Let's Talk Politics

Ep 15: The Atlantic Lens: Federal Election Through New Brunswick's Eyes

• Julia Pennella • Season 1 • Episode 15

Share episode

Neil McKenna brings nearly a decade of experience from Parliament Hill, the Prime Minister's Office, and the Senate to deliver a refreshing Atlantic Canadian perspective on Canada's federal election landscape. As Senior Associate at Porter O'Brien, one of New Brunswick's top public affairs firms, McKenna offers unique insights that mainstream political coverage often overlooks.

The conversation begins with a striking revelation: St. John is considered "the most tariff-exposed city in Canada." This vulnerability creates a palpable anxiety among voters whose livelihoods in export-dependent industries like oil refining and pulp manufacturing hang in the balance of Canada-US relations. While affordability remains a universal concern, the specter of American tariffs carries particular weight in New Brunswick, where economic uncertainty directly translates to job security fears.

McKenna provides nuanced analysis of Susan Holtz's historic win as New Brunswick's first female premier, explaining how this provincial shift resulted from local dynamics rather than signaling federal voting intentions. Unlike Ontario's pattern of electing opposing parties provincially and federally, New Brunswick's political culture is shaped by distinct linguistic divides and immediate local concerns.

The discussion takes a fascinating turn as McKenna theorizes about declining voter turnout, suggesting that information overload and constant polling create premature narratives about inevitable outcomes. His candid assessment of party campaign strategies gives high marks to Mark Carney for effectively embodying calm leadership during uncertain times, while critiquing Conservatives for their delayed pivot from carbon tax messaging to addressing emerging economic concerns with the United States.

For anyone seeking to understand how global politics affects communities beyond Ottawa and Toronto, this conversation offers valuable perspective on how Atlantic Canadians are processing political messages and what really drives their voting decisions as election day approaches.

Quick heads up: This episode was recorded on April 17, 2025 so while the news may have changed since this conversation was recorded, the thoughts and ideas still remain relevant.


Speaker 1:

Welcome back to let's Talk Politics. Joining me today is Neil McKenna, senior Associate at Porter O'Brien, one of the top public affairs firms based out of New Brunswick. Neil brings nearly a decade of experience working in the thick of Canadian politics, from the halls of Parliament Hill to the inner workings of the Prime Minister's office and the Senate. Today, neil's bringing an Atlantic lens to the federal election and, trust me, it's a perspective we don't hear often enough. We're also digging into the recent defeat of the progressive Conservatives and the historic election of New Brunswick's first female premier.

Speaker 1:

And, of course, because it wouldn't be a let's Talk Politics episode without it, we're tackling the elephant in the room the looming threat of US tariffs and what that could mean for New Brunswick's economy and Canada's response. Neil's got a sharp eye for strategy, a deep background in public service and a whole lot to say about how federal parties are or aren't communicating their vision to Canadians. Quick heads up this episode was recorded on April 17th 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 Neil McKenna. Neil, thank you so much for being here.

Speaker 2:

Thank you for having me.

Speaker 1:

So let's dive right in with the federal election just right around the corner. New Brunswick has 10 seats federally. Six of them are held by liberals and four are held by the conservatives. What is the current voter sentiment in the province? Do you think either party is likely to gain more traction than the other? Yeah, what's your take?

Speaker 2:

So if we look at the national trends, I think there is certainly a possibility for, at least at this point, the Liberals to maybe pick up one or two more seats than they currently have at the moment.

Speaker 2:

The reality is that there are some very safe Liberal seats in New Brunswick and there are some very safe Conservative seats in New Brunswick, and that's probably not likely to change. In the more rural regions, the cities, there's a little more play than there might have been in the last two campaigns. When I look at voter sentiments in the province and in St John here specifically, certainly it reflects a lot of the national trends of uncertainty and concern for what's happening in the US. In St John in particular, I think that that concern is a little more pronounced. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce came up with a study that said St John is the most terror exposed city in the country, which makes a lot of sense when you realize that a lot of jobs in our city are very export-heavy. People work for an oil refinery or they work for the pulp and paper mill. So when we have all of this concern around tariffs and around the general economic instability, that translates directly to concern over a person's job here. So that is top of mind for voters around here, do you?

Speaker 1:

think the tariff threat is that the top voter issue for New Brunswickers, or is affordability? I know those two go hand in hand, especially when it comes to the goods that will be tariffed. But what else would you say is on the ballot question for New Brunswickers?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I think again, tariffs and affordability, they do go hand in hand, as you pointed out, and I think if there is such a thing as a routine election, affordability would probably be the top, and that's probably a little bit different from the last couple of campaigns. Certainly, you know the 21 campaign. We were in the midst of COVID, which is a very different moment in time, and while COVID is certainly still a thing, that moment has probably passed. We can't look at the last election with a whole lot of certainty to offer a prediction on what's going to happen on April 28th. The average person is probably looking at affordability as their top issue, but no doubt, in my mind, uncertainty is weighing on them as well.

Speaker 1:

Absolutely, and when it comes to these, both national and provincial issues. Another big thing I want to talk about is the shift in political appetite when it comes to the provincial government. So we did recently see Susan Holtz and the Liberals form government in New Brunswick and she defeated Blaine Higgs from the Progressive Conservatives. Do you think at any point that shift in government is a signal to what it will look like of how New Brunswickers will vote federally? And the reason why I bring this up is Ontario tends to have a little bit of a distinct political identity in the sense of typically, if it's a conservative government, there's a check and balance of having someone liberal federally or vice versa. We saw that with Harper and Dalton, mcginsey and Wynn. Are New Brunswickers the same when it comes to that flip and switch or not? And why not?

Speaker 2:

So I would say no, it's a bit of a different context here in New Brunswick and we're a very small province with what's actually a pretty interesting political culture in the sense that for many decades there has been a political divide along linguistic lines Anglophones voting one way, francophones voting the other. To your point on Ontario offering a bit of a balance to the current party in Ottawa and vice versa, that doesn't really apply in New Brunswick as much. It's much more in the moment of what's happening here on the ground in the streets of Fredericton, miramichi and all these other great places. When I think back to the New Brunswick campaign last year, I don't think it was necessarily a signal of what's to come federally, so much as I think it was a signal of a really great campaign by Susan Holtz, who is now the Premier, and the New Brunswick Liberals.

Speaker 2:

We had at the time a PC government that I think had certainly exposed some degree of what many would consider to be outdated views on social and cultural values, and there was a desire for change, to move away from that, and Susan really embodied that, not just in her policy but also just the fact that she is the first female premier in our province's history. The moment was right for that to happen and she was the right person to be in that role and I was really proud to be a part of that campaign. It was really interesting in St John, where we had a couple of very strong progressive conservative seats that we were able to successfully flip and one where we came pretty close. It was less so, I think, to do federally than it was. They ran a great campaign and I think it's important to remember that when she was elected, donald Trump had not yet won the US election. It was certainly on voters' minds. It wasn't quite as apparent as we see it today, but there was a great campaign ran there and I'm very proud of her.

Speaker 1:

And it was such a success, I think, for women, anyone in politics just to see a female leader run the province, just to see a female leader run the province. So I want to bring you to our next topic, voter turnout. It's been significantly on the decline. I'm not sure what the numbers are nationally, but I can point to, for example, the most recent provincial election in Ontario, where we had less than 50% of people come out to vote, which ultimately led to a third massive majority for the Conservatives. So why do you think voter turnout is on the decline? And is this also the case in New Brunswick, with a more provincial lens to it?

Speaker 2:

Perhaps a little less market, of a decline in New Brunswick. But I've thought about this a lot and I want to be clear. This is largely just my own theory, based on some years of working actively in politics. But I think voters have a lot more access to information on parties and candidates than they ever did, and we largely have social media to thank for that. In a lot of ways. That's good news, because voters can, if they wish to, become very informed and learn a lot about people who are in their riding and the issues that are at play.

Speaker 2:

On the other hand, having access to a lot of information does not always equate to having a lot of correct or accurate information.

Speaker 2:

We now live in a world where, during a campaign, opinion polls at federal level and in the larger provinces come out every single day. What that means is that a narrative can be created very early on in the election process that might give the idea that one person or party is running away. I think that what happens is that turns off a certain degree of the electorate and they end up simply not getting out to vote, which is a problem. I don't think that we should avoid releasing polling information. I think it's very fair that people have that info if they wish to seek it out, but the reality is that it can create a perception that it's not going to be worth it because one party is going to win, so why bother? What political parties have to do, in my opinion, is push back hard against that narrative and explain listen, there's still four or five weeks left in this campaign. It's not a done deal and we're going to push as hard as we can to get out the vote.

Speaker 1:

And we get out to vote and we really need your support. Very well said and a lot of important points. And that's definitely a big theme that comes up in a lot of these conversations is the power of social media, shaping both political agendas, people's views on it being caught in echo chambers, so a bit more of a philosophical question here. But as we talk about disinformation, fake news, there's also this hesitancy and trusting of the media. How do you think folks from your experience working on campaigns as well as looking more broadly at the political landscape now how do you find politicians and their campaigns and the staff navigating this? How can they combat? Because once, unfortunately, a narrative is out, it's out. To try and flip back is very, very difficult. So how do you think they're managing this disinformation? We saw a lot of it, obviously, in the US election and the role it played there. But yeah, I'm just curious how you think campaigns are managing this level of disinformation that we haven't seen in past elections and campaigns.

Speaker 2:

It's a tough question. I think parties are managing it the best they can. It's a tough question. I think parties are managing it the best they can. The reality is, I think, that you have to meet voters where they are. In a lot of cases, that might be doing an interview with CTV or Global News, hitting that target of people who turn on the news at night on their television. On the other hand, that might mean appearing on a one approach to hitting a big chunk of voters. You have to go a little bit of everywhere, and that's perfectly fine If parties want to have as big and as broad of a coalition of voters as they can find. You've got to get across all these platforms In terms of looking at disinformation or misinformation and how parties manage it.

Speaker 2:

I think it's very, very hard, and the challenge is that I think we have a small vocal percentage of society, that we're all in an echo chamber to some extent, but I think some people are perhaps a little more caught in their chamber than others. So sometimes you're going to be at a door where someone is simply not going to believe what you said. Even if you said one plus one is two, they may not agree with that and there's simply no way to convince them otherwise. What I kind of encourage candidates and parties to do is to not necessarily give up on these people, but just try and understand where they're at and push back where you can.

Speaker 2:

I think perhaps one of the most frustrating things about misinformation is that it can lead to some very, very negative and very sort of ugly thoughts about certain sections or members of society, and I think it's very important that parties push back on that. But part of pushing back is having dialogue. It's extremely hard. There's nothing more difficult than standing on the door and having a voter scream at you. But I think there's a lot of great value in listening to someone and sort of giving your own perspective. You might not change their opinion that day, but maybe you can at least plant a seed of thought or at least some different perspective they may not have previously considered. It's very hard for parties to manage this part of campaigns where we're dealing with active disinformation. But this is the world we live in and the parties that are going to be successful are the ones who are going to be able to respond to it. Push back hard and get their own message out.

Speaker 1:

And yeah, it's not something we've seen before. There's obviously this element of adaptation, both from the campaign side as well as the candidate side, I think is seeing them come on different mediums. Medium is the message right Out of that old saying, so it's really interesting to see different pieces of campaigns blow up on social media versus scrums or press conferences. So it's all at play. I agree with you to your point about we're all in an echo chamber at what point and to what extent, and I think it's unfortunately up to the individual, the way we consume our media and the algorithms, to push ourselves to critically think and bring all these pieces together. And I think it's becoming harder and harder to do that. The way again, how we consume our media. What's 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.

Speaker 2:

So it's a great question. I'll start with the Liberals, because they are currently in government and, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a proud member of the party and very much a supporter. I think that Mark Carney and the team have run a fantastic campaign, which is pretty impressive when you consider the fact that this is a party that's now seeking its fourth term in office, albeit one with a new leader. To this point, I think they have done just about everything correct and right on the money, and what that comes down to is I believe they've correctly understood and responded to the fact that this is a campaign where Canadians are facing a lot of uncertainty and a lot of concern around what's happening in the United States with the Trump administration. I think they've met that moment very, very well. On the other hand, I don't think the Conservatives have done as well and I think they've made one critical failure and I think they've failed to read the room and understand that this is a campaign that is essentially about what's going on down south. I think they took a little too long to understand that and that's probably going to cause them a problem.

Speaker 2:

When I look at the other parties, which would be the NDP, I think. Unfortunately, they just haven't figured out how to insert themselves in the conversation and if you look at opinion polls as of today, that's reflected in those numbers. People are focusing liberal or conservative, but they're all kind of answering the same question of like, what is our future here with the United States and what is Canada's place in the world? Mr Singh, who I have tremendous respect for on a personal level, just has not been able to sort of insert himself into that conversation. I think we're probably seeing that as well for the Bloc Québécois and for the Green Party for that matter. The Greens had a huge misstep, I think, with not having participation in the debates and not having enough candidates to qualify. That's a major misstep and it's probably to the benefit of the liberals.

Speaker 1:

Interesting. I want to respond to a few of your points there. I take some of them.

Speaker 1:

I think my one concern with Carney is and this I felt like was very reflective last night with the French debate as well as some of his press conferences leading up he very much still is a technocrat in the sense of his responses, with how he wants to fix things. There's still a bit of a communication gap. He's a very intelligent person and I say the same thing with Freeland very intelligent, but executing and speaking, talking how people talk this is what I old boss, seamus O'Reilly, used to say when it comes to comms. I think there's still that disconnect and he has improved. Considering how fast he was put both in position as prime minister as well as leader of the party, jumping right into campaign, how fast his media has been improving I look back at his first launch of his campaign very different carny than we're seeing now. I think that's one of his big gaps, but the narrative seems to be collectively across the country. He seems to be the best person to take on trump and yeah, yeah, polyev, the interesting strategy.

Speaker 1:

I agree with you. I feel like they're a bit late to the game when it comes to what's the messaging on how we're going to approach tariffs. I think as well, he comes off very much as an attack dog, and you can't be an attack dog when you're being a diplomat and trying to make diplomatic deals on behalf of the country. But he has won and I put air quotes won the working class vote when it comes to unions, compared to the NDP, who are traditionally more of the Labour Party. Um, so, yeah, I take your points, all interesting pieces and, as we talk about strategy, what's been the smartest political move you've seen so far in this campaign and what's been maybe a bit more of like a cringy facepalm moment of? I can't believe they said that or why did they do that?

Speaker 2:

So I think the smartest political move has been simply to present Mr Carney in his role as prime minister. Right now, canadians, I think, above all, are looking for a leader and he's in that position and, yes, he's certainly new in that position. And if I could go back quickly to what you said about the fact that he's a little stiff and perhaps sort of has that sort of technocrat vibe, I think that's probably a fair critique. But we're in this interesting point in time where people are looking for a leader like that. They're looking for calm in a storm and I think Mr Carney has done a great job of embodying that space. It's been a little stiff and he's improved markedly over time. I think we have to remember he's been both liberal leader and prime minister at this point for maybe six weeks and so there's going to be a period of growth and he's having that period of growth in the midst of a national campaign, which is a little little unusual, at least in recent political memory. But again, he is.

Speaker 2:

The strongest move of this campaign thus far has been, I think, to present Mr Carney as the leader that Canada needs in this moment and the leader who is currently the leader.

Speaker 2:

It's funny. There's been a few times where he's had to suspend his campaign to go in and provide a response on behalf of the government of Canada, and that's, a, the right thing to do and, I think, b politically, exactly the thing people are looking for. So in my mind, that is the number one masterclass of this campaign, for sure. To go back to the second question of what's been perhaps not as good, I would draw it back again to the Conservatives being a little slow to understanding what this campaign is about. For a lot of Canadians, carbon tax carny is a fun slogan and it kind of rolls off the tongue, which is great. But with the carbon tax now essentially a thing of the past, voters aren't talking about that anymore, and a lot of I think what they plan to talk about for the last two years in this six-week campaign is simply no longer relevant, and I don't think they should get that out soon enough, which is probably why we're seeing the lead of the polls the Liberals.

Speaker 1:

Very well said and I think you know as well as we talk about different political strategies because of that uncertainty we don't know if it's going to be a majority of one government, a minority of another how have you been adapting your government relations strategy and approach compared to maybe five years ago? Are you seeing any shifts in the GR space as you're going through this?

Speaker 2:

So I can't speak for my colleagues who work in the federal space. That's not something I have a lot of involvement in on a personal level. But when it comes to my clients who work more in the provincial and municipal sectors, the big change right now is trying to help them understand that. Listen, we are in a period of great uncertainty and it's sometimes hard to provide government relations advice when the advice is changing by the day. So we have to react to the news that we're learning in real time, which in some cases is news that changes 12 hours, 24 hours later.

Speaker 2:

So what's changed is helping clients understand that, listen, we are in a chaotic time. This chaotic time will eventually pass, but there are some smart things you can do in this period to position yourself for success in the future, even if right now things seem a little bit scary. It's not always an easy conversation to have, especially if you have clients who have interests down in the United States or across the world, because they have all these questions and we don't always have the answers. What we can do is say listen, we're going to figure this out for you and we're going to do it together. I think that's probably the biggest change is understanding that, listen, we're in this moment, we're going to get through it and what we need to do is work together to get to that point.

Speaker 1:

Very well said. And what are your anticipations of how this space is going to grow? You know we talked about different themes of misinformation, and one of the big strengths I would even argue for Carney is he's not with his messaging coming across as it's business as usual, because it's not business as usual when it comes to our relationship with the states, what tariffs and free market agreements mean more broadly, I think so, yeah, what are your thoughts or take about how this space is evolving, considering your extent of working both in public service as well as private?

Speaker 2:

It's a good question. I think the space is evolving in a sense that it's much more public than it once was and the concept of government relations has taken on a more public face, I would say, in the last 10 or 15 years, than it ever would have previously, and I think that's good news. More transparency is beneficial to companies and Canadians writ large. When I look at sort of where things are going again, we're going to have to get through this period of the Trump administration as best we can. In the short term. That creates, frankly, a lot of work for people in this sector.

Speaker 2:

In some ways that's good.

Speaker 2:

In other ways it's frustrating because it means there's a lot of uncertainty and chaos in the world as a broader concept.

Speaker 2:

But, with that said, I think that clients are going to be able to benefit from our expertise and appreciate listen, we've been through this kind of thing before. We've lived it in both my case and yours, having worked as a part of a government at the federal level, and I think that expertise can help not just companies but a lot of not-for-profits, help connect with government in a way that makes a lot of sense and is able to sort of find them the successes they're looking for. And success is not just defined as getting a client money. It can be making a really important policy change that might make lives easier for a small segment of society that particular organization or not-for-profit is really concerned about, and we see that a lot right now in areas such as immigration and economic development. These are really critical areas that I think our sector plays a really strong role in helping companies who might not know how to talk to government learn those skills and go in and sort of advocate for change in a really positive way.

Speaker 1:

Very well said and it's really that's the importance and, I think, the base of government relations or at least I like to think of it that way of trying to do something good, whether it's shaping policy, helping uplift that organization and their needs and what their frustrations are to government, because it's not an easy journey. Because it's not an easy journey. And that's a wrap on today's conversation with Neil McKenna, Senior Associate at Porter O'Brien. But don't go too far, we're just getting started.

Speaker 1:

Neil will be back in our next episode as we continue to unpack the federal election and political landscape. We'll dive into how US style politics and communication tactics are creeping into Canada's system, Neil's take on the rare public appearance from former Prime Minister Stephen Harper endorsing Conservative leader Pierre Pallièbe and what that could signal to voters. Conservative leader Pierre Palliet and what that could signal to voters. And we also dive into why the NDP always seems to end up in the political friend zone. You're definitely not going to want to miss this episode. I'm your host, Julia Piniella. Thanks for listening and be sure to catch the next episode of let's Talk Politic.