think it was a risk. We'll see what effect it has on votes overall, but that's not a move that I would have done personally, and that's I take your point, because the headlines right now are not what's actually in the platform.

Julia Pennella:

specifically for the liberals, it's how much federal debt are they going to add with this plan? And that's really taking up the air when it comes to not the interesting policy proposals they're putting forward, but debt, debt, debt. You know $130 billion in new spending, and that's been the biggest criticism from the Conservatives is we vote in another Liberal government. It's going to be more spending. If you had to hand out a report card scoring each party you know, a+, b+, c, whatever to each of the major parties based on their plans for growing and supporting Canada's natural resources sector, how would they score who's passing with flying colors and who needs to kind of go back to the drawing board?

Conal Slobodin:

So, but not having seen a conservative platform which I think might actually be released around the time of this recording, I would generally say that they all leave me wanting more. A, b is probably where I would give the conservatives and the liberals and I would put the NDP much, much further down on that grade for a variety of reasons a very good approach to the high level desire to get resources to the ground, and that impetus can really drive a lot. But I worry about a lot of Polyev's rhetoric around his relationship with corporate Canada and that's going to drive a lot of uncertainty, maybe some poor relationships with businesses in the mining sector in particular, or even in some of the larger infrastructure and financial services sectors. That all need to be part of this. I think the liberals also need to recognize that there comes a point where decisive action needs to be taken and not everybody is going to be happy with that decision, and it can't be about putting us into a consultation process until eventually somebody gets tired or the courts make a decision. We're going to need to make decisions in the next six months.

Conal Slobodin:

Polyev has been clear that he's willing to do that, but how he implements it still gives me a little bit of hesitancy. Ultimately, I think the plans are less relevant than their willingness to balance the social capital, the timelines, the infrastructure needs, market commodity prices, financing, electoral politics, court challenges and whoever's willing to backstop that risk, particularly the legal risk and the financial risk, and really willing to put that extra manufacturing spin on. A lot of these products is going to come out on top and I haven't really seen it yet. That's my problem.

Julia Pennella:

Good points. I want to dive in and pick out that point you said about Polyov putting out these ideas, but there's no clear path of how this implementation will work. Again, another criticism he's gotten is he's very much demonstrating himself as an attack dog in politics, but it's unclear if those skills will translate and it comes into a leader position. What is your take on Mark Carney? He's also characterized as a bit of a technocrat who could maybe get things done, but sometimes in his media there's a bit of a disconnect when it comes to understanding how people are going to absorb this stuff. But yeah, I'm just curious on do you think those characterizations of both of them are fair or what's your thoughts around it?

Conal Slobodin:

Oh, it's probably fair to some extent. I don't know either of them personally, of course. I would say that, at the end of the day, delegation is key to any effective leader. Even when it comes time to communications, you look at again tying back the point about the need for star candidates. Those are the people that are going to be your messengers, whether it's on national news or just in the communities, with stakeholders to these and with stakeholders. And if you don't have people that are willing or are capable of driving an effective message that aligns with your vision, you're really going to struggle.

Conal Slobodin:

And I look at other big elections where we've changed governments. It was very clear to see where the next cabinet was coming from Doug Ford at PPP, people like Peter Bethanfobby, christine Elliott, carolyn Mulroney these were star candidates where you thought, hey, you know, I could see my cabinet in that group. Same thing with Justin Trudeau in 2015. And to an extent, carney's picked up a number of star candidates in this election, like Greta Robertson and Evan Solomon, and even Carlos Laita in Quebec. But again, polyev hasn't. And that's my concern is that it's ultimately going to fall back into the hands of the civil service to move a lot of this forward if you don't have a strong executive hand on the tiller.

Julia Pennella:

Good points, no-transcript. Really hard calling out the complete lack of consultation and disregard for First Nation and Indigenous rights. What's your take? Can development in the Ring of Fire move forward in a way that respects Indigenous sovereignty, or are we watching history repeat itself?

Conal Slobodin:

Great question. I come at this from the perspective of a kid who grew up in mining jurisdiction, where the economy was either government or it was mining, and I think when we look at the ring of fire, consultation is sort of misconstrued differently for different purposes. I think we've been consulting on a ring of fire for 20 years at this point. But what are people looking for? I think is the question that we've got to double-click on a little bit. Some communities want more economic benefits and jobs and they're very right to claim it. Others have very real concerns about the environmental protection needs of their communities and if these proponents are going to be in a position to do remediation work, I think that's very valid. My home jurisdiction just had a massive mining failure that's going to cost probably a couple of billion dollars to clean up. It's a real concern. But then we also need to recognize that a lot of people just don't want this stuff to be built and the government needs to play that role that says, all right, well, we decided this thing is going to get built and we are going to push it forward a little bit, and the liberals have demonstrated the willingness to do this a couple of times. They did this on LNG Canada. They did this on the Trans Mountain expansion. They're going to need to do it on the mines. I think the Ford government's willing to do it, but I don't think that's enough.

Conal Slobodin:

Coming back to my point about willingness to backstop risk, the government also needs to do that. They need to do for these proponents an element of mitigation that says, well, if this goes to a core challenge, we're willing to sit there with you and do it. We'll backstop a lot of your financial risk. We're going to move this thing forward and deal with the fallout afterwards. We're maybe going to cover that delta and what it costs to build this thing.

Conal Slobodin:

They did that on LNG Canada. They did that on TMX. They're going to need to do it here. Our CEO is going to be able to go to his board of directors or his shareholders and say, well, we're going to try, and then in a couple of years this thing gets stopped. And now we've sunk billions of dollars into it and I can't promise it. But please give me more money. That's not going to work. So the government needs to be a clear partner on this thing to get it built, and that's also going to need to be in there and figure out what some communities need and what other communities are going to have to live without.

Julia Pennella:

And community is a huge piece when it comes to being that vocal advocate. And I want to point to, you mentioned your background growing up around mines. You're originally from Whitehorse, yukon. So I want to ask you, you know, let's talk a little bit more about Northern Affairs. I think more broadly, what does Northern Affairs capture? Because I think it's a broad context. I think a lot of Canadians, myself included, don't understand the complexities of both the environment and communities up there. But you know, I'd love to hear your perspective on explaining what that is and then what your take is on each party's approach to Northern Affairs.

Conal Slobodin:

Well, thank you for asking that question, because it's obviously one that's near and dear to my heart. Northern Affairs has very different definitions depending for asking that question, because it's obviously one that's near and dear to my heart. Northern Affairs has very different definitions depending on how you look at it. You got the Arctic, which is not where I grew up. I grew up below the tree line, in an area that wasn't what you imagine when you think of Arctic sovereignty. Then you've got the territories, the three of them, and they're each very different, very unique, very different economies. Some are connected more than others. Then you've got the Inuit Nunangat piece, which is Nunavut, nunahatsibit and Labrador. You've got NWT at Northern Quebec. That's very different. And then you've also got what some would refer to as the provincial north and that is sort of that bleed into provinces and I would argue like Northern Saskatchewan and Northern Manitoba in many ways are way more remote and more northern in some pieces of the Yukon, for example, the same with anybody along the Hudson Bay. We look at the federal government. Northern Affairs generally stops at the territories and I think that could be a little bit of a mistake. I think everybody's dealing with a lot of the same issues. Credit to Carney. He was born in the Northwest Territories, so his platform has a little bit more relatability, I would say, with the territories. He's done a good job of calling out certain projects that he would like to support. Whether or not there's business cases, I think we'll have to see. But one of the things that really stands out with Mark Carney that it did in with Justin Trudeau is a sense that there is a dual purpose to Arctic sovereignty. It's not just defense, it's about quality of life, it's about economic development, it's about jobs. It's not just about Indigenous intergovernmental relations too. There's a huge part of the territories that is not Indigenous, but they need to be blended together. I think there's a lot of success in the North when everybody works together on the stuff. The populations are very small. You have to be partners in this one economically, and Kearney is leaning in on that one.

Conal Slobodin:

I give Polyev a bit more of a failing grade on this one, and it's because there's a sense in the South that the Arctic needs to be defended by the military, and every time and this goes back to Stephen Harper it's not a Polyev thing. I think it's a bit more of a conservative thing when you talk about the North, it's we're going to put some ships up there. We I think it's been more of a conservative thing. When you talk about the North, it's we're going to put some ships up there, we're going to support the Rangers and we're going to put some eyes on the sky. That is important, but that's not what we need to support Arctic development.

Conal Slobodin:

It's really about building out the quality of life, the presence, the economic development, the social and civilian infrastructure in these places, and the CFB Iqaluit stuff doesn't quite do it, and this is as an aside. If you're going to build a military base in Iqaluit, it's going to require a lot more than a runaway and a bunch of fighters. You're looking at needing to do port infrastructure, water infrastructure, wastewater, housing, new schools. That's not part of the conversation, and so I don't think elements of that part of the platform are feasible. The liberals have done a better job on it. I would say overall their Northern Affairs grade could have been a lot better over the last 10 years, but this is a more promising approach to resource development and economic development in general Good points, and the thing that comes to mind as well for me with Northern Affairs is I don't know how mainstream the thought of it is.

Julia Pennella:

I know the US and Trump and Trump has been talking about and maybe lumping it in as well as border security. But you know, Arctic security and the melting ice caps is opening up shipping routes. It's opening up other minerals and materials. Do you think Canada's ready, with our response, to defend the Arctic waters? It's also, as you mentioned, it's not a new issue.

Conal Slobodin:

Trudeau Sr was also dealing with this issue back when as climate change picks up if this is going to be tied into the security threat and sovereignty piece. Yeah, I don't think we're ready at all. To be honest, and I think for the first time in a while the military has been at the forefront of a lot of our conversation in the Malaysian period. I think it's a good thing that we talk about that. Arctic will very much be part of the conversation. I mean, one of the very first things I think about is if we have to start paying for our own aerospace security, as the US maybe retrenches on some of that relationship, even with NORAB. That's part of it. But we're still operating our search and rescue bases for most of the North at places like Trenton and Victoria. That's not very responsive for Arctic sovereignty, arctic security. They still have no real ports. We're coming out of Quebec City in a lot of cases, no real way to get to the Arctic by road and outside of the Dempster Highway. And that's fine in some ways but it's a bit of a miss in the others. But we're just not present enough and I think part of it is we don't have the community infrastructure to support it. These are towns of a few hundred people, a few thousand people. You drop a military base in them, you dramatically change the social fabric of that community and we're not having these conversations the way we should.

Conal Slobodin:

I think it's easier to put a base in Yellowknife than it is to put a base in Cambridge Bay or Pond Inlet. But we have to really start thinking about that if we're going to be serious. And it's going to cost a lot more money. Stuff erodes a lot faster. Stuff gets destroyed a lot faster. It's a lot more inhospitable in the climate. Are we going to be able to retain people in the Canadian Armed Forces if they're based up there? We're not having these conversations. It's let's give the Rangers more equipment, let's build some more ships, but then it takes 25 years to build the ships and the Rangers get promised the equipment 10 times before they finally get it. So we need to get serious. I hope we can, but right now I do not think we're ready at all.

Julia Pennella:

No, yeah, and I agree with you. And we haven't even touched on cybersecurity being a whole other can of worms of where I think Canada is falling behind on. And that's a wrap on our first episode, but don't go too far. Episode two with Conal Slobodin, vice President at Crestview Strategy, is coming up next. In part two, we dig into how the government relations space is evolving, why businesses and governments need to collaborate more effectively and why Conal thinks it's time for government to take bigger financial risks to grow the economy. Plus, he shares his predictions for Election Day. You won't want to miss it. The fun never stops here on let's Talk Politics, so make sure to tune in.