The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk - Danielle Smith on Mark Carney - Best Moment Ever? Really?

Episode Date: September 12, 2025

Five projects, two in BC, one in Saskatchewan, one in Ontario and one in Quebec headline Mark Carney's initial nation building push. Surprisingly perhaps, the list got a big thumbs up from Alberta's premier. Chantal Hebert and Bruce Anderson are here to discuss that and much more.

Are you ready for good talk? And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. It's your Friday morning good talk, Chantelle Abert and Bruce Anderson are with us. It's morning in Alberta, anyway, where Chantel is this week. Bruce is overseas. I'm in downtown Toronto. home of the number one Blue Jays.

Just grinding it out. Just grinding it out. I'm a fancy travel for you. All right. Well, a lot of eyes were on Edmonton this week, so it's, you know, I was there earlier in the week, but Shantell has been there the last couple of days, and lots happening. They finally announced, finally, I don't know whether finally is the right word, but they announced the first five so-called nation-building projects.

This is the prime minister yesterday. Two in B.C., one in Saskatchewan, one in Ontario, one in Quebec. To me, the most interesting part of yesterday was Alberta's premier, Danielle Smith, saying the most wonderful things about the prime minister and about the project list, calling it, I think she said it was the best day that she can remember. in terms of an announcement from the federal firm, any federal government and any prime minister. Alberta wasn't even on the list.

They were kind of, they were a part of one of the projects in B.C. But what do we make of that? Was that just sort of getting the prime minister ready for the next go-round? What did you make of it, Chantal? Well, to put it into context, Daniel Smith's premier, is only dealt with two prime ministers to date. And one of those was Justin Trudeau who was at that point on his way down, both in Alberta put in popularity.

So if I were Mark Carney, I wouldn't make too much of having been having had the best meeting she's ever had with the prime minister, given the relationship. I think from the federal point of view, and I'm talking just politics here, not content. it was a good landing in the sense that you announced those five projects in Alberta, in Edmonton. It could have looked like you were a provocation, like I'm going to wag my tail that you're right in your backyard, because, yes, it did not involve any pipelines. And nor is there really a prospect that there will be a pipeline coming down, the line between now and the end of the year.

The next slate of announcements will not feature a pipeline. But it was icing on the cake, I think, for Mr. Carney, that yes, they had prepared the ground for the Alberta government not to be up in arms over this. But I'm sure, Conservative leader Pierre Puelev must have felt that it was, she was laying it on thick. And for him, that made it kind of a difficulty. We will come back to those projects.

I just want to mention that I believe that this is more of a test run using projects that are well advanced and well known and that have provincial support and do not involve, you know, one province wanting something and another province saying I don't want to go there, more a test run for the future than a kind of brand new day. and the history of projects in Canada. Okay. Bruce, what's your initial thought on,

especially on the Smith thing? Well, you know, you said it was for you the most interesting thing. I think in the context of what are the interesting politics of it, it may be that. I don't, for me, it wasn't the most interesting thing, but it was an interesting thing. I do feel like the, you also, you know, wondered whether

the word finally should be used and I'm glad you wondered it because only two weeks ago we were having a conversation about what has the government been doing and I was trying to make the point that I think the government has been working towards an announcement of very very significant projects that will cost Canadian taxpayers a lot of money that are huge bets on economic potential for the longer term and deserve a measure of good governance and deliberation before they're announced And so here we are still within only a number of months since the government was elected with some major projects unfolded. Second thing I would say is that you talked about them as having a regional characteristics, and they do. But I think that if you think about them from the standpoint of what the clean energy and the conventional energy options mean,

I think the idea is that the benefits are meant to be broader, rather than, than just regional. And so I think the country as a whole can look at these and say, yes, this is the first tranche. This is a first go-round. The Prime Minister talked about some others that are part of strategies going forward. Certainly, I think the mining sector

will be looking at this and saying we are interested in the idea of investing in Canada because there is a great deal of importance placed on this by the Canadian government. and the Trudeau government did as well, but this is a different level of importance and urgency placed on it. So I think there's signals being sent

to the investment community across a range of sectors that the government really wants to accelerate this. And so I think not just regional benefits, but national benefits. On the Daniel Smith question, Chantel is absolutely right, obviously, that Daniel Smith, as Premier, has not had a lot of,

interactions with Prime Ministers. At the same time, you know, since I was just a lad working on Parliament Hill in 1979, 80, around the National Energy Program of Justin Trudeau's father, the relationship between Alberta and federal liberals has been really poor. And so from my standpoint, the way in which this Alberta Premier, at this moment in the life of Alberta discontent, if I can use that word, is talking about a relationship with the federal government. I tend to look at it more, forget about the specific frame that she put on it, but the frame that I see it in is I don't remember a much better period, certainly no better period of time when a liberal government was in office.

You can make the case that when Stephen Harper was in power, the relationship with Alberta was quite good. And for a period of time when Brian Mulrooney was in office, it was quite good too. but it broke down the Brian Mulroney relationship and led to the creation of the reform party, as we know. So I think it is, we've got to look at it as being, she's gone before, she's gone further than she had gone before and saying, well, you know,

it doesn't sound as bad as it did. There's maybe some green shoots for optimism for Alberta. You know, a few more months have passed, more work, more time at tables, more talking through the, businesses that she cares about, and she came to a much more enthusiastic solution or conclusion. What's in it for her? I want to get at the what's in it for her. Why would she have said what she said? I assume part of it is because she actually believed what she was saying about the projects

that were announced, but she's got to be thinking the next step here. If you want to attract investment into the province and you think you've got policies that make it easier for people to invest in the province, then that's what's in it for her, I think. I think also she was claiming some credit for having applied leverage to the federal government, to the extent that she knew that people in the resource sectors, for example, might say, this is a pretty good day. It signals a, you know, a higher level of interest by the federal government in accelerating projects in this area.

She wanted to be on record saying, I pushed them. And fair enough, she was one of the factors. that did help catalyze that change. Okay, Chantel. Okay, a few points. Justin Trudeau had a good relationship with Rachel Notley initially. And I think it's much too early to know if, like Brian Marroni or like Justin Trudeau, Mr. Carney and Ms. Smith will see their relationship deteriorate.

We are, as Bruce points out, only months into it. So it's a bit early to talk about a grand alliance between Alberta and a liberal government in Ottawa. I would also note that, yes, sure, huge bets, but not in the list of projects yesterday. None of them involve a huge bet. In many cases, shovels are already on the ground. In the case of the Port of Montreal expansion, it's what is it, a couple of days from weeks, and one permit federal, by the way, which involved endangered species

away from having the complete go ahead. So I don't think they picked projects that needed a lot of accelerating. I think they picked projects that they know will be going forward quickly to illustrate what they mean and to signal to the investment community that they are serious about this.

Would this be enough for a pipeline promoter, for instance, to look and say, well, gee, this sounds like I could maybe take a huge bet on building or putting a pipeline plan forward or a gas line plan forward. I am not yet convinced. The real test of that is whether you can get those projects done with the consent of provinces that are not Alberta. And I don't think we are there yet. I think this was a very careful list.

It's interesting. And the next list is also interesting. But I'm left to a couple of questions. And one of those, which I guess we will get the real answer to in a few weeks, is are we facilitating projects? Or are we financing a lot more of the cost of those projects? How much? What is the government's stake in it? Is it larger than it would have been six months ago? And if so, where do we get the money? I totally understand that in some of those projects, the prime minister gave the example of ports. Yes, there is a federal spending responsibility and there will be a federal share. But how are we attracting investment? Are we attracting investment by saying, come on, we've got money that you didn't expect to put forward for this.

That's the first and the other question. Well, are we accelerating projects or are we kind of going around our own regulations? And if we are going around our own regulations for our own good and if it's good enough for some projects, then do we need to just overall our regulatory framework? because if every time it counts, we do, okay, well, we're going to use this law and we're going to bypass our rules. At some point, you kind of say, why are we keeping rules on the books and being selective about this? Why are we forcing X project to go through all these hurdles and Y project to get a pass and pass go and collect all your credits and build your project? So there are a lot of questions left about how in practice this will work.

Okay, Bruce wants in on this. Yeah, Chantelle's point goes to the heart of the idea, as I understand it anyway, of creating a list of projects that are of national significance. Because what you're really doing when you're saying that is that all projects aren't the same. And so we want to be able to extract some that we think have a really important catalytic effect for the country. and treat them as differently as they need to be treated because there are different market dynamics, different rules that apply, that sort of thing. And people will judge at some point whether or not that was a good decision or not. But I don't think it's the same as saying that going forward,

there are no rules that apply to everything. I think what it really amounts to is saying there's a different set of processes that are going to be applied to those that meet this national significance test. The second thing is that I think that market and the expenditure dynamics are probably different for each of them in terms of our taxpayers on the hook for something that might otherwise not be worth spending money on. In the case of small modular nuclear, I think that it's been clear for a while that there's some potential there to expand capacity, not just in Canada, but Canada's ability to commercialize the use of small modular nuclear, which is a lower. or zero emissions form of energy. And the capital just hasn't come together in the private sector in Canada so far. But this could be a breakthrough opportunity for us.

I think that's part of what the government calculation was. In the case of LNG, I think we know that there is a market. And we know that we've got a successful operation in place right now as a country. And so adding capacity in that area is really accelerating our ability to reach that market and secure market share. a different economic calculation but the idea as expressed in the prime minister's release is to attract significant capital to Canada

so clearly that's one of those areas where private capital is going to be big and the last thing is that in the mining sector Canada is a huge magnet for investment from around the world and so accelerating our efforts in there to me looks like yes there's probably some government money involved somewhere along the way but

you know, the realistic hope is that we become an even bigger player in the global mining sector than we have been so far. Okay, I've got two questions on this. First is, you know, there was clearly some opposition yesterday to this. Some environmental groups were not happy. Some indigenous groups were not happy. So I want to know the extent of that. But second is the sense that for most of these projects, not all of them, but most of them

that were announced yesterday. They were already kind of in, you know, as Chantel said, shovels were already in the ground. Things were happening. So was this any more than just Ottawa shoveling some money into these projects? And was it truly a new list of new things that were going to help shape a new Canada? Okay. So new things, no, obviously.

There are more newer things on that B list. There was also a kind of B-list put forward yesterday. For instance, the notion that you would speed up the high-speed train between Quebec City and Toronto is new and would involve a lot of work on the part of governments to ensure that that is the case. I'm not talking money here, but the notion that you could cut down the time to get started on it from eight, think of it. eight years to five years, you guys might have a chance, and I might too, of riding on that, no, I don't believe that, but that's okay. Still, my grandchildren might not be parents by the time it happens. But given that those projects already were shovel-ready and in the ground, they were going ahead. I spent all week in Montreal listening to radio about the port and Contra-Card.

I heard no interviews from principles in that project where it was said that this was ready to happen if only the federal government put it on the list. So those projects would all have happened, but I still believe they are a test case for both sides. The port of Montreal's issue, the one hurdle, has to do with endangered species. and getting a permit from fisheries and oceans

because there is an endangered species in the area where this work would take place. So does that, well, there come a day when cabinet will have to use the law to say we are suspending this law to allow this project possibly. But in the big picture, no, we are not yet at the presentation of projects to change the court or that wouldn't have happened. had this initiative from the federal government in the shape of legislation come forward last spring. I think the one thing that this may be also new in this.

Take Chantelle's point about whether these projects were at various stages of development. Some of them, I think in the mining sector, might not be the same as the port situation. But I think really what we had, I think it was just last week was the establishment of the major projects office and the recruitment of Don Farrell, Calgary executive to run it. And so what the prime minister in effect was also announcing was that these are the first five that I want the major projects office to wrap their arms around and do whatever is needed to accelerate these two conclusions. So, yes, I think there's a certain potential for people to say, well, these don't feel like they're all completely green ideas. But at the same time, I think he was sort of following the logic of we're going to set up a system that's going to help them come to fruition more quickly. I also like Chantelle, think that there's a lot of interesting discussions around that B list. I like the port of Churchill Plus idea.

I think that's got a lot of people interested in looking at ways to expand our export opportunities in that fashion. I run into lots of people who are talking about projects that they are interested in in the Arctic as well. And that was mentioned as part of the next phase of strategic development there. And there's wind energy in Atlantic Canada, which I was encouraged to see there as well. So I think that B list is good. I think the A list is what was on the table to give to the MPO to say, let's get momentum going or keep momentum going, as the case may be. All right. What about the environmental angle to this and the concerns that were raised on the part of some environmental groups yesterday?

and Chantelle, you've been following that pretty closely. Yes, and one environmental coalition, at least, is going to court over C-5, as is in Quebec, and an Ontario indigenous group, I believe, is also going to court. So there is a path there to litigation, but I think by and large, there is a bit of a wait-in-see approach on the environmental side. Why? Because, for instance, the Atlantic Canada Wind Project, I think many in the environmental community would consider that a worthwhile

initiative, a big plus on renewable energy. So it's not black and white, but everyone is gearing up for what will be a battle. we will not be speaking like this on the morning after if and that when that morning comes the announcement of a interprovincial pipeline to tight water that is not going to happen what many in the environmental movement are waiting for or looking for is a strong case to make to the public and for that you need a strong symbol I understand the endangered species issue in the ports of Montreal, but I'm not sure it makes for a huge

great flag to say we are fighting to protect a fish called in French. Sorry, hard to translate fish names. Chevalier cuivere. I don't think that's going to resonate in the way that the environmental strategist would want. But for sure, there is a lot of vigilance out there and serious battles in the making. And to compound the disquiet on the environment, and as you know, these issues, climate issues, play a bit louder in Quebec than in other areas of the country. Premier Legault this week announced that this new environment ministers first ask

is to get rid of regulations and environmental assessments and related issues. So the disquiet has increased, not to Prime Minister Carney's fault, but certainly as a result of this trend towards getting rid of regulation on the environment and on climate. Okay, just one last point on this, and Bruce, maybe you can handle it. I mean, there is a strong environmental caucus within the Liberal Party, and, you know, we've heard all kinds of things in the last couple of months about them sort of watching from the sidelines, very closely as to the kind of things that are happening and what they're prepared to say about it.

They were, you know, they were in Edmonton as part of this caucus meeting, and they were around for this announcement yesterday. How deep is the pressure from them on the inner circle of the Kearney government on these projects as they unfold? I don't see it as pressure as much is there's disquiet.

And I think Chantel's right to be raising the issue of where I don't know where we are relative to how charged this conversation about what is our climate policy as a country going to be because I don't really think that the change in it really started here. I think it started with policies in the United States that have created ripple effects in other parts of the world and created great. economic anxiety among Canadians, which has, to no small degree, cause them to not disregard the climate issue. But when Mark Carney talks about climate competitiveness, he's talking about something that Canadians can relate to in the sense of they want both of those priorities, competitiveness

and emissions reduction, to be at the heart of federal policy, not to prioritize one over the other. In fact, on the weekend, I tested this proposition with about 2,500 Canadians, gave them three choices. We should strive to have a competitive economy and contribute to emissions reductions. Both are important. That was 49%. We should prioritize economic competitiveness, even if it means doing less than we had imagined to reduce emissions. That's 38%. We should prioritize efforts to reduce emissions more so than our economic competitiveness.

That's 13%. So what is telling us is the mood that there was three years ago, four years ago, five years ago about how the economy and emissions reduction work together has become somewhat uncoupled, not completely, but somewhat uncoupled. So your question about what the point of view of these liberal MPs is, I think it probably over time, if it doesn't already, will reflect what their constituents are saying, which is we don't want to choose between these two. things, but we are really worried, not just about climate, but we're really worried about the economy. And I think that's the challenge that Mark Carney continues to see, and we'll continue to see, as he looks at these large projects and finds a way to incorporate things like small modular nuclear, like wind energy, and well, we wait to see whether or not there's a proponent for an oil pet plane. Okay, quick point, Chantal, before we take our first break. I guess this

why it comes in part because a lot of voters and a lot of liberal members were under the impression that Mark Carney's position on the issue wasn't doing one and the other. It was that doing something about climate was the thing to do for the economy. And they're not finding that language anymore. It may come later. But it's completely different from saying, can we have our cake and eat it too? He was promoting doing more for climate. to do more for the economy. Well, as Bruce said, moods change. And they clearly have in the last couple of years

doesn't mean they can't change again in the next couple of years. I'm more worried, I don't know. You want to take a break, Peter, but I was going to point out one or two more small points from our small, tiny, just little tiny points. I'm really worried about the fact that a third of Canadians say that climate change is a hoax and that number is considerably higher among young people than it is among older people.

and 39% say we can't do anything to solve climate change so we shouldn't bother trying. That's closer to 40% again, higher among younger people and older people, that defeatism, but also the distrust. And I don't know where it came from. I don't believe in those two points of view, but the mood has changed over the last several years in those ways. And, yeah, your point about young people is something that a lot of people have been thinking about. this week for a number of reasons not just this one and we may

have a couple of moments to touch on that at the end we're going to take our break we're going to come back and see you know the house sits on starts sitting again on Monday so the liberals have set their landscape of what they want to talk about and the conservatives under Pierre Pauliev

seem to have their ideas of what they want to talk about we'll talk about that when we come back And welcome back. You're listening to Good Talk for this Friday. Bruce Anderson, Shantelli Bear, here, along with Peter Mansbridge, right here at the microphone. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform, or you're watching us on our YouTube channel.

All right. Pierre Pollyev, he's not talking about nation-building projects. He's talking about crime. And he pitched a crackdown this week on the crime. Saying this, that some communities in the country have become war zones. Now, he's not talking about moving the army in, or at least he never mentioned it, as some other governments have done recently into some areas of the country

where they think there's war zones as a result of crime. What did... Well, Bruce, we'll give you this one to start. What did you make of the use of that word and the use of that image in that picture? There's no doubt that crime's an issue in Canada. And in certain areas of the country,

people are worried about it. And some liberals will tell you that they lost some of their writings as a result of not having a strong enough position on bail reform, et cetera. And Sean Frazier, Justice Minister has been trying to deal with that since his new assignment in the new government. What did you make of Polyev's use of that word, the war zones phrase? You know, I think he's trying to do with that framing. what he's always found to be effective for his purposes in the past,

which was to take a policy idea and find the language that is the most electrifying, the most provocative, the most clickbaiting. And I suppose that that's the job to some degree of an opposition leader. So no foul really, I think, for him in the sense of, you know, that's what he should be trying to do is call attention to what he thinks. Now, I think there is a danger that he overstates the problem, looks like he's characterizing another problem other than the economy and the cost of living as being even more pressing.

And I think a lot of voters might look at that and say, well, that's not the case for me. And to your point, Peter, crime does pop up as a more important issue, but it isn't the case everywhere. It's only the case in certain parts of the country where people experience it. And otherwise, using that kind of messaging does have another risk for him, which is that it sounds a bit Trumpian. It sounds too similar, even if he's not talking about using the same methods to deal with it.

It sounds like he's heard some music playing in the United States, and he likes the tune, and he wants to use the same kind of melody up here. So it remains to be seen whether or not it is effective for him. I rather think most people who are going to follow politics are really dialed into the economic questions and the upcoming budget and not so much on crime. Shantan. I totally agree about the risks of the parallel with Trump. I find Bruce to be very moderate when he says a bit Trumpian because when you look at what we see on TV or on social media about what's going on in the United States. and the pushback that is taking place,

you kind of think this is one place where the conservative leaders should not want to go is calling it war zones and hinting. And as it happens, the places that he would describe as war zones

would be Canada's larger cities because for obvious reasons there is more of that sense of insecurity in larger cities who those, major cities, Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver, happen not to elect a lot of conservative entities.

So you're going right into a Trumpian scenario here. I'm going to restore law and order to these liberal left-leaning cities. I think he should steer well fear of anything that suggests that and I am not saying that I believe a Puele of government would send the army

to Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. I don't see that. But beyond that, Canadians are used to equate law and order talk with the Conservative Party. It's part of the brand, but it also means that it's hard to get Canadians' attention to a conservative leader who is talking about being tough on crime because being there, done that, heard that there are provinces where most more conservative governments are in place, Quebec, Ontario, to name two, that is not stopped some of the goings on, so it's not an ideologically, it's not ideological. And like Bruce, I agree that while people may feel less secure than they used to

in the downtown core of many cities, it is not their top of mind concern when they think of the federal government. And just short anecdote, I read a story about homelessness. lived in downtown Montreal. I have seen over the past 13 years how the fabric of the neighborhood has changed for the worst with homelessness, but also drug dealing, etc. And Laplace did a story on downtown Montreal. It was really interesting that people like me were saying, well, we live with homeless people and, you know, they're part of our neighborhood. That's where we are. And said the people who are really spooked are people who actually don't live in the neighborhood tourists and newcomers who maybe find this very disquieting. And I thought that was an

interesting perspective between the perception of people who see this and say, how terrible how could this happen. And people who on a daily basis interact with this reality and say, well, you know, I still live here. And my sense of security is not as great. but I don't feel as threatened as people who do not actually live here and come to visit. Do you think that, do you think through these two issues that we've discussed so far today, that we're seeing what's likely to play out in the House of Commons starting on Monday? My first question is what will play out in the House of Commons in question period. Is it important to anyone who drives 100 kilometers away from Parliament Hill?

Because everyone is setting this up as there is going to be a great spectacle. But if it's going to be throwing brickbats from the conservative benches at the prime minister and the government, I'm not so sure that the audience is going to be captivated. The real big show that I think Canadians are waiting for from this parliament over the next few months is called the budget. And that is where, one, the real character of the government will be revealed because we don't know all that much about Mark Carney. He's only been on the scene less than a year politically, but also the real character of this parliament and its opposition parties and how willing they are to cooperate or not. And it's not a given that any of them will cooperate with the budget. And it's not a given that it wouldn't suit the liberals to be defeated and have an election that maybe could give them a majority.

But anything else, the theater of question period, I think most Canadians have long given up on that spectacle. For obvious reasons, it's a spectacle. Any disagreement there, Bruce? No, no, Chantal is exactly right about that. The number of people who would pay attention to politics on a daily basis. is almost never more than a third, and almost all of those people have their positions already pretty clarified.

But I do think for those of us who do watch it and try to figure out, well, what is it? What are we seeing and how does it foretell a little bit about the future? I think there is a real dilemma for Pierre Pollyeff. I think if we step back from him talking about crime and we say, well, what are the normal sources of fuel for conservatives to beat the daylights out of liberals in the House of Commons.

The budget might represent one, but it also might not. We don't, you know, it's not clear that they're going to have a lot to work with unless you're going to start talking about some projects that are going to be announced that they don't think should go ahead or deeper cuts in programs and services in the size of the federal government, which carries its own risks, as Chantal pointed out last week. The second thing for me is that the government has been really moving into conversations with businesses across different sectors about how to help them through the tariff war and how to attract more investment so that they can grow stronger in the future. That business community, at least during the latter years of the Trudeau government, was very much on side with the Conservatives. They wanted to change.

They were done with the liberals, but that isn't the chemistry right now. And so the challenge for the Polyev conservatives is how do they get connected again with that business community, especially since Pollyette kind of made a point of saying, I'm not a corporate friend. I'm not a friend of corporate candidate. You remember when he was in that mode where he was saying, I'm for the working person, and I don't really care about what big business thinks. So that source of political energy isn't where it was for the conservative party historically relative to the Trudeau liberals. And I'm not sure that Pahliav has been able to hang on to that kind of grassroots labor vote that he was so effective at rallying support from when he was competing with Justin Trudeau.

I think the data are telling us something different right now. So I think he's got a real dilemma about what it is that he can use to rally his caucus and his supporters against this government at this moment in time. anyway. All right. Quickly, Chantle. The budget is going to present an interesting choice because don't forget, Pierre Puellev is going to be spending the fall,

campaigning for his own job with a vote to come in January. In that scenario, there is no possibility that he would want to showcase himself supporting a liberal budget. That can't happen, especially not one with a steep deficit. And I figure they're going to focus on the deficit. is it big time.

So they came out of the equation of the budget passing. And I don't know, I guess the conservatives would prefer the budget to pass, but they will want to fight it because Pierre Puelev needs to show his fighting skills to the people who will vote on his leadership come January. I agree with that. We're going to take our last break and be right back with, I guess, the topic that a lot of people have been talking about for the last few days. Do that right after this.

And welcome back, Peter Mansperch here with Sean Tilly Bear and Bruce Anderson, the final segment of Good Talk for this week. I'm glad to have you with us. Okay. We all know what happened in Utah on Thursday. The conservative activist, Maga supporter, podcaster

with a huge following Charlie Kirk was murdered in front of an audience of two or three thousand students. As of this recording, we still don't know who did it or exactly why, but one can assume it had something to do with the thoughts

that he was putting forward, especially to young people. And this is where it hooks up to something Bruce said earlier about perhaps us not fully, you know, those of us of a certain age not fully understanding or comprehending what is being, what is happening for young people, where their interests lie, where their concerns lie about the society in which they're living in, like leadership, their country is showing on various, levels. Charlie Kirk was not a, I don't think he came to Canadian universities, but he was not unknown to some young Canadians. And that's been clear in the last few days

from some of the things we've heard and seen. Where's the lesson here for us in trying to understand what's happening, I don't want to overgeneralize here, but certainly what's happening to a segment, a growing segment of young people in the States, are we seeing similarities here? Bruce, you've been doing some data collection on this. What's your advice to us on this? I didn't think we were going to go there. So I haven't really thought about that. yeah no i'm shantelle you want to tackle that one i'm going to first claim credentials as living on the other side of the language divide where those debates and those issues play out completely differently uh but i do not i believe that even going there is over generalizing uh in the sense

that, yes, all generations have a take on what the scene is like that is different. And this upcoming generation certainly has reasons to think that the future isn't as bright as anyone would want, including their parents. But to transpose what has been happening in the U.S. to campuses in Canada is a slippery slope. Yeah, it is probably, if there is a hardening or a sense of Bruce talked about climate change not being real, et cetera, or let's not do anything about it. I suspect from anecdotal evidence that it's less prevalent than campuses and more prevalent amongst young working Canadians who are finding the job market, the affordability crisis to hit them and prospects for the future to be threatened by AI, for instance. of this kind. But I don't believe you can ever take out of the U.S. Canada mix,

the comparison between the strength of the religious right and the kind of debates that are ongoing, have been ongoing throughout our lives in the U.S., over abortion, over same-sex marriage, over LGBT rights, over Medicare, if you want to go there. We're not having those debates. Yes, there are people who want less gun control in this country, But we are not a society polarized along those issues.

So taking lessons rather than looking in our own mirror to figure out what else and which we can do better is probably a good lesson. By the way, no, go ahead. I was going to say, I mean, obviously what we've seen is horrifying. And we've seen polarization reach a level that I'd never thought that we would see. And I'm terrified that we don't know where the endpoint is in the United States. There's more polarization in Canada than there used to be. And there is more hateful speech than I remember in my lifetime. And there are technological reasons for that.

There are cultural reasons, you know, that have changed. over time. And there's the fact that there's no borders anymore on the information and the communication that people consume comes from wherever it comes from and you don't know. And so that can lead to a blurring of the lines of difference between one culture and the next. But I, like Chantelle, think we're very, very different in an important respects. Even though you can look at young people in Canada and say that frustration levels are high,

you can also see strong left and stronger right than we used to see. But when I say stronger right among young people, I don't really see it as being similar to the kind of thematics that we've been playing out south of the border. The issues are different. They're more economic. They're more a sense of, is there an economic opportunity as opposed to am I being completely culturally disadvantaged or do I have a kind of an agenda of, well, of hate towards other groups in society because of the way that I feel and the way that I feel about my place.

And there are differences between young men and young women in Canada and in the United States as well. So these are complex issues, but I don't, thank goodness, I don't see the same kind of dynamics right now in Canada as the hugely traumatizing thing that we're seeing going on in the United States. Yeah, you know, listen, I think we all agree with that and, you know, and I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise, I guess it's just being such a, such a week that is, it makes you think, it makes you think, it makes you wonder about the place of that kind of thought in our, you know, in the North American context. I mean, you have as the week ends, a president of the United States, embracing everything this guy stood for, sending his vice president out to pick up his body and fly it back to his home. You have them talking and you have them talking about building a statue and Congress for this guy. giving awarding him the Medal of Presidential Medal of Freedom.

I mean, there's a lot of stuff going on here, and it's all directed at young people. I mean, this guy pulled huge crowns. Now, they weren't all supporters. In fact, you know, in some cases, quite the opposite, to try and have a debate and a discussion on, you know, on big issues. But you just wonder, and maybe it's my age showing, that, you know, are we totally miscalculating what's going on, you know, in a much younger generation? Well, for one, you just spent two minutes describing Donald Trump, which I don't think is a sign of what is happening with younger generations.

But for too good that he was attracting huge crowds of contrarians and non-contrarians, because that is what you want. If your idea is worth defending, it's worth defending. And that goes for people who do not share the beliefs of Donald Trump or Kirk or anybody else. You actually want this shock of ideas. I don't think you can preserve ideas by setting them apart and saying they're not debatable. So I believe it's healthy for young people to be confronted with a variety of points of views. and they respond to them

not put them and what do they call them now safe places I'm not a big believer in a safe space yeah I think I think I agree with that that I looked at a lot of what

Charlie Kirk had said over the last couple of years and I didn't like any of it really you know some of it I found quite offensive. But I did note that he was putting it out in context and forums where he was basically saying, this is what I think. If you have questions, you want to debate it.

I don't like the debating structure very much, but it was one. It wasn't. And so in a democracy where you sort of believe that you have to have some combustibility, it was what it was. I think the choices that President Trump is making are, you know, maybe they reflect his values. Maybe they attempt to be provocative politically. I can't get in his head. But they do seem to want to conjure up more of a political battle rather than seek some sort of political calming effect.

And that's got to be worrying. okay um give us just just look forward 30 seconds each uh you know i accept what you said chantel people aren't out there going oh my god i can't wait question period starts in you know 48 hours or whatever it is but what are you going to be looking for next week what are you because you will watch or you will listen or you will read about um parliament's reopening i literally only have a minute for both of you, total. Okay, it's a spectator sports. So I'm going to look at what it looks like, those exchanges between Mark Carney and

Ker-Pol-Yev, because the last time they sparked was at a leader's debate. So, yes, it's a show, it's theatrics, and I'll be curious because Mr. Carney, you may have noticed, spends very, very little time attacking Keir-Pol-Yev or even mentioning his existence. And I find that a really interesting strategy. Bruce, you get the last word. Yeah, I think that the conservatives will probably go after the government on where are we with the United States and why have you failed so far? And why isn't the economy functioning better? You've had a chance to do it and see if they can't get under his skin and get under the skin of his ministers.

I think it'd probably be good for the liberals on their part that they've announced these problems. And I think they have something coming up on Sunday as well. So they'll have answers. And it'll be interesting to see how the different kind of political talents, if I can put it that way, perform in that chamber, a lot of them very new. All right. We're going to leave it at that. Thank you both.

Bruce Anderson, Chantelli Bear. Have a great weekend. And we'll see you all again in seven days. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks for listening. See you both. Bye. Thank you.