The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk Alberta - So Much For A Clear Question Leading To A Clear Decision

Episode Date: May 22, 2026

As weeks go by, this couldn't have been worse for Alberta Premier Danielle Smith It's one thing to get in a fight with Ottawa, even a neighbouring Premier, but your own party? Your own cabinet? Over a referendum. That's just one of the topics up for discussion with Chantel Hebert and Bruce Anderson. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Are you ready for good talk? And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here, along with Chantelle I Bear and Bruce Anderson. It's your Friday Good Talk. This Friday is consumed, I guess, at least initially, by what happened in Alberta last night. After weeks of wondering what exactly was going to happen on this referendum separation question, as we said, there was already a referendum planned for October 19th, and there were already a lot of questions on that referendum. the paper, but the big one, the issue of whether or not, I don't know, if you get right down to

it, is whether or not Alberta's going to leave Canada. That's really not the question. It's actually not even the outcome of whatever happens, but that's another, well, we'll get to that. We will get to that. You know, I actually want to start, Chantelle, so I'm glad you, you jumped in there right away. I want to try to understand. what our history tells us about the impact a referendum, especially one like this, could have, or has had on the country. What does our history tell us? And I don't mean about the question itself or even the result of the question.

But the whole idea of a referendum, does it add to a provinces or a federal government's negotiating position on the question? I'm not going to give you my answer. I'm going to give you Lucien Bouchard's answer, the person who brought Quebec the closest to a yes vote in 1995, so some decades ago, who has been going around over the past two years, warning his former party, the Pats of Quebecois,

about the perils to Quebec of having a third lost referendum. Because what Mr. Bouchard believes is that every time you do this, you lose. You are losing something. He points to the patriation of the Constitution without Quebec on side after the first referendum in 1980, and he points to the Clarity Act and would follow the second referendum. So his advice to Quebecers is do not go there unless you think that you are going to follow through and vote yes to sovereignty. Now, I should say that the reason why Lucien Bouchard, Renévez, Jacques Paraiso, led referendums on sovereignty in Quebec, and the reason why the current Parts-Chequequeatho leader wants to do that

is not to negotiate anything inside the Federation. It is because they totally believe that Quebec would be better off as a separate country than within the Canadian Federation. You can quarrel with that belief. A lot of Quebecers do, obviously, given the results. is what it is based on. I should also add because I realize that there's a lot of constitutional history that gets lost along the way over the years that the Quebec, the debate has taken place. Most of the things that set Quebec apart from other provinces, a separate pension plan, a separate

income tax. All of these things happened and were negotiated before the Partsique-Chibecoe even came in existence. So this notion that look at Quebec and because it's done this, it's gained all these things, is kind of based on a rewriting of history that is not borne out by facts.

My final point on this is the answer of Quebecers themselves. Poles tell you poll after polls since 1995 and it is still true today, even as the PQ leads in the polls,

If you ask Quebecers the question that Ms. Smith wants to put to Albertans, i.e., or do you want the government to set a referendum on separation in motion, the answer would be a resounding no. And that should tell anyone something about how Quebecers feel about the merits and the benefits of having referendums. not only is it that sovereignty is about it 70, 30 against in this province, but it's about the same numbers for, do you really want a referendum? And indeed, if the Patschkevico loses that lead or does not translate it into a government,

it will be because of its promise of a referendum in the next government term. Okay. And just a reminder here, Bruce, because I want you to weigh on this too. that we'll get to the actual question that was posed yesterday and the situation as it currently sits. But on the general assessment of the power of a referendum in terms of what our history tells us, where do you sit? Well, not just our own history, but I guess I think that the most powerful thing that a referendum can do is to create uncertainty. The least likely thing that it can do is, as I think Premier Smith suggested, settled a matter once and for all.

It's inconceivable to me that with all of the evidence that there is, and I was looking at the Brexit evidence where the estimates of how much damage Brexit would do to the economy of the UK, where it was 4% GDP over five years, I think it was, turned out to be wrong, turned out to be completely underestimating the long-term impact up at investments down something like 12 to 18% over what it would have been. So there's evidence out there for when you create disruption at the same time as you're trying to attract more investment, that creating uncertainty about the political climate and the political risk associated with investment is a very harmful thing.

Nobody who's making the case for separation is even really bothering to try to make a case that this would be helpful to the economy or wouldn't be damaging to the economy. And the case that also isn't being made is the, well, why wouldn't it settle things once and for all? Well, why wouldn't it settle things once and for all starts probably with the questions about indigenous rights and treaty rights? what would happen if by some circumstance, enough people said, yes, we want to start the process within the context of the federal law towards having a referendum that was kind of binding and conclusive. That just feels to me like the opposite of the thing that many small C conservatives have been saying the country needs. And I don't want to equate conservatives with separatists. I think it's important, and I think was a good thing that Pierre Poliyev said what he said yesterday, and probably will come to that too.

But the Alberta separatists can't have it both ways. They need to be challenged on this question. There is no argument that they're making about how to solve the, well, who can break up what parts of Canada, under what premise with what kind of legal authority, with what kind of legal assurance. So they're really just kind of lighting matches all over the economy and the body politic of Alberta. and Canada with no with absolutely no common sense behind it and with

a premier who lacks the spine maybe the judgment or spine I'm not sure which is the more serious problem to call it out and to speak truth to the people in her party

who believe that that what they're doing deserves her support or deserves the support of Albertans. well that brings us to what actually happened last night when you think of it this has been quite the week in alberta because she's especially for premier smith and one wonders where she's left at the end of the week as a result of all those but she's had cabinet resignation she had a cabinet shuffle there's been talk of a movement within her party uh to disrupt her leadership uh as a result of her kind of waffling on what where she actually stands on this issue but nevertheless this is the uh morning after the night before. The question, such as it is, is out. It reminds me of that great Lloyd Robertson saying back in 95

that night of the referendum and the close vote and everything, where he suggested we're into a period of neverendom. And as it turned out, Matt might not have been true about Quebec, but here we are again in terms of a referendum of sorts. So this referendum question is basically a question asking you if you want to have another referendum. You know, she's taking a beating in the Alberta press on the part of some of those who are usually on her side.

You know, Rick Bell is columnist of Calgary Herald, who's pretty much of us in the Smith camp, is saying she's got some real explaining to do here. And Don Braids call him this morning is, you know, he basically calls it, you know, a wonky night. unworkable, the question is the way he describes it. Where are you on this, Chantan? Well, it's not unworkable, but first, let's agree that we need to get our heads out of the yes versus no outcome

because this is not a yes or no answer. It's more like the Brexit question. You remain or leave. So you pick option A, which is basically the status quo. and move on or you pick option B, which is that the government gets down to the business of organizing a proper referendum on separation, which literally means that the actual question do you want to leave is not being asked. And the answer will not be, yes, we want to leave. Will that encourage more people to vote for the, we want the government to organize a proper reference

Or will it bring out the people who are saying, why are we constantly talking about this? We never voted for this in an election, which has been a major flaw of this entire exercise. If you really want to ask Albertans about their political future, first you go to them in an election and you secure a mandate to do so. What's going to be happening in Quebec in the fall is basically that. but last night's efforts seemed to be an effort to put the horse back in front of the cart. I too noted how poorly received it was and Bruce talked about uncertainty. And I would think that the first major piece of uncertainty is the fate of Daniel Smith is Premier of Alberta.

We now have a government that is engaged in some fairly serious federal, provincial inter-provincial maneuvers over major projects that is at the same time the most unstable government in the country. And I'll say just one word about the Prime Minister's win or lose aspects to this. Mark Carney did win something last night, i.e., this question does not bring the Clarity Act and the federal government into the mix to say. is a clear question because it doesn't actually lead to a mandate for secession in any way, shape, or form. But he did lose something in the sense that his ally on something that he is trying to sell not only British Columbians, but members of his own caucus on, is politically in a very unstable

position and toying with notions that do not sell well in most other areas of the country. And that is not a comfortable position to be on if you are, when you have the Premier of Alberta, for instance, who now sounds more prescient when he's saying one should not be rewarding poor behavior or bad behavior when he was talking about making a deal with Daniel Smith just on the week when she does go and pursue this option. So lots of uncertainty. I don't think Mr. Carney can even assume, well, okay, let's. Let me put to you one scenario. I'm not saying it's going to happen.

Suppose that efforts to unseat Daniel Smith as Premier are successful. And suppose that subsequent efforts to install someone of the pro-separation crowd is leader. What does Mark Carney do then with his agreement with Alberta? And how the hell does he sell it to other Canadians who are skeptical at this point? And how does he sell it to the private sector? They're sitting on the sidelines waiting to deal with money one way or another. Bruce, so what did you mean? Yeah.

So I think, look, I mean, if there had to be a question, and there doesn't really have to be a question, but Alberta politicians created this scenario where they wanted to nurture or some kind of, some would say lion eyes, certainly give oxygen to a lot of disaffection to the point where they created momentum towards this idea of a referendum, that they couldn't then stop

or they didn't have the political courage to then stop. So if you say all of that happened, so then what? You need to have a referendum. The best version of a referendum is stay or go. this version that she's proposing, Premier Smith, is stay or maybe don't stay? Well, that's a disastrous idea from the standpoint of creating an outcome that puts this issue to bet once and for all. The polls are pretty clear. If the choice is stay or don't or leave, maybe leave gets to 24%, maybe it's 20%, but it's not, you know, it's not 35, it's not 4%.

it's not 40. But if you say option is stay or maybe don't stay, some people might get tempted in the course of a debate to go, well, maybe don't stay gives us more leverage, more negotiating power, more of ability to assert what we want with Ottawa in order to keep the country from breaking up. That's a terrible miscalculation in my view, because first of all, it wouldn't necessarily,

increase the leverage. Second of all, it absolutely would increase the amount of uncertainty. And uncertainty has an investment price. There's no province more willing and able and constant in saying uncertainty carries an economic price. And so for Alberta to put itself in a situation where the Premier is championing a question that has the best chance of creating more uncertainty rather than less uncertainty is folly. And I'm not surprised that those Alberta journalists that you're talking about, Peter, are there. The other point I wanted to make is that there is a tendency on the part of the Premier, she's not alone in doing this, to sort of say, well, I kind of understand the people who are

interested in separatism because they're economically disaffected. She uses that term pretty regularly. And what it does is it credentializes the separatist idea in a way that I don't really think it deserves. I think that the more lucid interpretation, of wrath and the people who are behind that movement is that they're not looking for a better deal from Ottawa. They want to get out of Canada. That is something that they believe is better for them and better for Albertans than staying in Canada. So when she says, well, they're economically

disaffected and I've worked out a better arrangement with the current prime minister in Ottawa. Therefore, you shouldn't leave. I did see somebody right this morning. I apologize in advance for not remembering exactly who it was, but I thought it was really well put. The idea that that would make a wrath, the head of this separatist movement, go, okay, then, let's forget the whole idea. He thinks that making a deal with Ottawa is the reason Alberta has to leave, because he doesn't think that it's possible for Alberta to do better within Canada and to be better off outside. And, you know, it comes back to the same problem that the conservative party nationally has had. And now the UCP and the context of the old Wild Rose Party is that if you put a really radical faction into a conservative political party, it could happen theoretically on the left.

It just hasn't happened in the same way that we can see anyway. And you have a leader who isn't really good or willing to focus on managing that schism. Stephen Harper was pretty good at it. But Daniel Smith is not good at it. Daniel Smith has been playing both sides of her party. And she's paying a political price right now. And the question is whether the province will pay a price or the country will pay a price because of that. Okay.

I got a couple more questions on this. But you had your hand. have Shantel, you want to make a point on that? Well, I'll just pick up on Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper never hesitated to make a choice. When he did the Quebec Nation resolution, he just did the Quebec Nation resolution. When he decided to spend this way out of the financial crisis in 2008, he basically just went ahead and did it and explained why, because governing is about making choices.

And yes, if you're the opposition leader, if you're Pierre Puehliev, you're constantly watching your back. That's your first responsibility somewhere is to keep your party united enough to get to government. But once you are in government, you need to fish or cut bait on fundamental issues. And that's why Stephen Harper succeeded, because he was always pretty clear on where he wanted to go and pretty clear in the explanations that they offered for this. At some point, they'd like to get back to the indigenous.

issue though, because it seems too easy to say, this is a bad court ruling, as the Premier said last night, and it's all going to go away on appeal. I think both in Quebec and in Alberta, people who think like that are in for a very, very rude awakening. A couple of times in this conversation, Danielle Smith's future has come up. Is she in real trouble now?

If Jason Kenney could be shown the door, while he was a sitting premier at the head of a majority government. I am totally able to assume, and remember, Jason Kenney angered that section of the party that is very invested at this point in the separation movement. Daniel Smith has managed to anger both sides. They moderate, more traditional progressive conservatives. people like the ministers who quit this week are also thinking this makes no sense.

So those columnists you quote this morning represent that. So when you add the two, I'm not sure how a confidence vote ends if there is one in Daniel Smith's leadership. Bruce? I don't know. I mean, she should be. She should be vulnerable. but just starting that process towards the referendum does create certain dynamics. In particular, somebody then needs to be described as the leader of the stay side, right?

So she will say that she's going to occupy that position. She's the least effective of the potential leaders of that idea, I think. But once she's established that that is her role, all of the people who want a clear stay in Canada outcome are going to be hard print they're going to be a little bit stressed at the idea of removing her from office because they're not going to want to upset progress towards that outcome or create a sense of further chaos or further uncertainty so if anything she's got that dynamic that she started working a little bit in her favor but you know if there was a problem in a situation where you might say to shantown's point about jason kate's point about jason

where people might say, well, all of that is fine and well, but this is going so badly we need to make a change. That province would be Alberta in this particular circumstance. Was there a winner last night? Did anybody win as a result of the way the immediate future was unveiled last night for Alberta? No. Possibly people who dream of becoming Premier. I don't cover Alberta politics.

The lonely dream. I don't know when you said that, Peter. I was looking at your hat and I was going, it's like your hat just throwing shade at the Montreal Canadiens. Is that the point of it? Because there was a winner. This was promoting a discussion I'm going to have at some point because there's no doubt that last year.

This was Canada's. team, right? Like Canadians from coast to coast to coast for cheering for the Petrono Blue Jams. Now they have no option because it's the only team in the league right now from Canada. So the question for me now is unlike other years, are the HABs now Canada's team, not just because of the fact they're where they are in the playoffs, but have things kind of, have they changed a bit? Like it used to be a thing to be like against Montreal, against the Habs, or against the Leafs, or against

whomever. Those were the tributant things. It never was a thing to be against the Haps. No, it was not an, or to be a Leafs fans be forever disappointed anyway. So we leave you to your, Toronto was a team for one time, and it was a very limited ticket

where everybody was like, okay, we're going to get behind it. And it was fun. And I have pulled for that team again, but no. But before you go back to a more serious topic. I have to say that it has done wonders for the mood in this city. I bet. People have same potholes, same troubles. People have smiles on their faces. They're all wearing abs, jackets. I saw a priest wearing it giving a blessing in a sports store yesterday with 50 guys who were also what they were doing on a Thursday on work.

wearing all these. And it was explained to me that it was George Larex store or something, and they brought a priest to bless me. Yeah, right. So we are not having a bad time here. Well, and good for you. I mean, it is remarkable to watch.

And I guess part of the remarkable nature of it is it wasn't really expected. Everybody knew they were getting better each year. But to be one of the final. final four, and to win their last game, as they did last night, or the first game of this new series in the other barn, the other team's arena, you know, good for them. It's a treat to watch. Okay. And don't forget Montreal's women's team winning that. That's right. Against Ottawa, so, yeah, there's been a lot of celebration of that too.

You know, women's sport, I mean, it's a totally different topic here, but, you know, they're getting, they're filling arenas for hockey, women's hockey, and for women's basketball that started in Toronto this year. And, you know, good for them. I mean, it's really quite something to see now. The fact that the tickets are considerably cheaper than NHL tickets doesn't hurt and offers a whole new area for sports fans, both men and women and kids. to go and see games.

Okay, that's our sports segment for today. We're going to take a quick break, be right back, and move the topic a little bit related. But first, this break. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Friday edition, which is, of course, Good Talk with Sean Tilly Bear and Bruce Anderson. I'm Peter Mansbridge.

You're listening on Sirius X-Am Channel 167 Canada Talks or on your favorite podcast platform. or you're watching us on our YouTube channel. We're glad to have you with us wherever you're joining us from. Last point on the Alberta situation. You know, somebody, I can't remember which of the two of you brought it up a little earlier, but it's Pierre Pollyev, who took some hits earlier this week with some wondering why he's not more, what's the right word, more public in his standing up for

Canada in Alberta, where, of course, he is an MP in a rural writing that he wanted to buy election. He came out fairly quickly with a statement, I guess it was yesterday, saying, I'm all in. I'm going to be speaking every day once this campaign gets going. People know where I stand. I'm for Canada. I'm totally against separation movement. Does that solve the situation for him where he was being questioned about what his commitment was on this question.

What do we make of that? Bruce, I think it was you who brought it up because you were giving him credit. I don't know if it solves anything forever. I think he'll still have challenges to overcome and he'll have opportunities that will present themselves because politics does just kind of create a continuous changing circumstances. But look, I mean, I tend to take him at a matter. word that this is the right thing to do and that's why he's doing it and he sort of said all of our MPs from Alberta are going to make this case as well obviously there's a certain awkwardness to

it if almost everything he's been saying every day has been about Canada lacks the economic policy to serve the needs of people like those who live in Alberta and to serve the needs of the resource sector I don't think he's really advanced that case successfully, if anything, he's kind of lost ground and Mark Carney has gained ground. And so I can look at what he decided to do and say he's doing the right thing for the right reasons. I could also fashion a case that, you know, our polling was showing that it's becoming a pretty tight race between the federal liberals and the conservatives in Alberta, which is really unheard of. You have to go back, I think, Pierre Trudeau's time to think about when

that was the case before. And so if it's also true that call it two-thirds, but more likely three-quarters of Alberta voters don't want to leave Canada. And as many voters in Alberta, maybe even more, think Mark Carney is a good leader of the country than think that Pierre Poliyev would be. So you add a referendum on sovereignty for Alberta into the, that mix. And if you're a peer, probably out of the question is, can you afford to be a bit equivocal about this? What would happen to your reputation? And not just across Canada, but in

Alberta, in the heartland, in the base of the conservative party, if you look like you continue to say, well, I understand why people are frustrated because they've had 10 years of rotten government that's really destroyed their economic prospects. So whether he's, you're, doing this for all of the right reasons or because he's kind of looked at the math of what it would sound like for him to be a kind of a squishy middle on a referendum to Al Burton's. Either way, he's come to a better conclusion, I guess, and it will remain to be seen how he manages to square that with being an effective and vocal opposition leader because that is part of the job that he's got. You can't just stand up every day and say, well, whatever I said before,

you know, Canada is still the best country in the world and everybody should decide to stay in it. It's not going to be easy, but he did make the right call. Chantal? I think anybody who aspires to be prime minister does not have an option. There is no box A, box B, I'm going to defend the Federation or I'm going to say, well, gee, you know, maybe you guys should have a referendum to see if you want to leave the federal.

And that's, and I'm guessing up to a point, the same applies to members of the caucus who are expected to see themselves as a government in waiting. Do you want to showcase a government in waiting that is made up of people who are wavering on whether you should break up the constitutional order and the federation? That being said, I think there is also party survival elements in play here. And I'll just draw an example. The federal liberals for a long time, they're ground zero of the federal liberals, was really Quebec. Quebec held for the liberals under Pierre Trudeau, even when Joe Clark was winning elsewhere.

And Quebec kept and went a long way to return Pierre Tudel, Trudeau to power. When did the federal liberals start to fracture? When the Parts Quebecois came on the scene and referendum politics came in play, it is in Mr. Poilev's interest to shut down that second option on the question, do you want a referendum on the referendum? Because at that point, it becomes a serious bid to get to a question about leaving the country. And at that point, it starts to threaten the unity of the federal conservatives and on ground zero of their place on the federal checker board. And as opposed to the federal liberals who could somehow always count on Atlantic Canada, but also a big chunk of Ontario,

the same is not always true of the federal conservatives. And to lose to see a fracture. And the last fracture in the conservative movement, let me remind you came from the Reform Party and from Western Canada. So this elite-driven speech, the elites want what is bad for you, can turn on Pierre Pueleve

and the federal conservatives in Alberta really quickly. So he has to pick aside both for his personal ambition, for the good of his party as a government in waiting, but for also the well-being of his party as a national party that has a strong base of support in Alberta. And if I may say, yes, at this point, Mark Carney's liberals are looking good in the polls. But the last time I really saw that was when Paul Martin

was still in the honeymoon phase of his leadership. And those numbers do tend to evaporate over time. So if I were Mr. Carney, I would not think that I can trade Ontario or BC votes or Quebec votes for Alberta votes. That would be like pursuing a balloon way up in the sky when you've got the football in your hand. Okay. Be honest, you too. I'm switching topics here.

We're always honest. I know. I'll be honest on this one. Here's... Had either of you... ever heard of the permanent joint board of defense before this week?

Never. No. Okay, well we heard about it this week because the Americans said they're not going to anymore sit on the permanent Joint Board of Defense with Canada about defense structures because Canada's not delivering on what it

had promised it was going to deliver. So what's what's really behind this? Is this just the latest salvo from the Trumpies on the Canada-U-S negotiation front? Or is there something serious here? What do we make of this, Brut's? You start us on this one. Yeah. I think it's just another salvo. But it's a salvo happening at a different time, probably with a different sense of urgency and strategy behind it from the American point of view. and by that I mean we're getting close to that moment where both countries need to decide what it is they're going to say they're doing with Kusma. I think that the Americans, from everything that I can tell, do want to maintain a North American free trade agreement of one variety or another.

I think they do want to make sure that they apply as much pressure and leverage on Canada as they can in the run-up. to those more formal conversations. I think they are probably also hearing from U.S. defense industry suppliers, concerns about whether Canada and other countries are looking at options that don't involve buying military equipment with much larger military budgets than has been the case before, not buying from American companies is a significant economic issue, I think, for America, or at least for the American defense industry. And my assumption is that this is probably got something to do with that,

something to do with wanting to make sure that Canada hears America saying things like we want to be partners with you, but don't do things that make us uncomfortable. We've heard this before. We heard it about doing a deal with China for a small amount of cars and a large amount of canola, only then watched President Trump, completely ignore what he said about the perils of doing deal with China and say,

I'm going to go over it and I'm going to do trillions of dollars of stuff with China, which in the end didn't turn out to be possible to do. But, you know, last point for me, I read something today where I think it was a Reuters story and they were quoting an unnamed Pentagon official and saying, you know, they were doubling down on this concern about Canada and saying, you know, we're just not feeling that Canada is ready to be a, in quotes, credible security partner. And for me, the irony of the American government talking about credible security partners when they are the least credible security partner probably in the world right now is just remarkable that the arms of the American government can say things like that and think that the rest of the world will go,

oh, all right, you've scared us now. We better do whatever it is that you say, because if we do what you say, you'll stop berating us or good things will happen on a mutual basis. There's no credibility for that. And there's no interest in hearing the bullying of America on military issues or on anything else anymore. And I think that the Trump administration doesn't understand at all the degree to which this kind of belly aching will just fall on death years and make the rest of the world more resolved than ever to find other accommodations and to look for other arrangements. Shantan. Well, if the point of this, and who knows if it is, because from one day to the next, it's really hard to follow. where this administration thinks it's going.

But if the point of this is to soften up Carney and esteem and the lead up to Kuzma, someone somewhere needs to give their heads a shake. Because if you're going to try to undermine Mark Carney's credibility in Canada by going after him on military spending, you are basically doing the opposite, and you are making it easier for Karnie to hold this ground on Kuzma by convincing more Canadians that there is absolutely nothing

that will lead to a good faith agreement or one that will be respected by this administration. Of all of the things that Canadians know about Mark Carney, even those who don't follow it daily as we do, is that he is presided over a significant and is presiding over a significant increase

in military spending on all kinds of friends. But this comes across, when you look at it, comes across like a replay on a larger stage of the drama over fentanyl crossing the border. Remember that? Yeah, those minute amounts that were drowning the U.S. and fentanyl, the border bill that resulted from that, the contention in the U.S., that fentanyl is still flowing through the Canadian border,

which it never did and is still not. and now it's military spending, which is already in play in this country. So with every passing move like that, I was struck totally because this was also the week when, again, the bridge between Windsor and Detroit came back in the news. I thought, gee, you know, what a successful strategy you guys have that the mayor of Windsor is actually telling the prime minister, don't give in to open the bridge. it means giving in and making major concessions on Kuzma. This is the person who is at ground zero of this operation to not open a bridge that is completed.

And he's saying, hold on, hold firm. And to me, that mayor was kind of a poster person for how the administration with every move is just making it easier for Mark Carney to have a consensus backing him. Who was the first person I saw on X criticizing the U.S. over the military joint committee move? Aaron O'Toole, of all people. Who's also been very vocal on X about the F-35 contract and how, yes, he still believes it's the best airplane. But given the way that this is happening and the circumstances, I think he compared that to that you're looking to buy a car. You're interested in buying a car. but the car salesman keeps berating you.

And at some point you walk away from the lot and you think maybe this looked like a nice car, but I don't really want to buy from these people. So I'm not sure there is much of a strategy there. I noted this week the Greenland thing was on again in a big way. And maybe it's... It was chambolic. It was incredibly incredible.

was happening over there and then you think this is not really a strategy it's just you know the the recurring moves i'm not saying they don't harm greenland or canada or whatever but it just makes you say there these are not serious people even if the stakes are really serious you know you have to wonder whether trump has spent one day one minute even on greenland since you you know, after Davos said, we're going to have these meetings, we're going to set up a committee to study all this, and we're going to get it sorted out,

whether he's ever thought about it since. But those committees have, in fact, been meeting almost daily in the, you know, three or four months since he made that announcement after Davos. But as Chantal says, this week, it became clear that the Americans are not happy in that committee room. in terms of what's going on.

Just a final thought on this before we take our final break. You both have you rear to the ground. You know, the prime minister didn't seem in the least bit concerned about this situation with the board we've never heard of before the permanent joint board of Durfence. Is there something going on on the Canadian side? Are they feeling more confident about how things, are unfolding on these talks, then we might tend to believe.

Are either of you hearing that or has nothing really changed? I'm not hearing that there's much talking. So maybe Bruce is hearing is closer to it. Well, I have a sense that the relationships are not as they appear on social media, that there's an understanding on the U.S. side of the importance of the integration of the economy and there's a I think at the same time there's a certain

awareness of the fact that you know Trump is polling at 37% approval. And those are the good polls. Those are the good polls, right? And so I saw a poll, I saw data on how Republicans,

Republican voters were feeling about his handling and it's down 20 points in the last year. That's a really meaningful shock even to an administration that doesn't shock easily because it tends to create its own sense of what's true or not. So I think for a combination of reasons, we're going to see these lashing out stuff and social media, but I don't think it's entirely reflective of the very detailed conversations

that need to happen in order to maintain that economic relationship that many, many, many, many American businesses and consumers depend on. So whether that means optimism, I don't, that's probably too strong a word, but a sense that realism is going to descend on the U.S. administration or is already in terms of the economic realities, probably there's more confidence that that is happening already. I didn't associate realism with this administration, so I figured this is an optimistic. statement. Okay. We'll leave that. Definitely. Yeah. Can take our final break. Come back right after this.

Okay. Final segment of good talk for this week. Chantelle, Bruce, Peter, all here for you. As we do now every week, a certain opportunity for what else is on your mind. It could be anything. Chantel, what's on your what's on your mind this week? I already mentioned the blessings for the abs, so I'm not going to go there. This was the week when the new government, well, the incoming government of Newfoundland Labrador, signaled that it wanted to renegotiate the agreement on Churchill Falls, an agreement with Quebec. That is of, I believe, major importance to both governments. And I think it was an encouraging week in the sense that all three parties,

step well for Hydro Quebec, Hydro, Newfoundland and both governments do want to talk. But I also believe that this is something to watch. Why? Because Mark Kearny, just a week and a half ago, set out a goal to increase Canada's electrical output substantially. And he can only do that if the provinces can get along to be more productive. and better at planning the future on this. And the first test of this, I believe, is the possibility of a final agreement between Newfoundland, Labrador and Quebec on this longstanding issue. But at the same time, I'm always struck by the fact that when Mark Carney talks about energy,

he always talks pipeline, LNG. I watched what he was saying when he was in Vancouver this week, talking to a business, crowd, mining, critical minerals. I don't understand why he doesn't also talk about green energy, solar power, wind power. He's got projects of that nature, this deal, which is clean hydro. And, you know, I listened to Stephen Gilbo's critique of some of the proposals on environmental change from the government, and he pointed out that he believed we should reduce the time it takes to approve projects because a lot of important projects for climate policy are getting bogged down in regulations.

I don't understand why it is Stephen Gibbons making that case when Mark Carney could be also making it, rather than always be talking about things that do rile up people who say, have we forgotten climate? All of that is part of the mix, but it's never front and center in anything he says. And I find that mind-boggling, frankly. And there are, you know, more than a dozen other liberals who've signed a letter along with Giebel about the position of the government at the moment on some of these green issues. Bruce, on your mind. Yeah, I'm interested in that environmental and economic policy tension inside the liberal party

and liberal caucus. But the thing that I've been thinking about is back to the U.S. administration. and the whole question of corruption and whether or not there's some sort of line that gets crossed where people go, no, no, this is enough. And probably not, but the pieces that were added to the puzzle in the last little bit, the fact that a sitting president made some 3,600 trades of stock, including trading the stock. Now he did it through some whoever manages his finances, but trading the stock of some. 20 companies who were represented on the trip that he made to China. That was a big thing. He was suing the government for $10 billion and said he would settle for $1.8 billion

to be put in a fund that everybody, including Republicans, they're calling a slush fund to compensate Republicans who've been targeted by, you know, the Biden administration, which just feels like if it happened anywhere else in the world, you know, the America that we used to know would be the first to say, well, this is a corrupt place. And it just doesn't seem to be generating that kind of conversation in the U.S. And a billion dollars for the ballroom that was supposed to be free because donors were going to pay for it. Now, it does look like the Senate is starting to find its spine. It's saying we're not going to support the war.

And we're not going to support the war by, basically, tackling this flush fund bill. And so maybe we're at a point where the Senate, you know, it's being frustrated by Federman on the Democrat side, who seems for some reason to think that Trump is a great president. But we may be close to a point where enough Republicans are having enough, having to eat enough and say they go along with things that they just can't go along with anymore. I know, but there we are.

They are remarkable of some of these stories that have come out, especially so in the last couple of weeks. And it does look like there's some attempt on the part of some Republicans in Congress to say, okay, this is a bribe too far. We'll see. We'll see where that goes. Okay, just as a follow-up to Chantel's points about the priest she saw, blessing the habs.

I saw, I don't know whether it was a meme or whether it was actual real, but somebody put something on social media last night about the Eiffel Tower, and there was a sign up in the Eiffel Tower, big sign saying, go abs. It looked cute, no matter whether it's real or not real. Well, our Premier did bring a sweater to Emmanuel Macron, I think, last week. Peter, you probably only know the Ole, OLE, OLEA version of the Canadian son, but there was a song before that that everybody who grew up as a Habs fan used to sing. And if the Habs win another game in this series, I'm going to send you the lyrics and the music

to that, and I think we should have you sing it the next time that we get together. I'm just waiting for the Pope to be wearing Habs cap when he does his weekly address from the Vatican balcony. We'll see whether that happens in the next of the ball. And I don't sing for my breakfast. So you're on your own. You're doing a solo performance. All right. We're out of here.

Thank you both. Have great weekends. Talk to you again in seven days. I'm good. You guys. Stay, bye. Bye-bye.