The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk -- Do Canadians Really "Hate" Americans?

Episode Date: February 20, 2026

A new poll in the United States has Americans being told that there's a real chill from Canadians about their southern neighbours, and the word "hate" is used.  Feelings are strong, but that strong?�� Bruce and Chantal on that, plus Alberta calls for a referendum on October 19th, but no question yet on separation.  Plus more on leadership challenges for the Conservatives and the NDP.  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 Sean Talley Bear and Bruce Anderson. It's your Friday Good Talk. And we say this every week that we've got lots to talk about. In fact, we do have lots to talk about this week. So let's get right at it. Alberta announces they're going to have a referendum on October 19th of this year. Premier Daniel Smith making that announcement yesterday,

they're going to be like a lot of questions, eight or nine questions. questions, half of them on immigration. However, not one of them directly asking the question that everybody's been talking about for the last few months that Alberta was possibly going to be doing, and that is a question on separation, on secession. What are we to make of that? There's going to be a referendum, but they're not going to ask that question. Chantal?

We don't know that we're not going to ask that question is actually the answer to your question. And why do I say that? Because the people who have been signing up Albertans to get a referendum on a separation, have until the first days of me to gather the required number of signatures. Actually, the notion that there will be a referendum in Alberta on October 19th with nine questions makes it really hard to not have a tent question on that referendum, if that threshold is met, because that is the way private citizens' initiatives

to obtain a referendum work in Alberta. So in that scenario, you would have 10 questions. There's an expression in French. It's called how to try to drown a fish. And it actually feels like that, because what basically you're doing is ensuring that the government of Alberta would be promoting its own questions on immigration and the substance of the questions and the reality that whatever the answers are will result in changes the next day

on the constitutional front is another issue. And it is for Albertans to decide whether they want to be a province that suddenly puts something that looks like a head tax on immigrants for social services. But I would have the government campaign on this federalist-ish agenda while others are campaigning on secession. It's a bit of a dark's breakfast to tell you the truth. If you're going to have a referendum on separation, you should. And if you're going to have a referendum on other issues, you should explain

each of those issues. And if you look at the list that the Premier unveiled yesterday, it is a dark's breakfast of questions. Where are you on this, Brut? Yeah, it looks like a political defense strategy by the Premier. It looks as though what she's trying to do is create the opportunity for people who feel frustrated with the way that things are going in their lives

or in Alberta to say, well, she feels frustrated as well, otherwise she wouldn't have put these questions in front of us. The point I think of the questions is the question, not the answers. She's not looking to develop policy or to win support for policies that she's even tabled. It's more like an expression of, I feel your frustration and I feel the particular elements of frustration that seem to be behind some of the separatist influences so that you can vote yes on the questions that I put. And maybe if there is to Chantel's point that 10th question about succession, you don't need to vote for succession because you've already got me as an advocate for federalism who feels the same way that you do about some of these issues. Now, to say that it's a double-edged sort would be to understate the degree to which questions designed like the ones that we've been reading about with respect to immigration could be divisive. Absolutely, they can be divisive.

They are more reminiscent of some of the federal policy ideas that the conservatives ran on, which caused them a great deal of problems and created lingering mistrust among immigrant populations. Some of the ideas really do sound like creating a second-class citizen role for immigrants in Alberta, which is obviously something we haven't really seen before, but also it's very much at odds with the campaign that the Alberta government was running even last year, inviting more people to come to the province, recognizing that there was a labor shortage

in some critical areas of the economy. So it looks entirely political to me. It looks entirely defensive against this threat of secessionist movement, but I'd be very surprised if Ndp leader Nenshi can't make a meal out of what Premier Smith is doing. And I look forward to hearing what he has to say about these questions today. You know, part of the go ahead, Chantal, you wanted to make. No, but the fact is that if you read the mood, and I don't believe it's going to change dramatically between now and next fall,

if you read the mood, Canadians are not big on divisive politicians at this point. And what Daniel Smith is doing with this is adding divisions upon divisions. So I too, I'm not convinced, for instance, that the likes of Jason Kenney, who has been campaigning fairly hard against independence, separation, would be game to go into a campaign alongside Daniel Smith on immigration in the terms of those questions are put. You can have an intelligent debate about immigration. but this looks like flirting with the section of Alberta public opinion,

a minority section that actually thinks what's happening in the U.S. or even remigration, which would mean taking people who have actually landed here in our immigrants, and you can't do it, but promoting the issue that you could ship them back. I also believe that the business community in Alberta already wary of this flirt with having a referendum on, separation, it's not going to get terribly excited about the notion that temporary foreign workers, people who want to come to Alberta, would face conditions that would mean that they would

have no access to social services unless they have deep pockets. Many of them have the opposite of deep pockets. So I'm curious to see how it plays out. The public opinion polls in Alberta are not showing that Daniel Smith's government is on a high in public opinion, and it's also not showing that our party can remain united in a conversation over these issues and on separation. So we'll see how the NDP official opposition plays it, but there is an opportunity, I think, there. The, you know, one of the undercurrents of that speech last night and one of the undercurrents of concern in Alberta right now, on a part of a lot of people is the crashing price of oil, the world price of oil, down around 60 bucks a barrel now.

And at that rate, it draws into question a number of projects as they relate to the oil sands and elsewhere. because at a certain point, you're not getting enough return for what you're putting into the, producing the product. That is a big problem for Alberta right now. And she addressed it a couple of times, but you've got to wonder if that's really

more on the minds of Albertans, specifically those who are in the industry, than issues of separation, immigration, you name it. It's a big problem. Just before we leave Alberta, what is the end game for Jason Kenney? Well, somebody explained to that we talk about Jason Kenney almost every week now, in one way or another, in terms of the issues that are confronting the province and the country. What's he up to, the former Premier, the former Federal Cabinet Minister?

What does he want here? I do think politics still runs in the blood of Jason Kenney. And I did. I came to that conclusion on election night. He was on the CBC panel on election night, and I thought, this guy's not done with politics, or at least maybe politics is not done with him. I don't know what this endgame is.

But it was interesting this week, and we will get to that, that the notion of Pierre Puellev's fragile leadership came up, and it was a former Quebec lieutenant of the party, Alain Gaias, who remember left after the leadership campaign, who was asked, well, you know, what do conservatives want? Wouldn't they want a leader from Eastern Canada or Central Canada for a change? Wouldn't that help the party?

And he said, no, I think that most or many conservatives are dreaming of someone from the West and that person is Jason Kenney. And I thought that was really interesting from someone who does have links to many conservatives to this day, that the first name that came up, And for those who don't know, Jason Kenney speaks very good French and his actually well-known in Quebec. So there is a section of the Conservative Party that sees Jason Kenney as a potential successor to Mr. Poitiev. And I do believe that Jason Kenney's fight against separation in Alberta is probably not going unnoticed in places like Ontario, where stands like that tend to get rewarded federally.

Yeah, yeah, I would just add that it is interesting to me to watch how in recent months you could sense how tepid the relationship was between people like Stephen Harper, Jason Kenney, James Moore, Aaron O'Toole, towards the Pure Polyev-led version of the Federal Conservative Party. They don't attack it, they don't out and out-critise it, but in the comments that they make about the variety of public issues that we're talking about these days, you can see the distance.

And most of it, I think, comes down to a question of seriousness. I think that, you know, the thing that they think is lacking about PolyS leadership is a serious aspect, given the gravity of the geopolitical issues and the importance of the economic choices that Canada makes, contrasted with what they see as being this kind of relentless bro in the gym kind of personality cult that Pierre Pali has seemed determined to keep on trying to put in front of people. I agree with Chantal. I think Kenny is a very credible voice within the broader conservative movement.

If that is a thing that still exists today to the same degree that it did only 10 years ago or so, And on the Alberta referendum question, not just a separation one, but his work with immigrant communities over the years has been one of the most important things that he did for the Conservative Party. And when I think about, I think the Alberta immigrant population is about 23%, something like that. It's a very sizable proportion of the population. It'll be very interesting to see what he has to say about these questions, which I think inherently do stigmatize. or depending on the exact wording, the intent seems to be to give people the option

of stigmatizing immigrants in Alberta. Okay, we're going to move on. I'm going to read you a quote here. This was not in Alberta. It was actually in Vancouver last night. I'll tell you who it was when I finished reading it. Mark Carney's a smart guy, and he's very popular in Canada right now

because he has a diagnosis about where we are in history. We're at a turning point. But what he wants to be? wants to do is make us into a militarized Petro State, a junior arms dealer on the world stage. Okay, so who said that? That was the leading candidate it appears, if you believe what you're hearing in terms of those who are trying to get a heartbeat into the NDP leadership and figure out who's ahead. That's Avi Lewis.

Last night in Vancouver, which I believe was their last debate they're going to have before the voting. So that's what Avi Lewis thinks of the Prime Minister, a junior arms dealer on the world stage. Yeah. Who wants to take a run at that?

Why don't you start this one, Bruce? Yeah, you know, I guess I looked at what he was saying. He talked about, you know, public ownership of groceries and telecom and banks and it feels to me like

the NDP's definitely got a real challenge. It's not clear to me that we won't end up gravitating more towards this two-party state plus the B-E-Q. I don't think that's necessarily a good thing, but I think the question for the NDP is, is the answer to them in terms of finding votes that they've lost to kind of sound like a 1980s version, kind of a Soviet-era version of left policies, or is it to be really practical and closer to the people than the liberals or the conservatives, closer to progressive people but also the working class?

I don't, in what Abby Lewis is saying, feel like I'm getting that vibe of close to the people, very practical. It's more like I'm going to redesign the economy of Canada around the idea of big government because big government will help you more than the private sector will. There's no question that there's a market for that. I don't think it's that big a market. I don't think he's going to find a lot of traction with that argument.

I'm not sure that the others in the race are as capable of breaking through the communications clutter and attracting attention for what they're saying. But I think that some of what they were saying has been, more potential to resonate with people who are looking for practical solutions rather than some kind of grand design with these sort of rhetorical flourishes of junior arms dealer in a petro state which I don't think I don't think will convince very many people it probably came as news to former Ontario deputy NDP leader deputy leader of the NDP who will be running for Mark Carney and Scarborough in an upcoming by-election to replace Bill Blair, who was appointed to London,

probably came his news also to Wap Kinoo and David E.B. and Naid Nenshi, who have worked cooperatively with Mark Carney and who do have some fairly significant NDP credentials, starting with one that Davy Lewis has yet to attain, which is getting elected to a seat anywhere. including the House of Commons. I think the federal NDP is in significant trouble, in part, in general, because people aren't looking for new voices or voices in the House of Commons as much as for someone to deal with Donald Trump, which kind of rules out the Bleuque, Quebec and the NDP from that running.

But I also believe that their leadership campaign has fraught with perils in the sense that none of the three leading candidates appeals very much, on the contrary, to the followers of their rivals. And that is also true of whatever is left of the federal NDP caucus. There are MPs in there who have absolutely zero appetite for sitting in a caucus that is run by Avey Lewis from outside the House of Commons. and there are others who fervently want him and they're not necessarily on cooperative speaking terms

on a weekly basis. We will know by next week whether the last Quebec NDPMP is leaving the House of Commons to run provincially. Alexandre bullerriss, and it has not been denied, once subject to a rule change from Quebec Solidaia, wants to run for Quebec Solidae in the next election.

if Rosemont that is writing opens up, the NDP will not be in play. In the case of the NDP in Quebec, we are back to the days, and I'm being generous of Ed Broadbent, because Ed Broadbent was light in Quebec, even if he didn't get seats. I don't think that any of the three candidates

at this point has made any impression in Quebec, except whatever they're up to is of no interest. So A.V. Lewis, with language like that will drive the provincial wings, the successful provincial wings of the NDP further away from the federal NDP. That's the first consequence. They're not going to play in that movie or help play in that movie because they are serious people in government and they have a history of being in government. And so it's probably enough to be elected NDP leader under the rules of the federal NDP. Whoever shows up gets to vote wherever they are. But I don't think it solves.

I think it makes the problem of the federal NDP at this juncture probably worse in the short term. You know, Bruce had an interesting phrase there that he used at the beginning of his answers, sort of, that, you know, we've become this, and it appears that we will continue to become this two-party state, NDP, sorry, liberals and the conservatives, but the phrase was two-party state plus the BQ.

So really still a three-party state in some fashion, but I hear what you're saying. Here's my question on that. It was only a little more than a decade ago that the NDP were the official opposition, Jack Layton. 100 seats, more than 100 seats. How did they become irrelevant so fast, if in fact that is what they've become? Is there an easy answer to that question?

Well, I guess I remember going to that NDP convention, the one that took place just after the orange wave. And I expected a huge celebration to tell you the truth. They broke true. They won Quebec. They were on the doorstep of government. and the liberals were way down. And instead, a lot of delegates were really anxious about what that meant to the party. I do not think that the federal NDP has ever succeeded in making the switch from movement to contender for government.

That has happened in the provinces. but and I always believed that showing Thomas Malkear at the door as it happened was a sign of that. Yes, we're happy. Remember, every convention that Jachmeseing had, people were saying how happy and comfortable they were with him. And every election, he kept bringing the NDP back to where it was 20, 30 years ago. Every election was a setback. So if that's what the NDP wants to be a movement, Bruce is right outside Quebec.

We are seeing provincially a two-party system in most provinces west of Ontario. And we will see that in the House of Commons with the Black Quebequa on the Quebec stage. And I'm not, if they cannot do well against the leader like Mark Kearney, who comes across as more conservative than the average federal liberal leader, then maybe there is a moment when they have to ask themselves

if they're doing something wrong. Bruce. Yeah, I think that there are two factors that stand out for me. One is that there was an outbreak in politics sometime back between the time of Jack Leighton and then Justin Trudeau, an outbreak of virtue marketing as the fashion. in Canadian politics, but not only in Canadian politics. I think the NDP was for a good while the most effective at virtue market,

basically saying we're going to sell you the highest ideals possible, the most progressive kind of language possible. And I don't say that in a cynical way. I think people wanted to hear aspirations that were attached to values. They wanted to hear more about equal rights. rights and especially equal rights for women and for the LGBTQ community. They started to lose that fight to Justin Trudeau. And to some degree, Justin Trudeau's eventual political demise, at least in the polls,

was the function of people saying there's too much of that and not enough of a focus on everyday issues, bread and butter issues, jobs, that kind of thing. Meanwhile, because of its enthusiasm for virtue marketing, I think the NDP really lost touch with a big part of its blue collar support, its working class support. And the conservatives were very aggressive about going after that and pulling that towards their coalition. And so the NDP ended up wanting to fight a continued war around virtue, even when the public was saying, let's come back to that later or we don't need to. talk about that now and the conservatives said it pulled up and to some degree even the people's party were pulling some of the people who normally would have voted anti-establishment and maybe considered an NDP vote so all of that now is is changed because the mood is you know i think the

interesting thing about this if we do become more of a two-party system in most places in the country What we don't seem to be doing is making that hyper-partisan choice. You know, I think this is where Pierre Pollyev thinks he had the right idea, but probably doesn't have the right idea because Canadians are looking at our situation and say, we should try to pull together here. We should probably not try to end up doing what the United States is doing, where you can't even talk with your neighbor about politics anymore. We should be looking for policies from the conservative party that are more like the ones,

that the liberals are offering right now. We should be looking for the liberals to kind of continually bear in mind some of these more small-sea conservative, fiscal and economic instincts that Canadians have to. Okay. We're going to take our first break. We've got lots more to talk about right here on Good Talk right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to Good Talk for this Friday.

Chantelli Bear, Bruce Anderson, Peter Mansbridge, all here with you for our discussions today. You're listening on Serious, Channel 167, Canada Talks are on your favorite podcast platform, or you're watching us on our highly successful YouTube channel. And I've got to say that. I'm amazed at how many of you watch on our YouTube channel the last couple of weeks up there, around 150,000 views, which, as I've said before, is more than some television programs get.

So we're very happy and pleased with that. Okay, next topic. many Americans are waking What advertisers are you wearing this morning? It looks like you're doing some sponsorship with your clothing. What is that? It's not sponsorship.

It's just it's part of my rule. I'm the honorary colonel. No, I could. I'm kind of special operations branch. I can't tell you anything more than that. Oh, okay. James Bond. Exactly.

I'm sworn to secrecy. Official secret. What was I going to talk about? Oh, I know what I was going to talk about. Many Americans this morning are waking up. To this headline, look how much Canadians hate the United States now. It's based on a new poll.

The Politico's done. It's quite an extensive poll, too. And, you know, I don't think it's going to surprise us that Canadians are anxious about what the Americans have been doing and especially what Donald Trump has been doing but it has been more than

a year now and the depth of these feelings has only grown. It's deeper now than it was a year ago. It's deeper now than it was six months ago. It's deeper now than it was a month ago if you believe these numbers. Okay.

Chantelle, I mean, what do you make of it? You've looked at this polling data. I'm no surprise. We live right next door. This is being relentless. Mr. Trump regularly every second week comes up with his latest attack on Canada in some way, shape, or form. He spent the year portraying Canada as a predator state and at the same time some kind of a beggar on a street corner. And Canadians, no, that's not true.

I would make a quick distinction between it's one thing to tell a poster that you believe the United States is the biggest trap, which objectively at this point it is for many Canadians who earn their living based on the Canadian economy and trade relationship with the U.S. and another to say you hate Americans. Those are two different issues. But the United States, as it is cast by its president and by its envoy to Canada, is a state that has been hostile to Canada in a way that no other state has been as hostile to Canada over the past year. And that has been not a one-day thing or a one-week thing. It keeps coming back. So would you expect people to answer? You ask them, what is the biggest geopolitical threat to you?

Well, at this point, they're not going to say some remote country is when the danger is right next door, and it systematically threatens the livelihood of thousands of Canadians or even the existence of the country. So, yeah, you kind of get, you know, if that's what you spend all year building, well, that's the end, the result. And it's not going to be fixed quickly. I don't think Canadians are going to forget this period in our. our history easily. Yeah, I think it's generational. I absolutely agree with that.

Bruce, what do you make? I mean, you do it, is there anything surprising in this poll, or is this the kind of stuff you've been seeing? Yeah, it's very much the kind of stuff I've been seeing. Suggesting Canadians are paying attention, and we've seen poll after poll saying they are paying attention to this. And the answers that they gave are the only logical answers really to give. It's kind of hard for me to imagine that people would not give these plurality or maturity answers.

Why? Because, you know, I was thinking about this as I was reading the write-up. No country in my lifetime has done as much to threaten other countries that I can think of as the United States has done in the last year. No country in the world right now that I can think of asserts that the world should be dominant. by the most powerful, which is essentially the U.S. strategic view of how the world should work. That might is right. And America and other powerful countries should be able to take whatever it is that they want if they have the military or economic force to make that stick.

I just don't remember. Maybe you guys can remember. I just don't remember any other country doing that in my lifetime. and I wouldn't even say to the extent that the United States has, I don't remember it happening that way. The Soviet Union obviously had some of those kind of aspirations, but they didn't say everywhere in the world, this is what should happen.

They said this is what we want to do in this part of the world where we operate. There are a couple of things, though, in the, you know, just a pollster nerd part of me would say we should be cautious. The questions, as I saw, them never used the word hate. The question about, you know, so there's a lot of frustration and anger, but to read into the data that Canadians hate Americans, I think, is an exaggeration, or at least it's not proven in the data and I don't think it's right.

There's also a question about, is it better to depend on China than to depend on the United States? and that was written up as though Canadians are warming to China. And I think there's a distinction to be made there. Better to depend can be a very pragmatic thing. Warming sounds like we've had a kind of an opening of our hearts towards China, and we feel that in reverse. And I don't think that's there in the data,

and I don't know that that's there in public opinion, even if one went after it. So I think we need to be careful not to over-hype some of these, but to be very, very clear that Canadians are making a rational, pragmatic calculus that happens to be in line with what the Carney government is saying we need to do and think about in terms of our foreign and our trade policy. Let me ask the question this way, because I think, you know, many, anecdotally, many Canadians I talk to, you know, assume that the Trump era will end at

some point. You know, it's either going to end in 28 or or sooner or soon after. But the assumption is that when it does end and if the tide turns to the Democrats or to a more moderate Republican leader, that this will suddenly, you know, it will ease the situation considerably to going back to the way it used to be.

Does it ever go back to the way it used to be? Well, the first thing I think most Canadians believe is that you go back to a more adult conversation. Whether it goes back to the way it used to be in 2024, who knows? We don't even know what the context is going to be, where we will be, whenever that happens at a point in time that we don't know. But the first problem that Canadians have with the Trump administration and the Canadian government is also in that predicament is unpredictability. And that unpredictability is based on nothing but whims.

So I think most Canadians are right to believe that at some point the Americans will stop wanting to hurt themselves to hurt others, which is basically where the policy is being at over the past year. And that conversations will take place with people who actually are able to keep a straight line and their reasoning at least so that you can actually have a conversation based on facts. But beyond that, how would we know that it goes back to whatever normal is, given all of the things in plate, it could end up, you know, a war in the Middle East, China moving on Taiwan, with the Americans sitting back and saying, well, you know, it's their terror. There are too many unknowns to say yes or no to your question. Yeah, I don't think we can know. And going back to normal is different for my daughters than it is for me.

I remember a time where normal was configured as. certain way. And one of the most important parts of that was that America had built a world order that reflected the fact that America wanted allies. It wanted open trade. It wanted to be a kind of a benevolent player in geopolitics. Now, all of that is gone. And I don't see enough evidence in American public opinion that Americans are saying, wait, just a second, It's better if we respect other countries. It's better if we can count on other countries to be our allies. It's better if we don't try to shame and embarrass and belittle them using the highest office in our land.

There doesn't seem to be much of a sense of outrage or even concern about that among the broad Swarthlander. Certainly there are some. But relative to how insulting and. To Chantel's point, self-destructive it is. People don't necessarily know the damage that they're doing to their economy or their prospects until sometimes it's too late. But there just doesn't seem to be that much outrage. And I'm watching this, you know, this, the American government moving all of its military

ordinance and equipment over towards Iran right now. And I'm remembering that there was a time and it wasn't very long ago that if America, who was going to launch a military initiative of the scale that appears to be planned right now, they would put a lot of time and effort into explaining what exactly it was that they were trying to accomplish, trying to get alignment with allies as much as possible so that they didn't end up in a situation where they were alone. People didn't know what success was meant to look like. But that isn't the America that we see today. And so it's not just one person. It's that very few others in the Republican movement anyway

are saying, well, this is not how it should be. And so I don't know. I think I'm with Chantel. I think it's impossible to say it. You know, you mentioned the Iran situation. It is remarkable, really. I mean, you compare it to, you know, 25 years ago in Iraq. Now, that was a disastrous war, ill-thought-out, poorly constructed, everything about it.

And yet, you're right. George W. Bush had the support of a lot of different countries, not Canada, but a lot of other countries, and he worked at getting that support and putting together a coalition of some kind. That's not happening here. No, meanwhile, we saw that Board of Peace thing yesterday. It was, it looked like a Saturday Night Live skid.

Can you imagine Mark Carney sitting I think what we saw yesterday forecloses the option of buying into this organization. I don't think Canadians would believe that Mark Carney is on brand if he ever, even for free, graced that board. And what I find interesting is as opposed to, you know, when we went for counter tariffs, and it's been said before, we expected allies to do the same and they didn't. But on this score, our main allies are also not sitting at the peace board meeting. This week, France and the UK crashed the negotiations between the U.S., Russia and Ukraine at President Zelensky's request.

So over the past year, there has been a hardening of opposition to some of the Trump initiatives. And in the case of Iran, Bruce is right. be no attempt to sign up allies, but I don't think that President Trump could have signed up the UK or Canada or France or Germany or any of the countries that actually signed up for Iraq way back when. You know, not only that, but there's been no real explanation given as to why he's assembled this like one of the biggest armadas and his. history to head over to that region of the world and to be prepared as soon as possibly this

weekend to strike Iran. I mean, sure, there were the demonstrations. He said he would support the people who, you know, if one more person died in those protests, thousands, thousands died and nothing happened, but let's see what happens this weekend and why they're doing it. But there's been no attempt to explain it, not only to the world, but to the American people. You know, it's their blood. That's right. Leaving everybody, I think, to the obvious speculation that he continues to try to find things to distract people from the Epstein conversation.

I know, but really? Really, he's going to go to that extent? When is the evidence that you've seen that he restrains himself in those who Yeah, I guess. What do we say? What does Canada say? If they attack Iran this weekend, and it's, you know, like a huge,

hollow attack and obviously supported to some degree by the Israelis, Netanyahu was in Washington this week, talking about it. I think it depends. But I do think Canada is to tread carefully, not in the sense of wanting to send military aid to the U.S. in Iran, but because there is a next. expectation in this country from hundreds of thousands of people that we will not be sitting

idly by while the regime continues to kill its own citizens. So there is a balance to be struck. I don't think you can decide where you're going to strike your balance until you know what the parameters are. And at this point, we don't know. But I don't hear President Trump talk as much about all those civilians that are being killed. by the regime, as much as is interest in the nuclear disarmament or prevention in Iran. So it's like the rest. There is absent a game plan, how can you decide where you are going to stand on it? Yeah, yeah.

That demonstration in Toronto last weekend, North York, I should say, was larger than what I believe was the largest demonstration in this country, which happened in Quebec against participation in the Iraq war. We had never seen as many people out there, and it wasn't just the Iranian community that was doing this. But when 350,000 people in winter come and march for something that's not happening in their backyard, a government has to pay attention.

And you're absolutely right to raise that, because it wasn't just that North York demo. There have been demos for weeks now, in cities across the country on this issue. And Marco Rubio yesterday, I think, was saying that, you know, an answer to the question is the goal regime change. He kind of brushed that off and said, well, that's a very complicated, difficult thing,

as though he was basically saying, no, that's not yet. So there was a red line there for a moment. It vanished. And there's some sort of soft thing that's hard to decipher. about nuclear, but it doesn't feel to me like this is anything other than a political charade, to be honest, and I hate to say, because I think, you know, the cost to the United States Treasury and probably to lives is going to be significant. And but we are where we are, I guess.

We are. And where we are also is at time for our final break, and we'll do that. back right after this. And welcome back. Final segment of a good talk for this week, Chantel, Bruce, Peter, all in the house. Okay, I hesitate to raise this, as I say at times.

I know that whenever we sort of mention the two words royal family, Chantelle heads for the exit. So you're going to give Pierre Puelly up the gift of not having any discussion about the week he's had? Who knows what royal family I was talking about? I agree. Someone who we already know is a bad character.

Trump's what's happening to the leader of the official opposition. I'm sure Mr. Poyev will come on your show now. He will actually. Yes. He's due to come on next week. I should have known. We can ask the same question we've been asking for weeks now. There will be more.

There will be more? Yes, there will be more defections. And when will that? What are they waiting for? I guess it's such a personal decision that I'm going to leave it to them to decide the timing, but nothing good is coming.

And no, no one is defecting to the conservatives anytime soon. And what's the bottom line? Why is this happening? because of Pollyev or is it because of the Carney government's approach to things? I believe the

I believe there's Jamin Chivainnythin. The trip to the US of an MP with no nothing except the self-appointed mission that lands him in Trump rhetoric about Canada not being, you know,

the his he-y-fit comments about Canadians, why would they be like that? And the absence of Mr. Poilev's interventions to say this isn't until very late in the game, this isn't what this is about. I think that was the last job for many MPs who have wanted Pierre Poiliev to acknowledge that there is an issue that is existential for Canada on the Canada-U.S. front and instead saw some mealy-mouty. Imagine that you're an MP in a caucus that needs to ask permission to talk to you. but doesn't need to ask permission to talk to Trump advisors and come back with the Trump message.

If you're an MP, what do you say? You say, I don't want an election under this leader. The best way to avoid it is for me to work with Mark Carney by crossing the floor and then nullifying the possibility of an election for the foreseeable future and possibly leaving other MPs who remain in caucus time enough to get rid of that leader in time for an election in two years. three years. Bruce.

Yeah, I agree with Chantel. I think that if you were a backbench MP and Pierre Pahliav's caucus, you'd be hard-pressed to imagine that you're ever going to have a bigger role, be more able to express yourself in front of a broad audience.

He sticks with Andrew Shear and Melissa Lansman, who I don't think are very effective voices for his party. I'd say that even more strongly about Andrew Shear, but there doesn't seem to be any effort by Polyev to shine a light on some of the other talent that he's got. And so if you're one of those people, you're looking at this leadership situation and saying, Pierre Polyev is desperately trying to avoid an election. No matter what he says day in, day out, he does not want an election because he knows that he will lose that election and his political career will be over. So you're looking at that situation saying,

okay, I'm going to end up in another election with this guy as leader three years from now, and I do not believe that the country will vote for him. I know the theory for Polyev is, well, at some point, Trump will no longer be the issue, and the liberals will be vulnerable because of that. But hope is not a strategy, and that is not guaranteed that those circumstances will exist. And if you're one of those backbenchers, and you just don't think that Pierre Polyev is ever going to sell, watching another floor crosser this week and Pierre Polyev putting out a workout video is only going to make you more vulnerable if you're Pierre Pauliev.

And I don't know what's going to happen. Chantelle usually has pretty good information. So I'll be watching closely. But I would expect that those pressures continue. I, you know, I'm just kind of tired of the dance. Like if you're going to go, go. You cover John Turner. How long did it go on for?

Yeah, I know, but I'm talking about the floor crossing dance. You know, either you're going to do it or you're not. The election was a year ago. We've heard these stories for almost the entire year. You know, cut the deal you're going to make if you're got to cut a deal or just go, but do it and move on. Because this is crazy. I totally understand that it's hard for someone to leave a political family.

I also believe a number of MPs waited to see what would happen in Calgary and how Mr. Poliab would conduct himself going forward, which is why the Giovanni episode kind of broke that camel's back. Yeah. Because it was a golden opportunity to say that's not how we do this in this caucus. Yeah. And if you can't, he's got a trade critic. He's got Adam Chambers, a trade critic.

And we never hear about him. And instead we've got to watch Jamil Giovanni. And the most that Pierre Poliyev could persuade himself to say was he speaks for himself. He doesn't speak. I speak for the party. I'm the boss. Do you know what that means when you have to say it? It basically means you're that there's a new Brunswick MPU once and has told the world that he wants to pay.

He doesn't want the next raise in this pay. That's a solo operation. It's also another sign that increasingly. caucus is saying, I don't care what Pierre Pladeev and his team believe. I'm going to do whatever I think is best for me, even if it embarrasses others or the leader. And at that point, you say, well, you know, people that give him an 87% confidence vote, except that Quebec and Atlantic Canada were largely missing in action, large sections of the Ontario Conservative family was attending an Ontario Conservative convention.

If you're an MP from those regions, your members did not go to Calgary to vote confidence in Mr. Pueleev. Your hands are free. But I understand that for many of them, they saw the leadership review vote as a turning point. And a moment when Pierre Pueleev, free of those shackles, could show whether he was going to kind of build on that confidence vote in a way that brother, him back in the conversation. I don't know about you guys. I do conferences for groups, teachers, executives, car salesmen,

and there are times when the name of Pierre Puelev never comes up. And that is striking because it basically means that he is out of the conversation on the central conversation in Canadian politics.

Sorry about the royal family. There are so many ways to care. Listen, I wasn't banking on you. saying anything about the royal family. But I'll give Bruce 30 seconds if he wants to close out the program on it. As long as it doesn't

sound as though I'm a devotee of the royal family, here's what I would say. The contrast between the image of Donald Trump's people putting this giant banner hanging down from the Department of Justice building and the King of England

saying, do what you need to do with my brother. The law must be upheld. That contrast was welcome for me, and I hope they throw all of the books that they can at Andrew Mount Baden, Windsor. That's very good. He's up to the terminology. Finally. And I know some of those books might bounce back on other characters to our home, as in south of the border. Yeah, well, it is amazing that the, you know, the Epstein scandal has gone global and there are investigations going on in all parts of the world and resignations. And places are doing something about it.

Yeah. And in the States, we're still at square one. All right. We're going to leave it for that for this week. Lots to lots that we covered. I'm glad that we did. Thanks to Chantelle. Thanks to Bruce.

Have great weekends. And we'll talk again next week. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks for listening. Bye for now. Bye.