The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Facing The New Reality -- Canada vs the U.S.

Episode Date: January 26, 2026

As we said on Good Talk, everything changed last week Is the government, and are Canadians, ready for the situation we now find ourselves in with the United States. What happens now is the question for Janice Stein in her regular Monday appearance on The Bridge. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Monday. Dr. Janice Stein is here on this, the last week of January in 2026. We were already passing through the first month. Lots to talk about coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here, the bridge for Monday. Dr. Janice Stein from the Monk School, the University of Toronto.

We'll be by here in just a few moments' time as we talk about. the widening gap between Canada and the United States and some of the things that have been said over the last week, which really are going to set things even further back than they already are. We'll talk about that with Dr. Stein in just a few moments' time. A couple of things to keep in mind. This is day one of the parliamentary session in Ottawa after their holiday break. the MPs are back.

It's going to be interesting to see how things play out on the floor of the House of Commons because this is a big week not only in the relationship that Canada faces with the United States and the world, but also Pierre Pollyev has his vote coming up on the weekend in Calgary. So that'll be a discussion point at various times during the week, especially tomorrow, when Raj and Rousseau join us for their every second Tuesday reporter's notebook, Althea Raj and Rob Russo. So there will be lots of interest in that program tomorrow. Wednesday, it's up in the air, as it always is, at this time.

We'll see where we go on Wednesday. Thursday, your turn, this is going to be the third and final week of our Ask Me Anything series. We stretched it out because there have been so many questions from you to me. I think what we're going to do after this week is we're going to try and do an AMA once a month. And the other three weeks or so, we'll do our regular your turn with questions posed to you. But there's no need for you to send in anything this week. Believe me, we have more than enough. my guess at the end of three weeks will only have got to half of the questions that you sent in for an AMA, which is great.

You know, I mean, it really is quite something. And I think you, well, you certainly in your reactions to it, have really enjoyed AMA and look forward to it. So we'll do it this Thursday and then we'll move on. And also on Thursday, The Random Ranter, and Friday, as always, it's a good talk with Bruce Anderson and Chantelle-A-Barre. And last week's was last Friday a couple of days ago, and people are still listening to it, watching it because it's on YouTube. On YouTube, we had, I think we're somewhere around 140,000 views,

which, I mean, that's huge for our YouTube channel, and we really appreciate it. And starting next week, the first Tuesday in February, our Tuesday offerings are going to be on our YouTube channel as well. So that means as of next Tuesday, we will have the more butts conversation on YouTube. And then alternating, starting the following week, will be Raj Russo. So tomorrow's Raj Russo is the last one that's audio only on the podcast. it will also be on YouTube starting in a couple of weeks. So next week, the first YouTube version of Moore Butts,

looking forward to that. We'll see how that goes. All right. Enough housekeeping, as we say, for a Monday morning. Lots to talk about with Dr. Janice Stein from the bunk school at the University of Toronto. So let's get it underway right now. Janice, this last seven days has been quite something

between Canada and the United States, between Carney's speeches, Trump's responses. How much of a predicament is this relationship in right now? I think it's no doubt we're in a serious predicament, Peter. And I would say the Prime Minister bet the House in the speech. This is the most consequential speech. Canadian Prime Minister is given in modern times. let's look at the two things that Prime Minister really did in the speech. The first thing he did was naming it, telling allies, telling Canadians and also telling the United States.

This is not the same world, and we are not going back. That's what he means by rupture. There is no going back. of all those audiences, Peter, the most important audience is us. Because we have a group in this country across all our sectors, business, government, that are hanging on by their fingertips and hoping that this will be over in 26 or in 28 and we can go back. And he said, no way. I think that alone is a hugely important.

message for Canadians to take on board. Then he did a second thing, which he said, we don't have to do this alone. There are other countries who can align with us and use this term variable geometry. And what does that really mean? It means we don't have to have a group of allies that's permanent, that allows, that allows, that allies with us on all issues across the board. That's the European dilemma. One of the reasons the EU is so rigid is they work by unanimity and everybody has to be on board to make any kind of change. What he was saying is we have the advantage of flexibility. We want to do something

in the Arctic. Let's pick up the phone called Sweden, Norway, Ben, and see who the takers are. We don't need all. We might need two. That's fine. We can go forward. We want to do something on AI. Let's call up the Emirates and a couple of others and see who the takers are.

That's the prime minister's vision for us going forward. It's not do this alone. It's do this with partners, but find the ones who are ready. ready to move and let's move faster than we are used to moving. Those are the two core messages. Does he know that he irritated the United States? Of course. Of course he knew that.

I think his judgment is we're at a crossroads. And this is a debate that's been going on in this country for a year, frankly. do you get by by keeping your head down? And you might have argued until last week that that was the European strategy, but it didn't work very well. And on Greenland, only when they stood up and the bond market helped did Trump back down. But he backed down.

and I think for the prime minister his judgment is you have to call it out and Trump respects in his way strength and toughness I would put a little differently I would say any bully

that you consistently back down to smells the weakness and I think the prime minister or reached the point where in his judgment there is no choice but to proceed that way. Well, the response so far from the, let's deal with the Americans, first of all, because initially, first of all, you go back two weeks on China, initially Trump was positive about it. Pretty good.

So I'd do the same if I was Carney. Yeah. It's basically his line. That's changed 100% since then, including over. this weekend. He's now swinging at Canada on China. It took him 24 hours to respond to Carney's speech. And when he did, he started his bullittling campaign of Canada. Everything from Carney to the country, to the NATO troops that had served in Afghanistan, all these things.

None of this, by any stretch of the imagination, you know, Carney may well have assumed this was going to happen, but this is to the point where we've had this weekend, we've had dissent his Treasury Secretary, and Ludnik or Ludwig or whatever his name is, the other guy, talking down to Canada in a big way, and suggested,

everything from Alberta should leave. Yeah. You know, which is clearly meddling from one country to another. And Trump's stuff yesterday in the various tweets or social media posts that he was making attacking Canada on the China front and we won't let it happen, basically, is his argument. So do you think... that, do you think that Carney saw all that coming? I think he did.

I think he certainly anticipated a response. Peter, you can't get up and make that kind of speech. You know, he didn't use Donald Trump's name, but he talked about an American hegemon who dominated and coerced and that those who doubt with a hegemon were suburb. coordinated. And that was not a way for a country to survive. So, and Donald Trump clearly heard that speech. And you know, when you poke him that way, and it was very direct, and it was in front of a big room of business leaders, many of whom were American and other political leaders. It wasn't, I mean, it wasn't a speech that he gave in Ottawa and nobody heard. It was a speech.

It was on a global platform. And Donald Trump knew what everybody heard. So it's impossible that the prime minister didn't anticipate this. Now, look what he said. He said, Governor Carney. So we're back to the 51st state language. You know, Scott Assent, who talked about Alberta leaving. You know, this has been a quiet conversation.

in Ottawa for a long time. The most dangerous problem Canada could face this year is a referendum in Alberta. And that's partly what explains why the prime minister went to Edmonton and signed that deal on the pipeline. Because if you think about it, it's a perfect storm if we have a referendum in Alberta. there would be undoubtedly there would be disinformation in election campaign. Anybody who knows anything about history and about referendum, just look at Brexit, you can't predict the outcome of a referendum.

It is a very dangerous thing to do. And we're to pass, it's so much of a stretch. There's the 50 per state on a silver platter. So I think what best said was something that people in Ottawa have thought about very hard. A referendum in Quebec, which is also possible, I don't think Quebecers want to join this United States right now.

But that's not true to the same degree in Albert. So that's not a shock to anybody in Ottawa. he did say even before Carney made his speech, we don't need Kusma. We don't need anything the Canadians make. We make our own cars. And he hasn't really gone beyond that. He has said there will be 100% tariffs if there's a deal with China.

There's no deal. Nobody is thinking about a free trade agreement with China with a non-marketing. economy. And the prime minister made that clear. And it's right in Kuzma, too, that they can't have one anyway. That's right. In the deal that Trump himself negotiated. 100%. 100%. So, you know, there was a big Q and cry in this country when we had to sign

on to it because it restricted our freedom of choice. But we agreed. Is it going to be tougher on Kuzma? Yeah. Is it going to be slower? Yeah. I think that's fair. But with Trump, either you stand up and there's a cost, or you don't, and there's a cost.

So if there were an easier path forward, the government would have taken it. So I think it's important to level with Canadians at this point, and I think that's what the prime minister's doing and saying, buckle up. This may be tough. Okay, well, on that point, you know, the prime minister may have foreseen everything that's happened in the last few days. He may have been steeled for it himself.

But is his government and are Canadians ready for what this is probably going to mean in the days, weeks, months ahead? So that's distinguish between the government and Canadians, right? It's not the same thing. I think most of the ministers are. They understand. And it's really important, let me say this, Peter, that having drawn a line in the sand,

I could argue about it from here to be trying to be. But our prime minister drew a line in the sand that we not flinch. A decision has been made. That was not a thoughtless speech. Prime Minister wrote it himself. That story is absolutely true. He wrote it himself.

And that's why it had the impact that it did, because it wasn't a committee speech. When you write something yourself, it has a ring of authority, and that's what that speech did. And we've made a decision. We've crossed that line. So I think the government now,

I think ministers and the prime minister himself, have a job to do it in Canada now, to explain to Canadians what we're facing. We have faced crises before in this country, and we've always risen to the occasion. This is as important as any we faced, but leadership does have to explain to Canadians what's coming. and I know you speak a lot across this country. I do to some degree. And the question I'm asked all the time, Peter, what can we do?

How can we contribute? That tells me, it needs to understand, but they're looking for a way now to strengthen the country and to contribute. and it's up to leaders to give Canadians that opportunity. Well, before I ask you what they can do, or the ordinary Canadian, what are they facing? What are we facing now as a result, primarily of the, you know,

it's been as a result of the last year, but now it's very much as a result of the last week. You know, I don't think I would put it differently. What are we facing as a result of who Trump is and what he does? That's the most fundamental. And let's just put Trump in a capsule and say, what does Trump want? He wants to reshor all the manufacturing jobs that he can into the United States. Okay.

That's not a good story for Canada. He wants to break apart all the supply chains between the two countries. and capture the value for America. That's not a good story for Canada. So what does that mean for us? We're in the fight of our life as to how much of the integration between Canada and the United States, the Brian Mulrooney dream.

That has been built out since 1988. How much of that can we keep? Is there a future for an integrated auto sector? The president doesn't want it. He made that clear long before this speech. Is there a future for that? I think the story is not as bleak as we might think because we have assets that the United States needs and wants.

So what are they? Well, to be really blunt, the United States cannot defend itself without our participation. Stuff comes over the north. Just as much as we need them, and we haven't spent as much as they have, the last thing they want is an unfriendly Canada over the north.

And that's a big part. That's a calculation that I know the American military understands. I don't think Trump understands. But somebody will explain it to him. We have uranium that they really need because the only other uranium suppliers are Russia and Kazakhstan.

That's not great for the United States. We are the biggest supplier of potash which you need for fertilizer into the U.S. market. That's core for all their agricultural states. So I can go on. I think the point is we are not, you know, devoid of things they need. We have to tell that story. Let's see that's the job of the new ambassador.

And he's probably well equipped to do it. Yeah, everything I've read about him is he's one tough guy and he's not shy about getting into the conflict here. No. Let me make one other point which I don't think Canadians are all. In the last election, we looked at congressional districts of which, how many are there in the house of, you know, in the house, right? Yeah, 400 or something. Come, like that. There more.

In over 50%, something like a third to 50% of the jobs in that congressional district depend on trade with Canada. and that's in red states and in blue states. Now, you know, we fought that. We fought that campaign the last time. NAFTA was renewed. We went district by district by district and show congresspeople and show governors had said to them,

your prosperity depends on trade with Canada. We're going to ramp up. We had a war room last time. We're going to have to do it again, Peter. And a war room is the right announcement. for what we have to do now. You know, I got a number of things I want to follow up with you on this. And one of them is listeners know you, you had a different view through most of last year.

Yep, yep. Okay? You've now changed your view. Yeah. Right? Yeah. It's hardball now. And I have. Let's get in for the fight.

Yeah. I have for two reasons. One, we've had a year of this, and I watched what the present was doing on Greenland. It was just off the wall, frankly. Right? That's a very scientific description. He was off the wall. He was prepared to blow up.

It just made no sense, and you watch that, and you think, Oh, wow. And he backed down when the Europeans, and particularly the Danes and the Greenlander, said, no, this is off the table. We're not doing it. Macron did the same thing. Some of the others were much quieter about it. And then the bond market really helped. The bond market, you know, I can't remember which former, you know, chairman of the Federal Reserve said,

If I had to come back as anything, I'd come back as the bond market. Because, wow. And Trump responded to that. You know, breaking up NATO is nothing in terms of the economic pain that the United States would go through if he ruptures the relationship between us, between the two economies. The dislocate, ours would be terrible. But theirs would be bad. and when the prime minister made that speech, I listened and I thought there comes a moment. There comes a moment when continuing to keep your head down, which is what I thought we could do,

keep your head down and stay out of the line of fire. And because we're so important to them, we could get it over the line. when you see the way he was operating, I thought that's not going to work. I was wrong. The second reason, to be absolutely honest, is once the Prime Minister gave that speech, there's no choice now for Canadians.

We have to unite. And that's not a partisan statement at all, Peter, but we have to unite. And it's all hands on deck. it's an all of Canada response until, and unless, you know, we're going to get some kind of trade agreement, but we have to really, this is a moment in the history of this country. You know, it's interesting as how many others think it's a moment for them, right? Exactly.

Let me, you mentioned the Greenland story of last week. I don't know whether you remember Anthony Scaramucci who's quite the character but you know he's not a stupid guy he's a pretty smart guy actually he had an interesting theory over the weekend about Trump he said that everything to Trump

is like a reality television show that it starts off with he creates a controversy he sets up a division he has a target to go after he makes things really really difficult and worrying and then

when it appears the only way to resolve things is to have somebody put forward a resolution he becomes the guy with the resolution and that it's all like a game and And he, you know, Greenland actually played out kind of that way over a relatively short period of time, about 10 days. Yeah. And it ended with a resolution that he basically claimed he was a part of.

Now, it may not be over for good. It may be just a pause. But I looked at that theory by Scaramucci, and I thought, how much of that is what's playing out with us? you know the answer in all honesty Peter which makes this hard we don't know and that's why we don't know it's entirely possible that that is what's playing with with us and that's why I described the

Prime Minister of speech he made the biggest bet any Prime Minister of this country in modern times has made he made the bat that if we call it out and we stand up and we say there are limits that the resolution will come there may be a lot of turbulence along the way as you just described then it's entirely possible that he'll suggest the resolution at the end of all of it and be a hero himself I mean that's entirely possible who knows and if he does either market forces will intervene or somebody else in his government will tell them.

And look, you know, we have an advantage here. You know, and it's public opinion in the United States is our ally right now. What's going on domestically inside the United States in Minneapolis is weakening this president. In case in ordinary Americans are saying, this is not us. This is not us. This is not what we voted for. And I think the prime minister's timing was right. He gave the other strategy a year.

But when it doesn't matter because we drew the line in the sand. And there's no retreat. There's no going back. Does he have the mandate from the country to put forward this position? I mean, it is a minority. government. It's minority government. You know, the opposition leader is facing his own difficulties this week

said some nice things about the Prime Minister's position last week and offered to help where they could. But is that a mandate to take on the United States? No, because we haven't fought an election over it, right?

He did in the last election, which came about in a funny way. There was a leadership transition, but clearly the election was a vote of confidence in him at a time when Canadians understood the stakes had gotten much higher. But it was a vote of confidence in him. It wasn't a vote of confidence in a strategy that he had laid. out because he really did that. Last week, that's when he laid out the strategy in ways that we can all understand. Now, what do I know about domestic politics?

Not much. We could have some foreclosters here that would give him a majority government. And then it would be a moot point, Peter, because the government would stay. and it would probably take us past the midterms in the United States then and we'll know a lot more. That's one possibility. Or if that doesn't happen, there could be an election. And this is the ballot question for Canadians.

That's what it'll be. Earlier on in this conversation, one of the first things you said is it'll be fascinating to watch what Europe does. because they were all there. They said all the nice things about Carney after it was over. Most of them did. But are we alone in this position? Or is anybody staking out ground beyond, as you mentioned,

the potential for a couple of countries on particular issues? Right. So, you know what I have to say, I don't know if you feel the same way, it's so easy to work. applaud our prime minister because what he did was really brave

whether you agree with him or not it was really a brave thing to do and the Europeans understood that it was brave but when the heat goes up how many of them

will actually partner with us to not necessarily against the United States, but even around the United States on every issue. That's not clear, Peter. I think, you know, the small Nordics are our most likely partner because I can only say this. You know, when he announced the resolution, he said we have a deal on Greenland and on the Arctic more generally.

Well, we have to do something about the Arctic in not in real time, in double speed time. We have to do something. And we do have partners, the Swedes, the Finns, and Norwegians who understand. You know, the prime minister said, if you're not on the menu, if you're at the table. If you're not at the table, you're on the table, you're on the menu. you. Well, let me just say, I think that our Arctic is the hors d'oeuvres. And that was coming no matter what. And we need partners. And we need to up our own game at home because I don't think Canadians would want extraterritorial U.S. bases in our Arctic as the Greenlanders will have to

accept. So there were some issues that were coming anyway. But part of whether this works or not is how successful our finance minister, our foreign affairs minister, our ANI minister are in finding partners that can never compensate entirely for the United States. I think, you know, the fondest dreams here that we trade, the 50% of our trade is with the oil. not 75, that would be close to miraculous if we were there five years from now. So we will always trade with the United States. But if we had more robust partners, but these ministers, that's their job now to make this happen. So we'll know.

Is this cabinet up to it? They better be. They better be. I think why the prime minister is telling them two things. This is what you need to do, and you need to do it at a speed that you've never done it before. And I think that is a hugely important message for civil servants. You know, Peter, one of the things I've said, and when it's when I do get a chance to speak to Canadians,

I said, you'll have to understand this government is going to make mistakes. Because if you're moving fast and you're not crossing all the eyes, dotting all the eyes and crossing all the teas and going through every single spec and making sure that everything's perfect, if you're going fast, you're going to make some mistakes. but if we want the government to go fast, then I do, we have to then give them more degrees of freedom

to make an honest mistake, to fix it and to move on and get it done, because that's what will determine the future of this country right now. We've got to take our break. We're well past when we're supposed to take it, but let me ask one more first. First, is there any precedent for us in our history in terms of the relationship with the U.S.? Is there anything like this, or is this unlike anything before us? So there are precedents, but they are, you know, during, right after the Civil War in the United States.

So we have to go back quite a while. There was the real sense that the United States would come. north and invade. And it was real. And so we planned for war. And ultimately, as you know, in the war of 1812, we partnered with the British, or the British partnered with us.

And the combination is we went, British and Canadian forces, went to Washington and burnt the city. So you would argue that was a bigger challenge. than what we've faced now. We're, this is unprecedented. We haven't thought like that for 100 years, frankly. Nobody seriously.

And I don't, by the way, seriously now expect that the United States will use military force against us in any way. I really don't. I think our department has to plan for it, but that's not at the top of my concerns. We've never faced a situation. where we have been so closely integrated with one economy. This is what makes Canada unique in the world. We are more integrated with the United States

than Germany is with the other members of the European Union. That's how closely our two economies are intertwined. So to untangle that to some degree only, to roll that back to some degree, agree and to find other partners, we have to be more nimble. We have to move faster. We have to do stuff. And we have to be willing to make some mistakes, learn from them, and be an attractive

partner to other countries. We can't be mired in process the way, frankly, we are. Okay. That's so much to think about it on all the things we've discussed so far. I want to switch topics for some closing thoughts on something else. But we're going to take our break first back right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to the Monday episode of The Bridge. That, of course, is Dr. Janice Stein with her thoughts from the Monk School at the University of Toronto. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks,

or on your favorite podcast platform. Glad to have you with us wherever you're joining us from. We've talked a number of times the past few weeks about the situation in Iran. It seems to have settled down somewhat, at least our focus has been on other things, generally in the world, over the last 10 days or so. What's happening in Iran,

and what do we know now that we didn't know a couple of weeks ago. You know, Peter, this is the most complete and longest blockout. They're cut off from the global internet that we've seen in modern Iran. And what's happening right now is the internet is being turned on for brief periods of time because it's costing their economy of fortune and their economy is staggering anyway. So it'll come on for an hour in a university and businesses. And out when that is happening, we're getting the first look at numbers and videos of what happened between January the 9th and January the 12th, three or four days.

The numbers are absolutely astonishing, the number of Iranians that have been killed. the most conservative estimate by the Iran Human Rights Agency, which is outside the country, is $5,500 within that period of 96 hours. The more, but they say they are badly underestimating, the more credible estimates now are $15,000 in that four-day period. And videos have come out where, you know, the Republican Guard or the besiege are standing on rooftops and firing into crowds. So indiscriminately killing people that were protesting in the streets. This is the, you know, there's no precedent for, you know, Tiananmen Square is probably what comes to mind.

And the only other government that's done something like that is China and the government of Syria under Assad when he, both father and the son. This is a government that I believe is finished. It's totally lost any kind of task of support that it had. We're beginning to hear now about a few individual Republican guards. that are defecting. And I'm going to go way out on a limb. I don't think this government survives a year, despite the fact that it has, you know,

control of the repressive forces. When you massacre your own citizens like this, and it's merchants in the bizarre class, it's university students, it's business people when you do that you've lost it frankly

there could be a coup which unless that one other thing that we haven't talked about just there is a there's a destroyer and a US destroyer on its way to the Middle East

there are rumors flying at several warships there are rumors flying flying that the United States is getting ready. That's why it didn't use force right at the beginning because it didn't have asset. Interceptors are being rushed to the region because the Iranians have said they will retaliate for any attack. And civilian airliners have canceled flight in some parts of the Middle East.

So while all this is going on in Greenland and in the streets of Minneapolis, There is a military buildup. I've seen videos which are just astonishing in which Iranians are pleading with Donald Trump to come and help. Who would think that? Yeah. Well, as we, you know, sometimes call this segment of our program each week, our changing world, well, we're certainly seeing it changes. On every front possible. Yeah.

We've never seen a period like this in recent times, right? No. No. No. Every time you turn around, there's something else with a significant time. I mean, look, you know, we didn't mention the word Venezuela once in this hour. It's not like nothing's happening there. There's significant things happening in Venezuela after the world's attention was on it,

full force, two weeks ago. Right. Then Greenland. Now Canada. Iran. You know, it's just one thing after another. Taiwan. Yeah.

Okay. Let's wrap it up and see what kind of world we have seven days from now. But this, as always, has been a great help. So thank you, Channison. We'll talk again in seven days. Thank you, Peter, and see you soon. Dr. Janice Stein with us for our opening day of the week, Monday, right here on the bridge. That's going to wrap it up for today, certainly enough to think about based on the comments of the last, well, the last 45 minutes.

I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening tomorrow. Raj and Russo, Reporter's Notebook, they too have lots to talk about. Look forward to hearing from them in almost. almost 24 hours from now. Until then, bye for now.