The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk - Are We Already At War?

Episode Date: March 11, 2022

There's been no official declaration of war, but given the actions of Canada and other nations have already taken in defence of Ukraine and at the expense of Russia, are we already in fact, at war?  Bruce and Chantal on that as well as what difference Jean Charest makes to the Conservative leadership race.

Are you ready for Good Talk? And of course you're ready. It's Friday, it's Good Talk. Chantelle Hebert is in Montreal, Bruce Anderson is in Ottawa, and Peter Mansbridge in Toronto today. We've got a number of major topics for discussion over this next hour. We're going to start, not surprisingly, on Ukraine. And here, you know, bear with me for a moment. I'll give a tiny bit of background to what my question is. If you look back in our history books, and I've been arguing all week to not forget our history,

when you go back to September of 1939 and the Nazis invaded Poland on September 1st, 2nd, it was eight or nine days before Canada declared war through Parliament, had the vote, the whole bit, and declared war. Now, it was months before we actually did anything. Poland managed to survive basically on its own for six weeks, five or six weeks. Canada's involvement didn't really get going. There was kind of a phony war after Poland fell for a number of months and it was April of 1940 before the fighting really got started again and before Canada got involved. And under the government of Mackenzie King, things went back and forth over the next

few years, sort of in, out. I mean, we were always in, but just how involved we were was up to debate at times. Nevertheless, Canada had a sparkling record in the Second World War. But that's how it started, right? With a declaration of war. So now you look at the situation today, and you look at what is Canada doing? Well, like its allies, it's voted against Russia at every turn of the UN, sent the PM and cabinet ministers, a number of them overseas to visit allies, to make tough speeches, aggressive speeches about the actions of the Russians, being heavily involved in the biggest sanctions effort against another country, I think, in the history of the world. We're not actually

firing weapons, but we are kind of arming Ukraine's army with lethal weaponry to use against the Russians. And we are actively doing all kinds of other things to support Ukraine, aid convoys, et cetera, et cetera. And there may be more things coming. However, there's been no declaration of war. So here's the question. Given all the things we are doing, are we, as some people argue, and I've heard our friend Andrew Coyne argue this,

that you can call it what you want, but we are at war now. We are already at war, given what we are doing. Well, it didn't take a declaration of war to say that we were in the Cold War. And at this point, this is more similar than the we are at war. War involves sending your troops in combat. We did that in the time of the Gulf War, the first Gulf War under Brian Mulroney. It would be really strange for Canada to declare war on European soil when its allies in Europe are not actually formally declaring war on Russia. I don't think we are there yet.

That is not to say we are not in a conflict that could lead to all out war. That's pretty obvious. But I think many of those who argue we are already at war are also, and they may be right, but they also feel we should be engaging militarily over Ukraine with Russia, which so far is not the position of NATO. Another of the two differences, we didn't put in place all those multilateral organizations after World War II to find ourselves accidentally fighting wars or getting into them because logic is where it gets you. So, we have and I think we will continue to act in tandem with NATO and with the United Nations on this. And the other is, yes, in your history, Canada took only a few days to declare war in 1939. And mine, which was on the other side of the other is, yes, in your history, Canada took only a few days to declare war in 1939. And mine, which was on the other side of the language divide, it was called the conscription crisis.

So going to war involves things that many people who are alive today do not remember. And that was one of its features. So I find, you know, it's not an abstract concept to be going to war or to be sending soldiers to war. I don't disagree with anything you've said. However, I would also say at the same time that actions we are taking, Canada is taking, is resulting in people dying.

And usually that's what happens in a war. People die. I mean, when we're sending lethal weaponry and we take seemingly great pride in using that terminology when we talk about how we're aiding the Ukrainians. So there's that. But I hear everything else you're saying there. I mean, it's, you know, words matter. And, you know, maybe this is too much emphasis on just words, but we are in a situation unlike anything we've been in in our lives, in our lifetimes. And it's, you know, it's a very delicate situation and it could explode either way very quickly.

Bruce? I tend to focus a little bit more on the question of what we're doing than what we call it. I think that as I see it right now, if I had to sum up what Canada's effort is, it has three elements. One is to help Ukrainians defend themselves. Two is to try different ways to de-escalate the tensions rather than to inadvertently escalate those tensions. And the third is to isolate Putin and his regime. And the last one is kind of critical for me in thinking about whether there's some value in using a term like or a phrase like declaration of war, because for me, as long as the conflict is one where we are very focused on Putin and his regime and his cronies rather than the country,

Russia, I feel like that's a better way to approach this. I think that the idea that we would decide that we are at war with Russia carries a whole lot of other consequences, potentially, that we don't need, the world doesn't need, that may not have the effect that we would hope in terms of de-escalating tensions or in helping the Ukrainian people. So I think there's a caution about, or I assume that there's a caution among decision makers, not just in Canada, but in our allies, about finding that awkward place. And I say it's awkward because I agree with everybody who says watching people die from this Russian aggression is horrible. And there's a feeling of futility. And there's a natural inclination to wish that we were

doing more, could do more. And then people can come to the conclusions that, well, there are some things that we could do more, but why don't we cross those lines? And I think that's a debate that's not going to go away. But I think for the moment now, even recognizing that it's a devastating set of images that we have to watch, to help defend, try to de-escalate, and to isolate on Putin and his cronies and his regime is probably the best available strategy. There are things we could do better and at which we keep failing. And this crisis, like the pandemic on some other front, has revealed them again. We are very, very good at talking about welcoming refugees whenever something like

this happens, and we are terrible at actually following up. Just this morning, I was listening to a parliamentary secretary of the government explain on Katsu Canada why people have to go online to fill out whatever forms we put on them and send their biometrics to Canada so that they can make their way here. Let's be serious here. You are a refugee. You're left with a suitcase and your kids in your arms. You're supposed to find a computer, an internet connection, the proper paperwork. The Afghan experience revealed much the same thing. The actions don't follow words when it comes to Canada talking about taking in refugees.

And it's not as if we are flooded. Most of the people who have fled Ukraine are hoping to go back home. They're not walking on those roads in the middle of a war thinking about Canada. So we can't even argue that we are so overwhelmed with demand that we can't deal with it. We are just not equipped or willing, the political will to impose its will on the civil service to make things happen does not seem to be to the level of the talk that we hear. And that strikes me as totally abhorrent. Why? Because we managed to find the political will to make the civil service machine function during the pandemic for ourselves.

But whenever it comes to refugees and immigration, it's always the same tune, well this and that, and people go back to sleep thinking we are the saviors of humanity. That's one. And the other is the defense spending issue. I was listening to my friend Andrew Coyne last night on the CBC talking about procurement difficulties, the fact that we never seem to be able to get our act together on defense. You guys have been around for how long? How many times have you heard that? How many defense ministers, conservative and liberal, have come through over all that period? God, I remember Perrin Beatty writing his white book, and it goes on and on and on on and here we are having exactly the same conversation does that make sense it doesn't make sense and so often what happens is the procurement debate is

led by you know those in the armed forces often who are fighting the last war and with the last war's equipment and not you know moving ahead into a new I mean, part of the new world for us, Canada, is going to be the Arctic. There's no question about it. And even the chief of staff of the Defence Forces was suggesting that yesterday. And we're totally ill-equipped to be defending the Arctic. We have one patrol vessel or others on stream coming in, but we have one Arctic patrol vessel, and even it can't go year-round in the arctic um let me back up on two points on on refugees and you kind of touched on this uh

chantelle but one of the one of the difficulties in this refugee situation is and if you watch these these people who are fleeing ukraine going to poland and other places um they consider themselves kind of interim refugees you know like they they're convinced they're going to Poland and other places, they consider themselves kind of interim refugees. You know, like they're convinced they're going to win this. I'm more and more convinced they're going to win it over time as well. Little does that matter. But the fact is they want to go home. They're not looking for a new country. They're looking for an interim country where they can wait this out and then go back and be with their families and their husbands or fathers or whatever whatever the case may be

so there's that situation the other thing that i noticed and i'd you know in this kind of struggle for what else could we do how could we help this situation the russian strategy is pretty clear right now they've been losing on the ground militarily so what are they going to do they're going to starve them out they're going to encircle them and starve them out stuff's not getting in so an apple bomb there is you know great writer and an expert on this area of the world was suggesting last night or this morning that you know think in terms of the airlift, like the Berlin airlift. This would actually get planes in the air over Ukraine, but not in a cause to drop lethal weaponry on the Russians,

but to bring in food and supplies to the Ukrainians, another way of supplying them. It was one of the most successful efforts of the post-Second World War immediacy where the people of Berlin were starving, and the Allies started an airlift and got in through a narrow corridor to Berlin and fed the hungry. So that's just another idea, it's just another idea, but it's an idea that isn't

isn't shooting. You know, at some point, and this is where I agree with those about we're in a war, is at some point, you've got to call it what it is. And if you were involved in

the furthering of the conflict you're at war seems clear to me but then again that's just me bruce um i i think that uh i don't disagree that we're involved in a conflict and I guess I hadn't really thought about whether or not it matters that we call it a war. I do think that the notion of maintaining an aspect of this, which is diplomatic in nature, is important, but that's not an argument for lacking determination and kind of a vigor in our, in our support for the military effort. I'm also, I agree with, with Chantal on the procurement point.

It's been the longest, stupidest story in Canadian politics that we can't seem to figure out how to buy anything. It doesn't matter what government, doesn't matter what stripe. We just seem to be constantly falling down at doing that in any sort of sensible way. And I, I, I don't really understand the reasons why, but I'm, I'm hoping when we get some clear air here and somebody who's in that role as

defense minister, who's had a pretty good run of procurement decision-making, maybe things will get better. On the refugee question. We should say, by the way, on procurement, we're talking about billions and billions of dollars, right? Oh, yeah. This isn't peanuts. This has always been kind of the leading budgetary item

for governments going back decades. There's a lot of money involved. Look, and I think there's always around every major procurement that there's always a sense of greater political risk in making a decision than in not making a decision. And part of that is the sense that any result of any competition is always going to be heavily litigated by the losing side in those competitions. There's going to be a lot of questions about whether or not the right number of dollars were committed in the right way with the right Canadian benefits. There's never any sense of this is going to be welcomed by people. Now, this may change in the context that we find ourselves. But for many decades now, the idea that large volumes of tax dollars were being spent on military equipment wasn't something that most voters would look at and say, isn't that great?

They would say, well, we have to do it or it's too bad that we don't have that kind of money for other things. But really, these are not kind of celebratory political events. But I'm also on the refugee question. Look, I hadn't heard what Chantal was saying. I hadn't heard that from people that I talked to, but I don't have any reason to question whether or not it's true. I just hadn't heard it. And I certainly agree that if we are talking one way and not following through on it, then that's a problem and we should deal with it. And I think I've been horrified by watching how the UK is dealing with the refugee issue relative to how other nearby states are and the sense that the UK is making it hard, much harder than it should be for people to go there. And there are

lots of people with families there. But if it's true that we're falling down on the job, I think that's an important thing that we should do better on. But I just wanted to raise another issue that is on my mind a little bit today as part of this conflict. I was looking at Maggie Haberman's news feed this morning on Twitter, and she was repeating some stories coming out of Russia about banning Instagram. And I guess, wanting to declare that Meta is an extremist organization. And I feel like this is the first kind of large scale situation where we're getting to see what happens when there can be, rather than a completely free internet, an internet that exists where people can exchange information and knowledge about what's going on without a lot of kind of editorial controls and that sort of thing. So on one hand, the virtue of a free internet coming face to face with the fact that it

is ultimately a piece of technology that can be shut down by an authoritarian regime. This is, you know, this is a really important thing for us to observe and try to figure out what we should do about it going forward social platforms that millions and millions of Russians use and be able to flip a switch and turn them off, that's frightening in terms of what it means in terms of the future. But it can't be a surprise given that China is already playing a bit of a part in that movie. The Russians are actually not inventing something here. They're stealing a page from the way China operates when it comes to social media. Whether we can do anything about it seems rather dubious to me. It does make me wonder if the companies that would prefer to operate globally and, as a consequence,

would prefer a situation where there really aren't state-level regulations that intervene in how they operate, whether that time is, you know, whether that question is going to come more to the fore. Yeah, but it cuts both ways. I can't imagine that national governments in Canada, in France, or elsewhere would promote a hands-off to the internet and social media. I can't see it. Would what? Sorry? This is beyond our control. We no longer have tools to have some control over these operations.

I don't believe that's going to happen. No, I don't think it is either. I'm just sort of looking at this, the idea that you would call this company an extremist organization because it suits your political purposes to do it is such an outrageous extension of the idea that government should control media. On the other hand, if there are huge security issues that are now bound up in how information flows within our borders and around the world, again, without knowing what the solutions are, it does seem to me that those didn't exist as huge security issues in the past, and they do increasingly. Can I just mention one thing out of Russia in the last, well, 24 hours, which is an interesting potential crack in the curtain, if you will, of government control the russian state television last night one of the lead commentators on russian state television

did a commentary that was more than just a little bit negative about the current state of affairs in the conflict with the ukraine and he was not siding with putin he was saying that you know, basically that the situation is not only damaging Russia, it's potentially ruining Russia. And clearly there is support for that view in Russia, as we've seen from the protests and the arrests that have taken place in a number of different Russian cities. It's a minority group, but still it's there,

and we've never seen this kind of thing before. And we're seeing reports again today of Russians fleeing Russia, going into Finland. We haven't seen that before either. So as tough as the mechanism is to control the media and to control the people, and it is tough, there are cracks there. And this is further emboldening those who are saying the sanctions are working,

the incredible resolve of the Ukrainian people is working, and Putin is in trouble. And in a situation like that, you've got to keep pressing. And you've got to find new ways of pressing almost every day. Okay, if we finish that topic, we're anxious to get on to the next one. Everybody done their bit on this? Okay. We're going to take a quick break.

When we come back the conservative leadership race it's getting more interesting by the minute And welcome back. Peter Mansbridge in Toronto. Chantelle Iberis in Montreal. Bruce Anderson is in Ottawa. You're listening to Good Talk on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. Segment two today is the Conservative Leadership Race.

Gee, a week ago there was really only one person in the race. Now there are four, maybe five. I mean, who knows? Since we started 25 minutes ago, maybe somebody else has jumped in. But the big-name tickets are there. Pierre Pelliev, who's in there from the get-go, and then last night, Jean Charest made it official and went in, first of all, on Twitter with... You know know one of the knocks on jean charre used to

be he's kind of too laid back at times sometimes he's a little kind of lazy well man he seemed to have the laid-back pills before he went on twitter yesterday it was like a sleep inducing little commentary by him but then last night in Calgary, he gave a speech to those who were interested in following what he had to say. So no more from me. Let's get it out of the gate. What's your sense of Charest's positioning of himself against the others, not just the other contestants, but some of the past ghosts of the Conservative Party

and how things looked for him at the beginning. Chantal, why don't you fire away here? For sure, he's going to be playing the role of the underdog, which is a nice place to be if you have growth coming your way because everybody loves an underdog and it's harder to run a frontrunner's campaign. I'm not sure Pierre Poilier's personality style as an attack dog is well suited to the frontrunner status because he likes to be on the attack. It's harder if you're the frontrunner to constantly wage the campaign of the underdog.

I think Jean Charest has been, by total coincidence and with no planning of his own, has been fortunate in that the last topic we just talked about has changed the conversation on energy development in Canada, pipelines, etc. He was always going to stress his pro-pipeline credentials. They are real. He worked for TransCanada as a lobbyist for the defunct Energy East pipeline, so he's not making them up. But he can now go harder on this and pay less of a price, probably in Quebec, among other places, because the context of the conversation has changed.

That is not me saying suddenly Canada is going to want to be building a lot of pipelines. But for sure, even Justin Trudeau this week in Europe was stressing how Canada would be looking into how it could get more of its fossil fuel resources to Europe. That's going to get mixed up in the European transition away from fossil fuels, but it has still changed the terms of that conversation to Sharia's benefit. He doesn't have to walk around saying, I don't believe in carbon pricing. I thought this line, and sometimes the dumbest lines are the best lines. We can walk and chew gum. I think a lot of Canadians would think that's a reasonable position.

It's going to get harder as time goes on. The other thing I would note about the Charest candidacy is this is the very first time since the Conservatives reunited that Quebec is going to be really engaged in a leadership battle. Frankly, Belinda Stronach versus Stephen Harper and Tony Clement didn't really captivate anyone here, two out of three not being very fluent in French. Andrew Scheer versus Maxime Bernier. Maxime Bernier was the unloved native son in that battle. And most people were thinking, no kidding, are the conservatives really going to give Maxime Bernier

the leadership of their party? So that was also that. And then the Aaron O'Toole and Peter McKay, yeah, a sideshow. But this one has people talking for the first time about Charrière. Everyone has an opinion about Jean Charrière in this province. Those who tend to hail from the sovereignty side of the equation, which is almost half of Quebecers, do not have nice things to say most of the time about him because they consider that he came to kind of stave off the sovereignty movement when it

hoped to be on a roll. So don't expect to see polls that show 75% of Quebecers suddenly are cheering Chagall on. But remember one thing about the Quebec numbers and Jean Chagall, when Justin Trudeau ran for the leadership of the federal liberals with a name like that and a baggage that it came with not only with sovereigntists but with a lot of francophone Quebecers no one believed that Justin Trudeau could ever win Quebec in a federal election and then he did three times in a row. Bruce just before you get started on this, I have to say, you know, I've known Chantal for,

I don't know, 30 years, and she just let pass through her lips one of the nicest things she's ever said about me, although I'm sure she wasn't thinking of me when she said it, but I take it as something. You did? When she said, some of the dumbest lines are the best lines. And I'm going to embrace that line and cherish it and put it in my next book.

Yeah, I never thought about two dumb lines. Yeah, I like it. Look, I remember that, you know, as I was listening to Chantal, I was reminded of the fact that in her comment about him being the underdog, which I think is exactly right. I remember that in the leadership campaign that he ran and came second to Kim Campbell in the early 1990s. One of my daughters, I was working very closely with him in that campaign. And one of my daughters made a clay figurine of a turtle with a cape on it. And I still have that somewhere. And I remember showing it to John. And the reason that she made it was we had been talking about his campaign as a tortoise versus a hare campaign because he started out as a five percent candidate in terms of his level of support in the

party and he finished around in you know the 40 percent number and probably if he'd had a couple more weeks he would have been able to surpass kim campbell and win that leadership um And he likes that role. That is what he's naturally suited for. I agree with Chantal about that. I also think that it's a reminder that the presumed front runner, if the race is long enough, becomes the focus of doubts. And if somebody is not good at handling those doubts, the doubts grow and the momentum shifts. Now, I, like you, Peter, saw that video yesterday and I thought it's surprising that with weeks of preparation time that the first piece of digital communication from Jean was as underwhelming as that. On the other hand, you see laughing. Yes, underwhelming is a kind word.

It was a low energy thing and it had that quality of somebody saying, someone just told me about this thing called the internet and there's followers and I'm going to communicate with them this way. But I thought about it a little bit more and obviously I think his team is going to communicate with them this way. But I thought about it a little bit more. And obviously, I think his team is going to improve their digital and communication game. But then I read about his speech last night, and I was reminded of the fact that he works best as a genial optimist who's thoughtful in what he says and who doesn't get flustered. Another reference to the shell. He has heard what Pierre Poliev and people like Janny Byrne have been

saying about him, and he is not troubled by it at all. I frankly think that he's done the calculation that it's a good idea for him if they're attacking him, and especially the nature of the attacks, because it gives him a platform to respond and to show a different style. And so far, I think he's being a little bit the anti-Polyev. If people decide, upon reflection, in the Conservative Party, that Polyev is too immature, too bombastic, too confrontational, too much style over substance, too polarizing. They'll look at Charest and they'll see somebody who has a kind of a recipe. He's against Bill C-21, which will rally some people. He's promising to kill Bill C-69, the Environmental Review Act. I don't agree with that position, but I can understand that what he's doing is putting

together a bit of a policy recipe that's going to sound like it's thoughtful and it's unifying within the conservative family. You're not hearing that from Pierre Polyev. You're hearing him pitch to one side of the conservative family exclusively. And so I think Charest, notwithstanding that video, and notwithstanding that people might say, well, that was kind of a low energy thing. He's off to a relatively good start. His positioning isn't the problem. It's probably well suited to the race that he's trying to win and starts um are forgotten fairly quickly anyway you know i mean there's going to be lots unfold in the in the in the months ahead i mean i listen he showed obviously

a lot of knowledge on a lot of the issues that confront the party right now. But he was taking, I thought, you know, he's going to have to sharpen his position on a few things because there was a lot of sort of on the one hand, on the other hand, you know, and I kind of like this aspect of that. But I, you know, have trouble with this part of it. And, you know, he's going to have to he's going to have to sharp. One assumes he'll have to sharpen his positions. Here's the one thing that I found, I found intriguing about the way he handled it, because it's not just Polyev and Jenny Byrne who are going after Charest, supposedly Stephen Harper is as well.

And, you know, he had an interesting, you know, he did the thing that everybody does about former prime minister, oh, everybody does about former prime minister. Oh, he was a great prime minister. But then he basically was very dismissive of him. Sorry, he's the past. That's the past. We're moving into the future, which is interesting for a guy from the past.

But nevertheless, leaving that aside, the way he handled the Harper stuff, I thought was interesting because I'm not sure anybody else could get away with that aaron o'toole did sort of i think chantal but it still it's um it's tricky when you're dealing with somebody who still has clout in the certain elements of the of the party true uh aaron o'Toole actually did one better. He invited Brian Mulroney to come out in support of his campaign at the rally and did not invite Stephen Harper or did not show up with Stephen Harper anywhere. Or Stephen Harper didn't agree to come.

Chantal, can I ask you a question? Because I want to know your opinion about this. Sorry, Peter, I know this is normally your role, but the... I'm just a dumb guy with a lot of dumb lines. of Mulroney on some level. It just had that kind of feel of this is a guy who grew up in that kind of leadership context where he watched Mulroney be able to surf these divisions within the Conservative Party because they always were there, but kind of rally with a sense of optimism and unity and to take different positions that would each individually maybe alienate some people and please some others, but kind of put them together in a way that

made everybody feel that they were seeing a little bit of themselves in his leadership. Anyway, I was just really struck that he was more Mulroney-like than Harper-like. And in that sense, I don't know whether it'll work. I think he's kind of holding that offer of a different kind of conservative party than the Harper version. I would say, and people who are supporting Jean Chaliot will probably dislike this intensely, but I would say he is also more like Justin Trudeau and how Justin Trudeau

became the contender who took down Stephen Harper from Thomas Mulcair, who was considered it. And what did he do it on? He did it on Sunny Ways, which is the kind of politician that Jean Charest is. You do not, or I don't recall having heard Jean Charest say, the media is after me, or talk about the liberal media, or the et cetera, et cetera. I took him to the press gallery dinner, and there was various incarnations, as someone who'd lost a seat in cabinet, someone who'd just gotten it back,

someone who was the liberal leader in Quebec, and someone who was the liberal leader in Quebec and someone who was the premier. He just loves to talk to people. I've heard him say things that most people would normally think, what kind of something bad is about to happen here, but say it in such a way that no one replied. One night, one press gallery night, we were at, it was at the time of the Clarity Act. Jean Chaliot opposed the Clarity Act. Jean Clétien was there. I was not a favorite of the prime minister of the day either.

And late in the evening, very late in the evening, Jean Clétien came up to greet the liberal leader in Quebec. Very hard to spend six hours in the same venue and they never crossed paths. so Chrétien talks to Charrette as if I'm not there. And this goes on for about two minutes. And then Charrette turns around, looks at Jean Chrétien

and me and says, have you two been introduced? It's an interesting moment that does live on. Now, having said all the things about Charrière liking to be the underdog, I tried to think of the other leadership campaigns we've covered over the past one or two decades. And for sure, it doesn't look like any of the ones that I covered on the right side of the spectrum. Stephen Harper, to his credit, won on the first ballot his two leadership campaigns. It feels more like the Ray versus Michael Ignatieff battle that came after Paul Martin left the job of leader and prime minister. And why do I mention that? Because it is not always the case that a duel that pits two so-called strong contenders end up with someone else winning, and in this case, Stéphane Zion. But it does happen.

Those are the dynamics that create an opening for someone like Patrick Brown. There is an assumption, and I totally subscribe to it, that whatever happens on those ballots, if it comes to that, Patrick Brown will be going to Jean Charest to support him, but that the reverse will be true. Jean Charest would support Patrick Brown but that the reverse will be true. Jean Charest would support Patrick Brown over Pierre Poitier, but the other assumption is that

Charest will be the one receiving the support. I think in those dynamics, lots of things can happen. And Stéphane Zion's liberal victory is a sign of that. But if you want to go back, really go back. Joe Clark's victory at that conservative convention where Claude Wagner and Brian Mulroney were facing off is another sign that when the party's establishment can't agree on who they really like, sometimes they end up with someone that they didn't believe would become the leader. So this battle has not played out and no one

should treat Patrick Brown as just someone who's coming in there to recruit members for Jean Chagas. Yeah, I agree with that. I actually, sorry, Peter, go ahead. I was going to ask you, Chantal mentioned Thomas Mulcair, who you know, a party jumper himself. I mean, he had been in the cabinet of Jean Charest in the Quebec Liberal Party, then moved over to the NDP and was eventually their leader. But he told Evan Solomon the other day that he thought that Charest would not only beat Polyev, but would crush Polyev.

Yeah. What do you think about that analysis? Well, I don't know about his math skills in these things, but I do think that the, I, so I would be very, very hard pressed to come up with evidence that this is going to be a crushing of Polyev. But I do think that, you know, even a couple of weeks ago, I was kind of looking at some public opinion numbers, because I think we've maybe talked about them. And I thought this is going to be really hard for

Sheree. But I'm feeling a little bit differently about them now, in part, because I haven't really seen anything kind of clever or nuanced or really that interesting from the Polyev campaign. And it sort of feels like they may be just taking this for granted. And they may have assumed from a distance without knowing Charest that he has no skills. And that there's not much energy in parts of Canada that they're not that familiar with. And by that, I don't just mean regional differences, but where red Tories secretly hang out. They're not card carrying members, but they're people who aren't happy with the liberals who are looking for something else that they think better suits their blend of values. And I've heard from so many people in the last couple of weeks that haven't

been involved in politics that are giving money to the Sharae campaign because they've been reached out to by people that they know who aren't necessarily saying they'll, they'll support the conservatives in the next party, but are really quite interested in helping build an alternative. And they see Sharae as somebody who might be the right leader of a party that could represent them. So the whole notion that, you know, the, what would, what would liberals fear? I think they would fear a Sheree-led Conservative Party, would be my view as of right now, more than a Polyev party. I think if Polyev wins, the liberals have an opportunity to reach out to and try to scoop up a bunch of

people who have flirted with the idea of going with the conservatives, but would probably decide that Polyev doesn't work for them and maybe they should think about supporting the Liberal Party. With the caveat that to succeed at a strategy like that, I don't think the Liberals can do it without a leadership change. I think that this dynamic that we're seeing now is only going to further impel the Liberals towards the, maybe it's time to change up leaders, get a fresh perspective, a fresh kind of energy at the top. We'll see how that goes, but it does feel to me that sometimes this idea of change is a bit contagious in the political landscape,

and it might well be for the liberals too. Okay, we'll take our... The history of those, you know, let's change the prime minister. I believe Stephen Harper did better than anyone who could have replaced him before the 2015 election. I also think Jean Chrétien could have won another majority by the time he left and would have done better than Paul Martin. And I think Brian Malarone would have saved more of the furniture than Kim Campbell ever did. So that temptation to say a fresh face is going to help. Sometimes all that the fresh face does is lead the party to opposition in the place of the outgoing prime minister, and usually with a weaker performance than that prime minister might have, a long-standing disliked prime minister might have brought about.

Okay, got to take a final break. Back with some final thoughts right after this all right then chantelle's in montreal bruce in ottawa i'm in uh toronto on this day you're listening to the final moments of good talk for this friday on the bridge uh the one name that hasn't been mentioned although you keep seeing it whenever the television networks or the newspapers or the online stories start saying here's the current situation the tory leadership conservative leadership race the name is always kind of in there when peter mckay hasn't said what he's doing and keep in mind peter mckay former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party along with Stephen Harper formed the Conservative Alliance back in the early 2000s and ran second in the last leadership race to

Aaron O'Toole after much talk throughout the race and he's another one of those examples of someone who was a front runner who failed at the end um is there any any likelihood that he's going to enter this race does any anyone have a handle on the peter mckay situation in the couple of minutes we have left here i don't see a path to victory for him as opposed to last time i think think, between Patrick Brown, who is set to announce on Sunday, and Jean Chaguet. The support he needs is spoken for. I also believe he still carries a heavy campaign debt. And probably the best outcome for him on the debt front would be a Jean Chaguet victory

and Jean Chaguet helping him fundraise because Chagas is great at fundraising. But there is also the fact that Peter McKay wanted back in. He would have run if Aaron O'Toole had made him feel more welcome. And that didn't happen. They just didn't want to have anything to do with him. I think at this point, he's probably in the best spot in the sense that he's not running. But if Pierre Poilievre does not win, I wouldn't be surprised to see Peter McKay be on the Conservative ticket in the next election in a strong position, bringing more of Atlantic Canada back to the Liberals and eventually becoming a senior cabinet minister in a conservative government. He wouldn't, I think, be doing that for Pierre Poitier. But I won't be surprised if Peter McKay comes out in support of one of the other two at some point in time. Bruce?

Yeah, I think I agree with that. I think this is starting to look like it's going to be a fight between a conservative leadership campaign that wants to say, we don't want red Tories here, and a group of candidates who are saying we want a bigger tent party. And it does seem to me that either Patrick Brown or Jean Charest will emerge as the leader, the standard bearer of that second version. At this moment, it kind of feels like Charest has the, you know, maybe the big political acumen and the fundraising advantages and Patrick Brown probably has some organizational advantages. But in the end, it does feel to me like Peter McKay, if he was going to run to be that standard bearer, he's lost the opportunity now. I don't think that there's been enough conversation about why he would or why he would be an essential person in that mix. And it does seem to me that he's probably come to the conclusion that a Shiree-led

Conservative Party is an opportunity for him to get back into politics, to make a contribution, to feel good about his role. And if I was Shiree, I would definitely look at him. I was surprised that Aaron O'Toole in touring Atlantic Canada avoided Peter McKay's writing. I mean, there were a lot of things in that campaign that went wrong, one of which was Aaron O'Toole not wanting to share a microphone with key people in his party. But also the idea that you wouldn't, if you're trying to, you know, scrounge some seats together in Atlantic Canada, go in and harness the skills and the visibility of Peter McKay, that just seems like malpractice politically in that situation. So I think that this idea of the Polyev campaign being the Red Tories, Centrist Tories stay away, I think it felt like the thing

that would rally the base, and maybe it still will work out. But I think it felt like the thing that would rally the base and maybe it still will work out. But I think they've set themselves up for a problem. Because you've got these organizational forces that on the other side, are making a case that does have some sensibility to it and will find a home in public opinion. The idea of a bigger tent conservative party that's less angry, that's less focused on fossil fuel, almost to the exclusion of everything else. petitions tells me that if you have two propositions and one starts with a significant advantage over the other, then over time what happens is that those tend to balance themselves out, that the nature of public opinion is that it wants to inquire about the alternative, and media attention tends to be a little bit more 50-50 than 80-20. So I'd be watching for all of that to create a need on the part of the Polyev campaign to pivot away from this aggressive posture because they may

find that the numbers start to look more doubtful if they stay in that aggressive anti-red Tory mode. And they might offer some ground to the liberals to start poaching or at least trying to poach if in fact they look like they're making real headway. Look, that's going to have to wrap it up for this day. We didn't get to all the topics that we wanted to today, but we put some meat on the bone of two of the big ones that are facing politics in Canada and the situation in the world.

And we appreciate the fact that you gave us a listen on that. Chantel in Montreal, thanks for your time as always. And Bruce in Ottawa. Thanks, Peter. Next week on The Bridge, all the normal things that we love to do on different days of the week. And we're looking for your ears on those topics and on those conversations

that we'll have throughout next week on The Bridge. So I'm Peter Mansbridge in Toronto on this day. Thanks for listening. Talk to you again on Monday.