The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk Encore -- If This Is The Price Of Becoming An Energy Superpower, Is It Too High?

Episode Date: May 18, 2026

Encore Episode. Mark Carney says Canada can become an energy superpower, given its potential in oil, gas, electricity, solar, and wind. But as we are seeing now, to get there, some old promises need to change. Is that price too high? Just some of the questions and one of the issues for Chantal and Bruce on today's Good Talk. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Are you ready for good talk? And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here, along with Chantelle-A-Barre and Bruce Anderson. Good to have you with us for our Friday Good Talk, and it's always lots to talk about. Let's start this way. You know, it was a year ago, I guess during the election campaign and certainly immediately after it, that Mark Carney started talking about turning Canada into an energy superpower. And let's face it, we have the reason to believe it could be Canada, a energy superpower. We've got oil, we've got gas, we've got minerals, we've got the power to create more electricity,

we've got solar, we've got wind, we've got it all. The question is, how do you harness it, how do you deliver it, that which you'd like to deliver for export, how do you do all that? So that's been the discussion and the negotiations and the talk for much of the past year. And we're getting around to some of the actual deals could be as early as today later on in Alberta between the Prime Minister and the Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. However, there is some discomfort among some within the governing party. We're not talking about a lot, at least we're not aware of a lot,

but certainly some, including a former minister, that the price is too high, that the price involving kind of turning back on some of the commitments of the past, especially on climate. So that's our opening question today. Is becoming an energy superpower, is the price too high?

And Bruce are going to get you to start this week. Well, you know, I think the term superpower is kind of more of a political connotation than it is an actual measurable thing. Like nobody knows when you become a superpower as opposed to just successful at developing and marketing your energy to the world. But, you know, using that, the scriptor helps people kind of focus the mind on, oh, what is the potential for Canada? Is it to do a little bit better than we've been doing?

Is it to do a lot better than we've been doing? And in what areas? And I think the prime minister has been consistent in talking about being a clean, and conventional energy superpower. So he's got ambitions both for the generation of energy from clean sources, renewable sources, and for fossil fuels. And the conversation that's happening, I gather, today, is specifically about a pipeline to the West Coast.

Now, it'll be interesting to see what the details are as they emerge, because obviously we can tell from the signals that have happened through the media that there's been an active discussion involving, the oil producers and the Alberta government and the federal government about one central issue, which is, are we just going to produce barrels and not make any effort to mitigate the emissions alongside those barrels, or are we going to make efforts to mitigate those emissions so that our overall effect on the climate change issue is moderated? I think we're going to see efforts to do that. I don't know that they're going to look like what they looked like they would be last

year when the oil companies were talking about carbon capture and storage that had made significant commitments to invest in that. But I'd be surprised if whatever agreement is reached doesn't involve developing the idea that we're going to do a couple of things with oil. One is that we're going to serve it or sell it to more markets than the U.S. Why? Because it generates more revenues for Canadians and because it creates less reliance on a single market that might or might not be stable all the time. And I think the second thing we're going

to see is what is the nature of the accommodation between the oil sales producers who don't seem to be that impelled by the climate change issue and the prime minister and the federal government, which does care about the climate change issue and where is the Alberta government kind of sitting in between that? We don't know those details, but I think those will be the ones that people will properly focus on in addition to the economics of what another pipeline might look like. How do you see it, Chantal? So I'm going to set the politics aside for now because I know we will come back to it. I'm going to take a huge step back here.

I was listening to what was happening between President Trump and China over the course of the week. and more Chinese goods means basically more very hard to beat competition on the front of manufacturing. And I caught this argument, which I thought was really interesting, that if the U.S. and China develop that relationship, one of the consequences possibly for other trading partners of the U.S. is the industrialization, i.e. you cannot find your salvation in this trade war via manufacturing because you're just not going to make the cut. And if you want this point to be driven, you only need to look at what's been happening in Quebec with furniture makers shutting down, not because so much of the trade war, but because the Chinese imports are killing them. They just can't compete with the prices.

If you are the Canadian government in the middle of this, looking at a trade war with your main trading partner, looking at your main trading partner, or going, by the way, for those critics of that very modest deal we made on EVs and potash. That's what's happening between the U.S. and China. You would probably be implying to fall back on the one thing that we have that it cannot be taken away just by competition, and that's natural resources. And if you're going to go big on natural resources, including using terms like energy superpower, you are inevitably, at least in the short term, and I would argue in the midterm, be stepping back from your climate objectives. And from your stated target, I was struck yesterday that the prime minister would not repeat that we are still on target, but basically says I'll provide an update to where we are, undeniably over the past year.

The Karni government, and very methodically not by accident, has been dismantling a lot of the climate policy, but also environmental policy infrastructure. Not so much more on the abstract for now than in fact, by giving itself the power to do things, endangered species as an example. That has not happened yet, but the way has been cleared for that to happen. You ask, is the price too high?

Well, it's probably too early to tell. I understand Bruce's argument that we are going to be selling oil to other markets than the US, but their reality is, in the best case scenario, we are not, at least not for a decade. It's one thing to talk about approving a possible pipeline project by September 2027, which is one of the notions that is out there this morning on leave of this announcement. And it's another thing to get it done and to get that oil to water. I was also struck yesterday by something that Pierre Puev put out, which was not as usual video stuff, but rather a list of things with boxes that you need to take to get to

this pipeline and this selling more oil. And one of those items down the list, after indigenous consultations, after pipeline route, was ensure that we produce more oil so that this future pipeline is actually filled. And I thought, this is really interesting because it moves on two fronts.

My last point will be about this electricity stuff that we heard yesterday. Oh, it sounds great. It requires a hell of a lot of provincial cooperation for anything like that to happen. And I think the litmus test of the credibility of that is coming. Perhaps as soon as next week when Newfoundland and Labrador unveils an expert report on the deal with Hydro-Chebec on Churchill Falls and Gull Island, because that's a no-brainer.

If those two provinces cannot come to an agreement on this, the rest of it really sounds like a pie in the sky federal scheme that will not bear fruit for a long, long time, because you have to start somewhere, and this is the obvious litmus test, and whether the federal government agrees or not that it is, if it can't pass that minor test of Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec resolving their issues to both their benefits, to, yes, produce more electricity, but also do better out of the United States, of it for both of them, then who will and what other deal will actually happen beyond the talking points for four months?

All right. We may come back to that in a minute, but I know Bruce wants in on this right now. Yeah, a couple of points. I'm glad that Chantal mentioned the concern about endangered species and pointed out that at this point in time, what we're really talking about is a potential. downside, a risk in the abstract. And I think this is a critical point as we think about the politics of this. Any government can change legislation, change regulation in a way that ends up harming the environment. The question of whether or not changing the regulatory

system will do that is partly a question of because the government has the power, will it use the power in those ways or will it simply allow itself the opportunity to tilt the way that the system has worked from a regulatory standpoint from a situation where maybe the bias was slow and towards no when new projects are put on the table towards something that's faster and maybe more neutral. Now, people are going to hear that and some people are going to think that spin. My own view is that it's going to come down to a question of will people trust Mark Carney to be a, not just a disciplined steward with some sense of urgency, which he's often talked about for the economic benefit of the country,

but also a disciplined steward on the environmental side. No question that Chantal's point of people who are concerned about the changes that have been made to the regulatory system are looking at Mark Carney and saying, do you really care about these things as much as we hope you do or as much as much as we thought you did. And so it'll be on him to continue to marshal the arguments that what he's doing is twinning the economic urgency that he feels with the environmental responsibility that I believe he believes in. And I think that's going to be something that's going to play out over not a week, not a month, but over the next two, three years.

So I think we saw this week a perfect example of why it's easy to talk in the abstract and why it becomes politically increasingly toxic to talk in fact. And I will go back to the endangered species. I agree with Bruce. No one is doing anything to any species at this point. There's just a window that has been open. But when Alti Arras wrote about this in the Star, the Star put a photo of a killer whale.

And immediately liberal spokespeople reacted. as if they'd been burnt, because suddenly there was a poster species for what those changes could lead to. I am not saying that we're going to be in the business of ignoring the fate of killer whales, although if the Karni government does endorse a northern route to Prince Rupert for a pipeline,

expect to see a lot of killer whales and a lot of other things in the process. that will actually get people really exercised about this. But the real point is, once there is, we do not have anything on the table now that has a concrete project. And in this country, every environmental battle that has been won by environmentalists, there's never been one on the field of having a discussion over regulations or what they could do or doomsday scenarios.

They've always been won on rainforest issues. the case of Haida Gai, Great Whale Project in the case of Hydro-Cabec, i.e., the day will come when this will have, these words will have faces, facts, files that you can hang on to. And at that point, that is when the real battle starts, not in the abstract, we're just talking about discussion paper or even the prime minister's contention that he's going to double the electricity production and diminished prices across the board. We're not going to see any of that for years in any event. I'm not even sure Mark Kearning would be the prime minister

to be proven right or wrong by the time any of this seriously materializes. But that is the challenge. And unless it's not going to be good enough at that point for the federal government to say we unveiled a really great nature strategy. That's not going to make the cut against the picture of a killer whale. We saw that this week. And there was a warning in that. episode this week.

And obviously, suddenly, it became harder to say energy superpower when people are asking you, so you're going to make killer whales disappear. Unfair question. But that is where this fight is going. And the next round will be harder for the currently government than this round is. All right. I want to talk about the politics of it now in a little more detail. Because, you know, as Bruce has mentioned, and you can't argue.

with the polling data that's out there by seemingly every different polling firm in the country, that Mark Carney holds a commanding personal lead in the polls. He has enormous ratings for trust on the part of the majority of Canadians. So I guess what I'm asking here is, I mean, he doesn't have a blank check on that score. He can't just do anything and not run the risk of losing some of that support. So I'm, what I'm wondering is, what is this telling us just in the past week or so about that, you know, the nature of that support and how solid it is? Because the questions that are being raised, and, you know, once again, we're talking about what appears to be a small group, but certainly a group of different liberals within the caucus and within the party who are raising,

eyebrows at least in terms of some of the things they're hearing on the price that will be needed to pay to achieve some of these goals. You know, the former Environment Minister who quit the party, or sorry, quit the caucus, quit the cabinet, still in the caucus,

but may end up leaving the caucus. There are kind of hints of that. We'll see where that goes. But other members who are, as I said, Raising eyebrows, have some concern about all this. At what point is this a danger to Mark Carney, given the enormous lead he has, as I said, in all these different polls at the moment.

Just in truth, we did have a lead like that year-in, so no one gets a blank check in politics. That's not how politics work. Remember how Oswe de Go was the most popular premier in the country. He could do no wrong, walked on wall, and now he's drowned and no longer steering any ship. So that's, but I'll just give you a sense of the flavor of this week, for instance. Yes, Stephen Gilbo has been one of the counter-arguers on some of this stuff,

and he has been very agile in doing it in the sense that he hasn't accused Mark Carney of being a whale killer or someone who wants to burn the planet. He actually agrees with the notion that we should shorten approval times for projects. And he has pointed out something the government sometimes fails to do and should have, that shortening approval times also works for projects that are in the interest of climate. And so thank Mr. Gidbo for pointing that out because it kind of got lost in the arguments that the Prime Minister put forward. But Quebec is a large part of the polling success of Mark Carney and the federal liberals at this point. I think a poll this week pegged support for the liberals, the federal ones in Quebec, at 49%.

You're not going to see that in a ballot box, but that is a real high. There was an editorial cartoon in Laplace this week. It showed Stephen Gilboe, and then it showed Mark Carney pulling a paperback bag off his head and the head under it is Stephen Harper. These things, they kind of have a way of being corrosive over time, over how people feel about someone who ask credentials on the environment. And they do still matter to a lot of Canadians. As for what the perils are, well, Stephen Gidgo is one,

but there are that majority, that Mr. Carney has recently enjoyed, is very fragile, and there could be others. And if they did leave caucus, two or three of them, that majority would no longer be a majority. And the assumption that you would automatically, in by-election, suppose they quit politics, replace them with liberals, is one that I'm not sure you want to test in L'Iriis-Saint-Marie, a writing that used to be known why, because it kept electing, except it has only voted federal liberal since Pierre Trudeau with Stephen Gilbo as the candidate. So it is a sensitive situation.

I believe it can be handled, but it needs to be handled better than by saying, I've got the chops and the polls, so it's full sales ahead and everything's going to be great. Bruce. Well, I certainly agree with that last. statement, but I don't know that I think that that's the way that the government has been approaching, but leaving that aside, look, I think that the politics are quite different from what they would have been 10 years ago, and there's certainly different from what they were two years ago. And by that, I mean, in 2015, there was such a strong consensus around the world of the need to act urgently on climate change. Now, I've happened to

believe there still should be the strength of consensus that there was then. But, but, you know, but, you know, But just as an observer of the public policy and the political and even the public opinion change that's happened in many parts of the world, there isn't the same sense of urgency. So there has been a shift downward in the standard set by the global policy community around carbon emissions. I think the Americans have had more to do with it than anybody else. But be that as it may, it's created a conversation that is that interesting. reduce the term climate competitiveness, which is really, I think, at the end of the day, about making sure that our economy twins its objectives for survival, thriving economically, with what's the best that we can achieve in terms of emissions reduction.

Now, some people will still feel like that's a bad tradeoff to even twin those things, that both of them are equally important and can be achieved together. And I think that's a healthy debate for us to have in Canada. So I think if there's political risk, that's great. We've got a healthy democracy. People on one side of it will make their case. People on the other will make their case. I do think that there's a pragmatic aspect to Canadian politics, which always feels

vaguely uncomfortable to talk about in the context of climate change, for me, at least, maybe not for other people. but I see the polls that say 75% are fine or willing to go along with the idea of another pipeline. That wouldn't have been the number that we would have seen seven, eight years ago. There's no question there was more tension around the TMX pipeline. There was more tension around the Northern Gateway pipeline than there is today. I see the polls, and we've just done one this week, that actually have liberals ahead in every part of the country. Why is that?

Is it because Mark Carney has decided that he's going to temper our environmental ambitions in favor of our economic ambitions? I don't think so. I think it's because people look at him and say, we trust the basic value system that he has, the direction that he's applying to the country, and then I'll finish on this point, if you care about the environment and the climate change issue,

you're certainly going to be that kind of person who's the attention. enough to Canadian politics to know that if pure Pauli ever were the prime minister, it would be a much different conversation about endangered species, about indigenous rights, about emissions and climate change. And so as long as that's part of the politics of Canada, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. I don't see Avi Lewis developing that kind of strength for the NDP. That could be a kind of a rival to the liberals.

And I don't see the Conservative Party deciding that it's going to pivot towards a more centrist position. or embrace the climate agenda. So the politics, I think, are, have evolved a lot. And in the end, there's no simple answer to it. It's a healthy democracy that's going to debate this. And I'm, you know, I'm happy to see that, to be honest. I still think that if the kindly liberals lead in every region, it is also by default. And it says a hell of a lot about Pierre Puelev. himself and it does say things about Mark Carney's leadership. If he was hapless, I can't make up my mind and I only have alphabet soup to offer when I speak. He wouldn't be where he is. But the Pierre Poityev argument, which helped get Mr. Carney where he is, is even more valid today.

People just don't feel that there is an answer to the question, who else? And I was striking this week because things were happening and things have been happening in Alberta, the province that Mr. Poilev deems to represent in the House of Commons. And the words Alberta rarely cross his lips. And that, frankly, it has been, you know, we talked last week about Jason Kenney, calling on all hands to defend federalism. The first person would have been his own leader federally. And it's radio silence on the part of the conservative. So I think people just feel that there's Mark Carney and then if you want to, you can vote for a third party. But if you're looking at someone who's going to, obviously you want the prime minister these days. You're not

going to be saying, oh, I've got so much better choice on the other side of the aisle. It's rarely been as weak when you look at the personal ratings of the two. The gap is one isn't even in the race for best prime minister compared to the other. It's not a race. It's a one-man show. Okay, let me, we're going to come up on our time on this segment, but let me ask Bruce this one, because he doesn't like it when I asked this question.

He didn't like it a year ago, and he probably still doesn't like it now. But, I mean, a year ago when I said, you know, is there like a time limit as to when he's got to show some. real deliverables. And is it, you know, like six months or what have you? And you said this was a year ago, you said, no, no, no, he's got time. Well, it is now a year later.

There could be a deliverable of some sort today on the energy front in this, you know, meeting with Danielle Smith. There might be, we'll see as the day progresses. But is there a point at which he kind of, there's no doubt he has the trust and the faith of the Canadian people, the majority of them at the moment. But is there a time at which he's got to start putting some things on the shelf? He's got to have some deliverables on some of these actions towards creating an energy superpower, more than just talk.

Well, I like the question. I'm surprised that you thought I didn't like the question last year because I liked because I... Well, you were right last year. The question is, will you be right? this year? I was right. I mean, I think that last year was really marked by a conversation with a lot of observers wanting to say, if he doesn't solve housing affordability by the fall, if he doesn't get grocery prices down by the fall, if he doesn't make major projects happen by the fall, if he can't have a pipeline starting construction by the winter. And all of that was just nonsense. It was just

political, it was manufactured political commentary without any tethering to what it is that people were actually telling us about how they were feeling about the world, about the economy, about Canada's risk scenario, and what kind of leadership they wanted. People weren't really expecting that he was going to be able to find some magic solution that other leaders in other parts of the world haven't been able to find to bring down the price of groceries or that he was going to be able to so hasten the development of new infrastructure that it was going to be popping up all around us within months. That was a kind of a manufactured sense of political drama, if you like. The public, from my standpoint, again, our latest survey shows 67% approval. So it did drop down through those

winter months to, you know, kind of high 50s, still very high. But it's back up now and why? Partly because this is a bit of a risk scenario for the prime minister and the liberals. So people feared kind of economic doom at the beginning of last year because of the strength of what Trump was saying and the sense that maybe there's nothing that we're going to be able to do about it. Well, for many people, the economy hasn't got worse. For most people, the economy hasn't got worse. But for some, it's surprising in the sense that they're able to kind of live their lives. There are certainly a significant number of people who still find shelter,

unaffordable and a strain, and the same thing with food. But if the expectations last February were this is going to be a really awful year, it didn't turn out to be a particularly awful year for people. So has that made people feel, okay, so now it's really more urgent than ever before that this pipeline happened, that these things all look materially on the table to me? I don't think so. I think people are saying it's a complicated world. There's a lot of cross pressures. The United States is an important conversation, and we need to take our time.

We've gone from 65% saying we need a deal now to 78% saying we should take our time. that's a massive shift. And it's the kind of thing that only happens when people are dialed in to the reality that the prime minister discusses, which is this complicated world. We need to know the direction that we're going in, keep on going in that direction, not lose a sight of the fact that the world is changed and that we need to build something that's more resilient. I think Canadians are on board for that idea, and I think they will continue to be for some time. All right, Shantel, you get the last word on this before our break.

I actually think that for many voters, the past year has been over whether they hired Mark Carney on credentials. They wanted to see in that first year that was the main question for many voters. Would those credentials actually translate into someone who was a solid political leader? And remember, that has not always been the case. Paul Martin had really strong credentials, a really good track record. And he didn't step up in the way that people hoped for when he became prime minister. Stephen Harper went the other route. So I think we are done with the transition period.

The conclusion to that question is that, yes, he has transitioned successfully into a strong political force. At this point, people are starting to say, let's show me. And the pipeline issue is one, Gull Island and Hydro-Cabed. issue with one, what happens in that or not in Alberta, next fall, what happens in Quebec. All these things are now going to show some other side of Mark Carney. It is not, and his fate will not be unfolding in Parliament, I don't believe, we're headed for any confidence vote anytime soon. But that was the main question at the back of the minds of many of the people who voted for him

is okay, great CV, but this is probation. Can he actually do that job? And the answer, I think, for most voters, including those who didn't vote for him, is yes, he can. All right. Let's leave it at that for this moment. I'm sure we'll get back to it in the weeks and months ahead.

And we're going to take our break now, come back and talk about what happened this week on the Alberta referendum story because it was quite dramatic. for a lot of us, unexpected. We'll do that right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge for this Friday.

That means good talk with Shanteli Bear and Bruce Anderson. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Glad to have you with us. You're listening on Sirius X-M, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or you're watching us on our YouTube channel, or you're listening to us on our podcast. We're glad to have you with us, no matter which way you are joining us on this day. All right.

So a judge in Alberta comes up with a ruling on the referendum basically says, you can't do this because the proper discussions and approval were not given by indigenous groups in this province who have a right on this issue, which is kind of stop things dead in their tracks. those who want separation in Alberta are saying, I don't know, this shouldn't stop anything, and we can work our way around this. And others are starting to say this could be dead in the water.

There may never be a vote on this question, certainly not this fall. Where are we on this? Because it also includes the Premier of Alberta, Daniel Smith, who the Prime Minister is meeting. with, as we said later today, who's been pretty clear that she thinks the process is absolutely okay that they've followed and that it should go ahead. So where are we? What does all let's tell us? Just to make sure that there's no misunderstanding, it is not the approval of First Nations that is in play here, there is no indigenous veto that results from something called the duty to consult.

But the duty to consult has been a matter that the courts have gone into, and it goes beyond me calling you up and saying, so, Mansbridge, I'm going to do this. And you saying, I think that's a really bad idea. And me, I hang up the phone. I say, well, you know, I consulted Mansbridge. We're done here. That is not how the process works. It requires serious and a larger discussion and conversation to fulfill the duty to consult issue. The judge did not blame the people who are leading this petition for not having done that. And it did not really blame the elections, Alberta for not having done that. although elections Alberta could rightly be said to have agreed to set the process in motion despite this box having been ticked,

it blamed the government of Alberta, which puts the government in an awkward position in the sense that it, if you believe this ruling, the government of Alberta should have been doing deep consultations with First Nations in Alberta on a project that it never secure the mandate for and that it is not leading. That is awkward to start with. But where does it leave those efforts to put that question next October? Well, for one, the ruling is pretty categorical. And if Alberta, as it plans to will, is going to appeal it, I very much doubt that there will be a definitive ruling from the next court.

within a timeframe that allows for this question to be put in October. You never know, but summer is coming, and the wheels of justice on issues like that will turn slowly because the next court that hears it will do so, knowing that there is probably going to be an appeal to the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court will wait in. If that's the case, think years, like not weeks and certainly not four or five months. there is another option but I'm not sure that it could work

and that would be for Danielle Smith to say forget the petition I'm going to be asking Albertans this question on November 19th and I'm going to be leading the consultations with First Nations between now and them that's awkward too

because this is a government that never asked for a mandate to lead a conversation on secession that would be taking it on as its project and would be engaging in conversations with First Nations in Alberta that are unlikely to result in anything positive for the separation project or the government. And why does that matter? Because the First Nations who share Alberta with Albertans are probably the most open to resource development in the country.

but if you're going to step all over them, then you are complicating significantly your own path to resource development inside Alberta but also outside. And if the duty to consult is something that the government of Alberta dismisses, every First Nations in the country is watching. And that opens the door not only to more litigation in Alberta, but more litigation across the board. from First Nations with consequences.

There is not a single province that can undergo major infrastructure development projects in the resource area without some amount of buying from indigenous nations. And if you are going to poison the well of the relationship between the First Nations and various governments, then a lot of plans, or if not dead in the water, are going to be very, very high. to move forward, including for the federal government. So the stakes are really high here. Bruce. Well, I think the Premier of Alberta has to pick a lane, hopefully, at some point.

Is she a leader of the separatist idea, or is she a leader that's making a case in Alberta's interests? Most Albertans think that separating from Canada is a terrible idea, bad idea. And most would probably also think that talking about. about it without any kind of clear sense of how it would ever happen, what you would try to do to make it work for people. Is it really damaging conversation for the economy of Alberta? It's shocking to me that we really don't hear from Stephen Harper. We really don't hear from Pierre Pauliev explaining their perspective on just how to say it would be complicated

it is to minimize how damaging this could be. And even this continued conversation, this heightened sense of political brinksmanship, could be for the prospects of Albertans. They are at the same time as they're allowing this to happen. And Daniel Smith is kind of both sidesing the thing. Is she both sides? And I asked that because, you know,

she once again said, was it yesterday? you know, I believe in Alberta within the Federation of Canada. The sovereign Alberta within the Fed right? What does that even mean, right? What is her approach to the fact that indigenous people have treaty rights? You can't just say I didn't like what the court said. Those treaty rights exist and they weren't a product of something that an earlier Alberta government did and therefore an Alberta government can revoke. These things exist.

And if you're if you're not both sides of it, you need to say that truth. You need to bring that forward and say, this is a problem for you separatists. Do you have any ideas on this? And the guy that we saw being interviewed by David Cameron on power in politics, he's the notional spokesperson for this. Has the Premier ever said, look, the things that he's saying aren't things that I agree with. They don't work in practical terms in Canada. They don't make any sense for the economic interests of Alberta's.

No. So the absence really, the error of omission isn't to me an error. It's an obvious choice that the Premier is making to not weigh in against it, presumably because too big a chunk of her caucus and maybe her cabinet are actually inclined towards a separatist idea out of a sense of grievance or lack of knowledge of what the economic consequences might be. but it's completely incomprehensible to be constantly banging on about the urgent need for a pipeline that goes through British Columbia. Well, at the same time, saying, well, we're going to challenge this court decision because, you know, how do you imagine that you're going to challenge that court decision,

have some sort of wishy-washy referendum question about sovereign Alberta within a, you know, within Canada. Let all these voices kind of be out there saying what they're saying, which will only inflame tensions. It's the only thing that they're trying to do. And this is going to be good for the economy of Albertans. There needs to be other voices because she will not take that position. She's proven at time and time again. So Stephen Harper and Pierre Pollyev in particular, they have to step up.

Okay. Yeah, go ahead, Chantel. I'm just curious because Daniel Smith's government includes, I believe, a fair share of people who would vote yes to a separation question. But there are also the others. There's the other side that is within there. At what point do people on the federalist side of that government start losing patience with this exercise is a big question? Now, we do have, and we have had in government for the past decade. a party that is home to both people,

people from both sides, federalists and sovereignists. But the condition for that to work, and that would be the Coalition of Inverne, Quebec, whose fate at this point hangs in the balance, but has been successful at winning elections. But the conditions, the terms of entry into that coalition, was that you set aside the battle between federalists and sovereignists

to work on everything else advancing Quebec. And at this point, that's not from a distance which one sees in the government of Alberta because that requires, and that did require Francois Legoe and now a successor, to not put that question in a referendum to Quebecers. That was the deal. We work together.

We all want to advance Quebec's place in the Federation as a future as a French language society, but we come together under the condition that we are not going to revisit Quebec's political future inside or outside the federation. And what you see at this point is something that to me makes no sense. If you want to have a referendum on the future of Alberta as a province versus a country, you need to be campaigning on that in an election, as the Parts Quebeco has done and is doing. You need to win that election, and then you need to be serious about how you're going to go about asking people, for a mandate to separate.

But you can't just suddenly say, we've got, I don't know, 24 members of the Legislative Assembly on the government side that really want to do this. So how about we play in this movie that we are not prepared for it and that we never ask voters for a mandate to do? That's kind of,

that's very amateurish to tell you the truth. All right. We're going to take our final. final break. I will say that next week, Althea is away next week and filling in for her on reporter's notebook with Rob Russo on, it's actually going to be on Wednesday next week because Monday's a holiday and on and on and on anyway. It will be Kathleen Petty from Alberta, the CBC hosts, a long-time friend, colleague, and she will give us that kind of on the ground feeling as to what's happening on this issue.

That's next week. So we'll look forward to that. Okay, take our break, right back after this. And welcome back. Final segment of Good Talk for this week. Chantelle, Bruce, Peter, all here for you. Okay. Our normal kind of final segment,

which is kind of what else is on your mind, Chantel, you talked earlier about the Trump visit to China, which has come along, wherever Trump goes now, there's so much that's not the point. point of the trip or the visit or the speech, but all the other incidentals that happened, this one's been no different than that, so it's been interesting to watch. But tell me what else is on your mind, and it may still be the Trump story.

Who wants to go first? Who's got their hand up? Bruce has his hand up. It's, you know, whether Americans are getting tired of losing. I think the looming problem with fertilizer, imminent problem with fertilizer means more inflation in food, which already hit a big number this week. The ongoing stalemate in the straightforward moves with Iran means higher prices for fuel. Trump goes to China, and it's not clear what, if anything, the purpose of the trip was.

It certainly doesn't feel like it was asserting American influence in the region or over China. Most of the coverage seemed to suggest that the Chinese. president kind of gave a bit of a lecture to Trump and Trump didn't understand it and got angry about it after the fact that's a movie we've all seen before. So, you know, as bad as that goes, if there's a silver lining in it, it's this question of when will Americans get tired of the losing that Trump is forcing on them, well, even while he's saying we're winning at everything. you know it always seems to me that whatever Trump does the real purpose of it is to try and change the channel from the disaster

he was mired in at the time now I know China or make some money or make some money or make some money or his family or his pals I don't know if somebody wrote this as a book or a movie script nobody would believe it and they'd say get real move on Let me see the next, you know, Utopia 3. A losing pitch, a fiction pitch for sure. I'm worried about the fate of American football,

having watched this visit to China because I am mindful of the fact that the president on his airplanes said recently that because Mark Carney had gone to make a very minor deal with China, we would lose NHL hockey that the Chinese would for, did us to play our key. So having watched it back this week, I thought, oh my God, what's going to happen to American football? On a more serious note, if we have time, the first polls came out since Francois de Gauss has been replaced in Quebec, and they confirm what everybody believed

it is, and that is that it's impossible to know how the Quebec election will turn out, because the change in leadership has brought the CAQ back in the game, not as a winner, but back in the game and we are facing parties that are all in the 30% the main parties, three of them and the 30% territory. But what I found most striking about that poll was not the numbers for any party. It's the number of Quebecers who say they are undecided, 27%. I'm not the pollster here. But that tells me this election is wide open.

that when one and four voter at a time when we're discussing referendum sovereignty, liberal mishaps on the provincial front, one and four is saying, I'm just watching and I'll make up my mind probably during the campaign. It kind of tells you how fluid the political landscape is at this point. So if anybody tells you that they know how the election is going to turn out, yeah, well, don't, don't. Don't buy or gamble based on that prediction. At whose cost has the resurgence of CAC come? Who's lost votes as a result of them going up? At this point, the Quebec liberals.

But the PQ has been losing steam for months now. Ever since Francoiseu'll go, they've gone from a decisive sweeping victory to they would be lucky to form a majority government, and if they formed the minority one, they would do so in the low 30s when it comes to support. But the Quebec liberals, they're trying out a new leader who is zero experience in politics. It's a steep learning curve. So he's not, Shalminia is not doing so bad, but it has become obvious over the past few weeks that he needs, he needs a solid team and he needs to learn things about how you handle Quebec politics and how you handle language issues because it's more in the inexperienced than in anything that he's done. And then there's also

been the circumstances of Mr. Rodriguez ousting as leader, which have brought about an anti-corruption unit inquiry again into the Quebec Liberal Party and that plays again. on some of the fractures of that party and its brand in Quebec. Very important from the federal liberals, obviously. But this has not played out. And that doesn't mean the early enthusiasm, quote-unquote, with Christine Frechev should be tempered by memories of Kim Campbell. Right.

She was way ahead by the end of that for summer. That's right. You get 20 seconds as the pollster gets 20. seconds on this. I do think that Chantel may be right about Kim Campbell future for Ms. Frischette, but

her numbers that I'm seeing are actually pretty positive relative to the Lago thing, so at least the opportunity for her to be part of the conversation and have people say what they were already saying, which is we don't like the PQ option. They won't like it anymore

since he said, well, we might join NATO and we would have to spend two and a half percent on defense. So PSB is afraid with this sovereignty idea that people clearly don't want insufficient numbers to elect him and the question of whether the liberals

or the CAC will be the chief rival or whether he ends up winning because they split the vote. I guess that's the big question. All right. We're going to leave it at that. Good conversation on all fronts and look forward to having it again next week. Enjoy your holiday weekend.

you are so celebrating this weekend. We'll be back on Tuesday. Monday's program will be an encore edition of this very discussion that we've just had. I'm Peter Mansbridge for Chantelle and Bruce. Thanks for listening. Talk to you again soon. Good weekend, you guys. Hello.