The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk -- Has The West (Including Canada) Chickened Out On China?

Episode Date: December 10, 2021

Chantal and Bruce are here with some serious Good Talk on a number of issues, the most provocative being when we raise the question of whether Canada and its western allies have chickened out on dealing with China especially and Russia too.  But first up, Quebec's Bill 21, in spite of all the tough talk is there anything Ottawa will do?

Are you ready for Good Talk? And welcome to Friday. It's Good Talk time. Chantelle Hebert is in Montreal. Bruce Anderson is in Ottawa. We've got lots on the plate today. So no small talk talk no funny talk we're gonna get right into it and we're gonna start we're gonna start with bill 21 that's the quebec law right and it's uh every once in a while it seems like every couple of months it pops up as a as an issue beyond que, and it becomes a national issue. And that seems to be the case as we head into this weekend. Just to remind you, Bill 21 was passed in June of 2019, bans the wearing of religious symbols such as hijabs, kippahs, and turbans

by teachers and other government employees deemed to be in positions of authority. So as I said, every once in a while, something comes up. And that's happened again this week in western Quebec. And there are a lot of different politicians speaking out to condemn the reassignment of an elementary school teacher in western quebec and one of those who because she wears a hijab now one of those who's come out swinging and he's not alone but one of them is grabbing the headlines is the crown indigenous relations minister mark Miller, who's also a Montreal area MP.

What's he say? He says this action is cowardly. This type of discrimination isn't reflective of the Quebec society I want to live in, he says. He goes on. I'm reading here from a piece on Global News. He goes on. He pointed out that under Bill 21, International Development Minister Harjit Sajjan

couldn't teach music class in Quebec because of the turban that he wears on his head. He shouldn't, says Miller, because he's a lousy musician. But that's the only reason he should be excluded from teaching, frankly. It's disheartening, and it's picking on someone vulnerable. So, as I said earlier, this comes up every once in a while as a national issue, and it's come center stage or almost center stage once again. So let's go and talk about it for a minute because it does it does once again raise the

question of should the federal government be doing something about this provincial law challenging it in court doing what have you or does it just pass and disappear again after a couple of days talk bruce you're up first this week well hi peter it's good to see you both again um i know you said no happy talk but it just feels like it wouldn't be a great way to start the friday if we didn't say you know at least a greeting to each other the first thing i will say to get to the meat of the issue anything to gain time on that first answer one one side of his brain is working what am i gonna answer this question they can't see him but honestly smoke coming out of that like for seven years or however long we've been talking together you always go chantelle why don't you go first which gives me

a little time to kind of think about my answer and And now here we are, you know, you just decided to turn the tables on me, but hey, I was ready. The first thing I would say is this. If you ask me to give you a list of the three members of parliament across any party who I think are making a really useful contribution to national politics, Mark Miller would be one of those three, and he might be at the top of that list. He's a person of, he speaks bluntly. He says what he believes. And he's smart, and he works hard. And so I like a lot about how he's approached his responsibilities, especially since he's been in cabinet dealing with a lot of difficult issues. And good for him that he said what he felt about this. Second thing is, and I only have two things to say, and then I can't wait to hear what Chantal has to say. This debate has been going on in one form or another in Quebec and about Quebec since I was a little boy.

And this is not a visual medium, so people don't know I'm not a little boy anymore. It's been a lot of years that this debate has been going on in one form or another. The latest version of it continues to be a conversation where some people say this kind of legislation by the government of Quebec represents a form of prejudice or racism. And others say, well, actually, it's more a question of protecting culture or secularism. And there's no absolute way to solve that debate. There are arguments that can be made on both sides of the question. I happen to look at these kinds of legislative interventions as being an overreach that's designed to achieve some sort of political rallying or kind of dog whistle. And I understand

that there are other people who look at them and say, no, we have a view of secularism that is kind of robustly thought through, and we believe in it. So I happen to align with the view that Mark Miller offered, which is that it doesn't represent the kind of province that I would like to live in. And I grew up in Quebec. And so I feel, you know, fairly profoundly about that. But I think at the end of the day, it is a reminder that the federal government deciding just take whatever action is possible or necessary to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future. And I have some sympathy for that. But I also think that having the conversation in the way that Miller had it is also useful. People should kind of debate this as politicians, putting their views as bluntly and cleanly as they can, and hope that they persuade enough people over time to share their point of view. All right. I feel a duty to say something about Mark Miller because

I don't disagree with you on his overall performance as an MP and as a cabinet minister, especially on his main portfolio. He has every right, as any MP has a right, to speak out on this issue. But I do think that we need to declare, you and I, Bruce, a small conflict of interest. Bruce and I are part owners of a small restaurant in Ottawa, which is fantastic. It's a great little Italian restaurant. You called it a hole in the wall. It's better than a hole in the wall.

It is. Guys, where are we going this week? We're not promoting a book. We're promoting a restaurant. No, but Mark Miller is a frequent visitor to that restaurant. So I just wanted to add that in there. It doesn't take, well, it's not like he's the only fellow who goes there for meals,

but nevertheless, I didn't want that on the record. If you want good words from these guys, please show up at that restaurant. All 338 of you. Okay. Sorry, Chantel.

I'm all good. Do you remember the subject? Yes. Bill 21, Mark Miller. I'll take a pass on Mark Miller, except to note two things. One, that he is not the first liberal to have said how badly he feels about Bill 21. That also happens to be Justin Trudeau's position, and it was often stated, including in open letters in the Quebec media. Every federal leader, by the way, has said that he or she,

in the case of Annemie Paul and Elizabeth May, do not support Bill 21 and find the legislation regrettable. Two, it is not just at the federal level, because there's always this impression that Quebec is totally united over Bill 21, and there are no political voices in Quebec that oppose it. On the contrary, there are. Just this morning, I was listening to the parliamentary leader of Quebec Solidaire say that, no, this is not echoing Mark Miller up to a point, saying this is not the kind of society he wants to live in. He also doesn't believe that Quebec has the basis of religious symbols and hijab. So, there is still an ongoing debate over this in Quebec. All of that being said, there is not a federal edict on Justin Trudeau's

desk that he can suddenly pull out to disallow the Quebec law. That power does exist in theory, but in practice, it has fallen into disuse. And if that were to happen, it's not just Quebec that would stand up and say, wait a minute, the federal government suddenly steps in and disallows provincial laws. I think you would expect to hear that from a number of premiers. So there are things that Justin Trudeau could do. They all involve doing things in the courts. And he has a variety of options, which he has not exercised. He has kept, over two campaigns, he has kept the option of intervening in court open. He's the only federal leader who has done as much.

He has not exercised that option. But there are many things he could do. He could ask for the status of intervener in the current court case that is now, I think, in front of the Quebec Court of Appeal. The federal government has intervened in cases like that in the past. Stephen Harper sent his lawyers, his government's lawyer, to intervene in a case involving Bill 99, which is a bill passed in the National Assembly to say whatever the Clarity Act on Quebec secession says in Ottawa, we are free to decide on the basis of 50% plus one to leave the federation. And by the way, the sheer fact that the federal government intervenes on one side of a case versus another does not guarantee success at any level. Just think of all the cases that Stephen Harper lost in the Supreme Court over the appointment of judges,

Senate reform, go down the list. So there's not a magic recipe that says, oh, the federal government shows up, and then everything is going to be rosy. The other things that Justin Trudeau could do, one would be very seen as very aggressive, I guess, would be to refer Bill 21 to the Supreme Court and say, tell us if this law is constitutional. A first court found that the Quebec law would not meet the test of the Charter, except that it is protected preemptively by the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution.

And clear with the Quebec government, that is not only did they proclaim this law, but they said it is not subject to a number of the sections of the charter. And that's the third thing that Justin Trudeau could do, and it would be to ask the Supreme Court for an opinion on whether it is okay to use that mechanism to prevent something, to suspend rights in advance. In the past, that clause has been used to preserve existing laws that would be found not to pass a charter test. But increasingly, provinces, Ontario, Quebec, others, are looking to use it as a kind of label you put.

You can't touch my law on charter grounds, on most charter grounds, because I've preemptively secured it from the application of the charter. So Justin Trudeau could ask for a more general opinion on that and see if the Supreme Court, looking at that use, comes to some qualification of how it should be used. But what I found most interesting on the politics side of it yesterday was not Mark Miller. It was the four conservative MPs who also said we need to fight this law in the courts, in the House of Commons, and in the streets. And why I found that interesting is because as opposed to Justin Trudeau, Aaron O'Toole spent the last campaign saying that if he becomes prime minister, he would never, ever intervene in court against any law from a province.

And I believe that the issue of Bill 21 is a lot more divisive inside the conservative caucus than it it is inside justin trudeau's caucus man that's a lot of stuff i don't know where it leaves us does it does it leave us as and basically where we were before this latest issue came up with the western quebec one is that i have to say i hadn't thought about chantal's point about the division in the conservative caucus. I do think that's a really important one because it has stood out, the degree to which Aaron O'Toole declared that he was never going to be a prime minister who would challenge that kind of law. And I can understand the political gymnastics that it takes to arrive at that position. But it's not entirely consistent with the idea of what does strong leadership look like at the federal level? And can you be a defender of human rights? Can you be a champion of human rights when you're talking about China?

And then when you're talking about human rights in Canada, have a blanket position which says that no matter what law a province might pass that might, in some people's eyes, injure the rights of a minority group, it's none of my business. So I think that's a really interesting point, Chantal. I hadn't noticed the four MPs, and obviously that's another schism for Erin O'Toole to be aware of and try to manage. It's a really dangerous slope. And I'll note that those four MPs are not necessarily, according to some conservative insiders, major loyalists of Erin O'Toole's leadership. On the

other hand, the Quebec caucus is. And the Quebec caucus, by and large, is made up of MPs who have to fend off the Bloc Québécois to keep their seats. Right. So were Aaron O'Toole to tweak his position, he would stand to, A, lose or loosen the loyalty of a caucus that is really behind its efforts to reposition the party. And that would alter the balance in caucus towards its leadership. But it would also expose these MPs to a loss to the Bloc Québécois and a future election. The argument being made is that, yes, but on the other hand, would that not help the Conservatives in suburban markets and diverse communities outside Québec?

Possibly, but what happens to Aaron O'Toole having done that, if Justin Trudeau turns around and becomes more proactive? He has already kept the option to be more proactive on Bill 21. And he has less to lose in Quebec. Big time, I believe, Justin Trudeau's Quebec caucus would not march singing in the parade, but would follow Trudeau's lead on Bill 21. I don't think that O'Toole's Quebec caucus can be brought to do the same thing unless they want to be walking to the slaughterhouse in an election. All right. Bruce mentioned this is a time for strong leadership to be seen, and talking specifically about, in that case, about Erin

Autour. Who is showing strong leadership on this issue? François Legault, obviously, on one side of the issue. I have to say on the National Assembly, mostly Québec solidaire, because it is the only party that has so far not really played in the movie of we need to ban individuals from doing things rather than affirming that we live in a secular society and ensuring that institutions operate on that basis. I don't think that Justin Trudeau is exercising strong leadership. It seems to me, rather than focus on Bill 21, that the issue of the use of the notwithstanding clause

extends beyond Quebec and is something that the federal government, a federal government of Trudeau's persuasion that expects its MPs to always vote on the side of the Charter on any issue, including abortion rights, would probably seek more clarity from the Supreme Court, given the evolution of the use of that clause, separate from Bill 21, but as a matter of principle, because if it becomes common for a provincial government anywhere to use the notwithstanding clause to suspend charter rights for any kind of legislation, the municipal makeup of city council in Toronto, etc., then slowly but surely it erodes the charter to the point where it becomes kind of a statement of principle that no one pays

attention to. I think that's the real stake in that. The Bill 21 legal story will play out to the end, which will be in the Supreme Court. That's going to happen no matter what any federal leader does, says, it's happening. But the real larger issue is the issue of, is that escape clause, get out of jail free card, that the notwithstanding clause is becoming not a peril to the solidity of charter rights in this country. Bruce, you want a last thought on this before we move on? Well, I think the question of the notwithstanding clause has always been a, you know, a joyless conversation in Canada. And I think it deserves to be. I feel it's, you know, both a symbol of our instinct to compromise and a reflection of our, you know, occasional unwillingness to confront hard issues in a firm way. And so, I agree with Chantal that this debate is going to continue for some time in different variations. I happen to think that it's maybe in a little bit

better place than it has been a few years ago, but I'm very guarded if I have any optimism at all about it. Okay, got to move on. Take a short break first, and we'll be right back. You're listening to Good Talk on SiriusXM Canada, channel 167, or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. And hopefully Good Talk on the bridge is one of those favorite broadcasts. Okay, we're moving on to the Olympics. A number of governments, including Canada, have decided to have a diplomatic boycott of the Olympics.

Now, that doesn't mean athletes don't go. Athletes still go. But diplomats don't. And I think that probably is a kind of a surprise to a lot of Canadians and Americans and Brits and Australians. They probably didn't realize that there were a significant number of diplomats attend these games as well. What difference it'll make with them not being there, who knows? It's definitely a signal on the diplomatic front to China

when they don't turn up in Beijing, but we'll see. And is this just the beginning of what could be a series of different boycotts that may even end up at some point on the athlete front. I don't think so. Certainly athletes don't want it to do that. But in terms of Canada's move in joining this position, it clearly appears that it was done in coordination with other countries. The Americans were first out of the gate, and then the Brits and the Australians

and the Canadians all did a similar move within a matter of hours. What do we think of this? And is there any indication it will have any impact? Bruce, I know you love to start, so why don't we? This is a really special Friday. I'm excited about it. Here's the thing, I think, Peter. I mean, I've thought about this a lot.

And your second question, will it have any impact? I think the real question for me is, if nobody does anything more strenuous to object to how China is conducting itself, then there will be no impact. And so we have to look at all of these choices as being part of a kind of a, not one-offs, but is there a problem with the way that China is flexing its muscles, asserting its will, arming itself, threatening conflict? And I think the answer is yes. And I think that every choice that we make should be reflective of the seriousness of that threat.

And some might say, well, you know, if we take action which further isolates China, aren't we creating more opportunity for there to be conflict and friction? And I suppose that's true, but I think that the obverse is not comforting at all. So I suppose, while I understand exactly the argument about athletes, I think a diplomatic boycott was the minimum that Ottawa could do. And, you know, possibly, I know it would be a controversial choice, maybe a comprehensive boycott is the right answer to really start to make a,

or not start to, but make an ever more fervent case that the way that China is conducting itself is that we have a problem with it. So it wouldn't offend me if there was a broader boycott. Obviously, I support the diplomatic boycott as an idea. I think that more in strenuous objections to China's behavior is the right direction to go in. Do you take it further as far as athletes? Probably I would, but I, you know, I don't think that, that I always hate answering those kinds of questions where there's a lot more information that is available to people making decisions than there is to me on the Zoom here. So I tend to think of it more in the question of if not that, then let's not assume that a

diplomatic boycott is sufficient, that it's a kind of a one and done. We've made a point that China will recognize and recoil from and worry about and stress over and that sort of thing. I think this is a bigger, deeper, more disconcerting issue. And whether it's a full boycott of the Olympics or diplomatic boycott and some other measures, that's above my pay grade. Yeah, I'm never sure about the athletes thing. I mean, remember 80 when the West boycotted the Moscow Olympics because of Afghanistan, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It didn't seem to have any impact whatsoever. And four years later, there was a retaliatory boycott of the L.A. Olympics by Eastern European countries.

And it too didn't seem to have any impact. So I don't know. I don't know what the pathway is, if there is one, when you start playing on the Olympic front. Chantal, your thoughts on this? First on diplomats attending, let's understand our savings here. We sent one representative to one. That's the contingent of diplomats we sent to previous Olympics in recent years.

So I'm not sure that we're saving a lot on plane tickets for diplomats by doing this. Second, yes, you can make a case that it's important to send messages to China, but I think this plays on a number of other fronts that are more domestic. One of those is Canadian public opinion and where it stands in the wake of the two Michaels episode towards China. I believe this decision is one that the government had to make. There was not an alternative. The opposition parties are on one page on this, and the government has joined them on the same page. There are those who would say maybe there was a time when Canada used to take the lead on issues like that, and the typical case that always comes back is Brian Mulroney, apartheid in South Africa, except that South Africa and China are very different. We're not playing in the same league here.

So those comparisons, I think, are unfair. The other front on which I believe this plays out is the Canada-U.S. relation and the Trudeau-Biden relation. Joe Biden sent that signal, and it would have been really hard in the circumstances and probably self-defeating on the part of Canada to ignore that signal and say, well, we're not going to follow the US on that path. It would have left damage to the relationship at the time when we have a number of issues and challenges on that front. I note that France is not following suit. That is where the limit of such moves is apparent in the sense that you can push the envelope if you want, but the more you

push it, the more you're dividing your own camp. That's not what you really want to do. To go beyond diplomatic boycott would only see more and more countries opt out of going the extra mile on this. Do I think it's going to impress China? Yes and no. I don't think it's going to get noticed there or even get reported on, given the way that information flows in China. But I do think it angers the leadership. And whether that's a great strategy or not, I can't answer. Like Bruce, I'll plead pay grade. But the tone certainly and the threat of dire measures to punish countries who are engaging in this boycott. It sends the signal that there is a lot of irritation. The alternative for China would have been to just shrug.

They tried to do both. We didn't invite them, so we don't care, but bad things committed to how it wants to handle the growing unity against it from some of its otherwise important trading partners. It just seemed to me that this whole thing sort of came up this week and different countries were doing different things because they felt they had to say something and they didn't want to go the whole route athletes and so they came up with this compromise and you know was a seemingly in agreement although your point about france is really interesting and you know it's a it's an issue for another day but france seems to be increasingly offside on a lot of things with its, you know, coalition partners, if you wish, and what that does to the world balance these days. It could be that post-Brexit, France is always on a page opposite to that of the UK.

Well, it certainly are. And certainly there are between the Macron government and France and Joe Biden, there is some bad blood over other issues that have taken place over the past few weeks. So I don't think Emmanuel Macron felt like helping Biden restore himself as the leader of the free world, quote unquote. Chantal mentioned the UK, and I just want to kind of put a little parenthesis around that because we're probably not going to talk about it this morning, but will by next Friday, there be a new prime minister of the UK is an interesting question given some of the fewer. But I want to go back to the China conversation and make one other point, if I might. I'm feeling a lack of presence in the global conversation from the United States. I know that Joe Biden declared the position on this. And I know that he had a call with Vladimir Putin yesterday. But there's something about the quality of the way in which the United States is making its

presence felt in these big international issues. And there's probably no bigger one than the relationship with China. If we're thinking about global security, it's making me constantly aware of the fact that the anchoring role that the United States used to play in these conversations, it isn't playing anymore. It doesn't feel the same. And it doesn't matter if the, well, I guess it maybe it would matter if the language sounded more belligerent, but it doesn't. It sounds mixed, and it sounds soft, and it sounds like kind of an aging politician who doesn't quite have his best game as an interlocutor.

And I think that I'm a bit anxious about that as a citizen of the world. It feels to me that if I'm feeling that, and I want the U.S. to be that strong voice that can rally allies around the world to a point of view that resists the kind of aggressive acts of China, then imagine how the Chinese are interpreting Joe Biden's posture and performance on the international stage. So I don't want to be overly critical of him, but it does feel like there's a difference now. All right. You've opened up an interesting discussion here because, you know, the West, you know, lost a powerful voice this week when Angela Merkel has been now replaced in Germany after she decided to retire after a long resignation period while

they sorted out how they were going to carry on but she was a powerful force and to many certainly through the trump years she was the leader of the western world um but let me be more blunt and more direct on what you are suggesting here um bruce and chantal can weigh in on this it has the west, is the West chickening out on China? I think that that was directed at you, Chantel. I have an answer, but my answer is yes, kind of. If the U.S. is, then the question is, what can the rest of us do unless the U.S.

is going to lead in a more forceful and obvious way? And I don't see that right now. I'm going to veer off your question, chickening out on China, because I'm always wary of the answer is yes, then what are we saying the alternative really is. But I do note that with Merkel gone, we are faced with leaders whose leadership is fragile in their own countries. We talked about what's happening in the UK. Emmanuel Macron is facing serious challenges as he looks to

re-election and a rise on the extreme right that probably should preoccupy anyone who's watching what's happening in France. And then Joe Biden is less a master of his government's destiny than any of his predecessors in the past few decades. And so as they look inward to protect their own positions, and no, Justin Trudeau is not a substitute or someone from a middle power for any of those leaders or for Angela Merkel. It seems to me not so much that they are chickening out on China, but that we have a deficit or a vacuum of leadership that is scary not just on the China front, but also on the Russia front. What's going on with Ukraine and Vladimir Putin is a sign that Russia too sees weakness.

And it sees weakness because weakness is real. But once you've named all those leaders and you've looked at their status, you are left with no, there's no B list here. And whatever elections bring in the US and in the UK or in France, there is no guarantee that it won't get worse. The disunity in the US is a precondition for this. And it's a very serious problem, I think, in establishing a kind of a safer, more secure sense of world peace and order. And it will not be lost on Putin or Xi that Biden is pulling at whatever it is, 40% approval and that Donald Trump is kind of in the ascendancy

in the conversation again, for sure. You know, this vacuum of leadership thing is you know it's a really big deal um more so than i guess we we generally think of it because we don't tend to think of it in terms of you know the global positioning so it was great chantelle to have you sort of took off a number of boxes around because when you see that you can can see that Xi in Beijing is listening to this diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics and go, yeah, sure, carry on. Good for you guys. I'm shaking in my boots here because Canada is not going to send one diplomat. And that will make a huge difference to the success of these games

and you know you can see that putin i mean who knows what happened in that phone call you get both sides readouts from supposedly what happened but you don't really know you don't know what promises were made back and forth we still don't know what the hell was said in the conversations between trump and putin and in those days but here you've got putin with thousands tens of thousands of troops on the border with ukraine and you know he's got uh he's got biden on a two-hour phone call and who knows as i said who knows what was promised um back and forth on that to try and, you know, prevent an invasion if, in fact, there was an invasion ever going to happen. It still may happen, but who knows.

But it is a – this is – we're at one of those kind of tipping point moments where any number of things could happen and the wrong call by somebody could cause a real serious situation in these two areas of the world where the west just doesn't seem to have its game doesn't seem to be organized in a fashion that can confront either China or Russia in a meaningful way. Now, maybe we're overstating it. None of us are foreign policy analysts. But, man, it doesn't look good to me. I look at that situation on both those fronts.

I figure the West is chickening out on both fronts. I figure the West is chickening out on both fronts. Anyway, that's just me. I assume you two have exhausted yourselves on that subject and we should move on? We should because we're not going to be driving people to despair a week and a half before Christmas.

Yes, I forgot about that. Yeah, we've had a We're not going to be driving people to despair a week and a half before Christmas. Yes, I forgot about that. Yeah, we've had a run of bummer shows. Chantal, the exception, kind of lifting the mood up a little bit. Yes, I find that it's becoming more challenging by the week here. All right, so let's move to the next subject. After a pause maybe for some commercial messages, Peter? Not yours. Listen to him. to the next subject after a pause maybe for some commercial messages peter not yours here he is the acting host day chantelle is in montreal bruce is in ottawa and i'm looking at my little list here trying to figure out what is a real

upper here what's going to get everybody feeling good about about, about life in general, after the first two subjects of the day. So I'll stroke off the list, the pandemic. We don't want to talk about that with numbers rising. I've got one on here. It says, this is an interesting topic as we know the conversion therapy uh issue went through banning conversion uh therapy went through the house of commons without a no vote pushed by the conservatives of all parties which uh had clearly had members supporting the idea before and then through the senate so it's like it's law it's through it's past both houses of parliament which raises some interesting

questions especially on the part of the conservative party because certain groups on the religious right had been pushing for this as they've pushed for other issues and and they have had a an audience a receptive audience within certain elements of the conservative party but that never seemed to come up in these last two weeks and what if anything does that signal about that relationship between the Conservative Party and certain elements of the religious right? Chantal, why don't you start this one? So to recap what happened in both houses that was unprecedented on an issue that has been a major battle for the lobbies that speak for their

religious right at the political level. I'm thinking campaign life, mostly known when it comes to abortion rights, but extending into issues like conversion therapy or the National House of Prayer, another organization that lobbies on these issues. What was unprecedented wasn't that their point of view lost, which has been happening for decades. We've watched votes on same-sex marriage, medical help in dying go down the list. And at the end of the day, the Canadian consensus is reflected in the House of Commons and in the Senate, and it usually does not go the way that those lobbies would go. But this, for me, was the first that not a single ally of those lobbies in the House of Commons or

the Senate raised his or her voice to prevent this fast-tracking of a conversion therapy bill that actually goes further than the bill that was opposed by a majority of the conservative caucus six months ago. You ask, what does it mean for the relationship between the conservative party and the religious right lobbies? Well, I think the specific question would be, what does it say about Aaron O'Toole's relationship to those lobbies? In clear, if Aaron O'Toole is to survive a review of his leadership, he will now do so without support from the religious rights section of the party. And I've tried, and I will do it again.

I do not equate the lobbies I named with every MP or parliamentarian who is otherwise a social conservative. I don't believe, or I believe you can be an MP, be a social conservative, have social conservative views, but that is not your main or only reason to be in federal politics, that you have a variety of other interests. And one of those interests is to make a difference by reaching government. And I think Erin O'Toole's proposition to his caucus, if not yet to his party, is that you cannot win a Canadian election by marginalizing yourself from large sense that there is plenty of evidence that conversion therapy is bad. It does bad things to people, some of them very vulnerable. And to defend it on the basis of, I read some of those groups' press releases,

now you can go to jail for saying prayers for your children. That's not true, by the way. It was a bad hill to fight on, and it was a good decision to walk away from that fight on the part of the conservatives. But I do believe it now puts the onus on the other factions within the conservative movement, the more secular factions, to decide whether they can unite behind a leader, Aaron O'Toole or someone else who has the same views,

or whether they want forever to give the religious right to veto on their leadership and their policies. Okay, Bruce, we've got about five minutes left in today's program, so take a run. Here's the first thing that occurs to me. I agree with Chantal's point that people can be social conservatives and not make that the only thing that they care about. And some social conservatives are libertarians. And so there's a mixture of views that people can have in the conservative movement that don't automatically, if they're social conservatives, put them in a situation where they're advocating policies that discriminate against other people.

And I think that's an important distinction. The second thing that occurs to me is also a point that Chantal touched on, which is that social conservatives or faith-based conservatives have, uh, an important influence in creating the total voting coalition that supports the conservative party, but they have more influence when it's leadership time, uh, because they represent an important cluster of people who communicate with each other

and tend to align in support of specific candidates. And that's true at a writing level, and it's true at a national level. But it's not been the same, it doesn't have the same influence when it comes to a national leader having been elected, including with the support of faith-based conservatives, but still deciding that they're not going to challenge abortion laws in Canada, that sort of thing. That's been a factor in the Conservative Party for some time now. I think also that Aaron O'Toole has made the choice that sitting on the fence between

these factions in the party is not a viable way to sustain his leadership. And so, it's actually in his interest to create a bit of a wedge and to challenge the party to decide whether it wants to be with those who hold what, in my view, are rather radical views. And to do it on conversion therapy is a lot easier political choice than on abortion. There are, you know, there are a lot of faith-based conservatives and social conservatives who have a problem with a woman's right to choose. There are a lot fewer who think that being gay is a choice that should be discouraged. In fact, we measured that in our polling a few years ago, and it's about 18%, which I still find kind of high and upsetting to see. But it's only 26% among conservative voters. So most conservative voters do not agree with the proposition that you can change somebody from being gay to being straight by convincing them that being straight is a better choice.

And even among evangelical Christians, it's only half who believe that gay is a choice that should be discouraged. So conversion therapy is a less controversial wedge issue for Aaron O'Toole to choose. I'm glad he chose it. I do think that he chose it partly because he believes that it's the right position to take and partly because it suits his purposes in terms of organizing an effective defense of his leadership. Okay. You know, when started uh today's program i said well let's abandon the happy talk and get right to the good stuff well we certainly abandoned the happy talk um because there was a lot of heavy duty stuff here so as a result in the remaining moments and there are only a few give me something to feel good about that's happening anywhere

in our sphere of discussions. Who can tell me something that I can feel good about? Well, that's obviously a question for Chantal. She's the leader in the clubhouse in optimism this fall. And while she's talking, I'm going to find something to answer that question. Google it. What can I say that's good? Okay, Chantal. We've just talked about conversion therapy, but the scenes we saw in the House of Commons over that unanimous decision were a good thing.

It was a good thing to see. And it reminds you, and we forget this because we cover conflict, how hard it is to be in opposition all the time. And when your wins are always at someone else's expense because you managed to kill someone else's initiative, and this you could tell by looking at the MPs that week, and I think some senators this week, and that kind of redeemed the notion that parliament is toxic and it can never come to any kind of agreement. You kind of saw the underside, the side we never see where MPs from different parties work inside their parties to try to advance a cause that maybe not their party's cause, the government's cause. And I thought that was a good scene that should be in the year-enders. Well, it's in this one just now. You got 30 seconds, Bruce.

Yeah, my optimistic note is that the debate about climate change and what to do about it continues to head in a more optimistic and aligned way. In other words, there are fewer voices saying this is just a hoax, this is something we shouldn't take seriously, or we should take it seriously, but we can't do anything about it without wrecking our economy. I think that conversation continues to move in a more positive direction. I think it probably is moving in a more positive direction. I guess what everyone wants to see is something that's in a more substantive. No, this is the happy part, Peter. You can't finish with it.

I'm sorry. I will withdraw my remarks and instead prepare to close out this show, which has been another fascinating, good talk. Next week, we are going to try and do something. I haven't really come up with the angle yet, but it'll be some kind of a year-ender program. Won't be a quiz, so I'm not going to try to embarrass anybody. But we will try to come up with some different angles to the classic, typical year-ender.

Bruce in Ottawa, Chantal's in Montreal. Thank you both once again, as we always do and as the audience does. I'm Peter Mansbridge in Toronto. This has been Good Talk for this week. The Bridge will be back on Monday. Good Talk.