The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk - It's My Way, Not Your Way Buddy! Carney's Round Two with Jamil Jivani, But Is It Working?

Episode Date: May 1, 2026

The message from Mark Carney to Conservative MP Jamil Jivani was very clear -- there's only one player on the Canadian team negotiating with the US and that's his government. The plot thickens. Bruce and Chantal have their say. 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. It's your Friday, Good Talk for the first day of May. So in spite of some of the weather we've seen here in central and eastern Canada, it looks like, well, spring is here. Summer can't be far behind, hopefully. And the Habs are still in the playoffs. The only Canadian team that is.

as of today. All right, that's not what we're going to talk about. This is not a sports panel, as much as Chantel wants to really get into the ins and outs of hockey. You should demand what you said. We will still be in the playoffs as a tomorrow, no matter with the outcome of tonight's game. That's true.

That's right. She's on top of it. She's on top of it. Okay, it was two months ago now that Pierre Pahliav was on this program, and among other things that he said, which don't seem to still hold true today. But among of the things that he said is that it's not the opposition's role to go to Washington. There are important negotiations going on, and I believe it's the government to do that.

That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Jim Mills Giovanni, either with or without his leader's agreement, is marching around Washington and talking to people, and he's not alone. There are talks going on by people other than the government in Washington over the last few days. And, well, I guess the question is, what should we make of that? Is that a good thing, a bad thing? The Prime Minister didn't, you know, kind of let loose a little bit yesterday saying that he's the one. His government is the one that negotiates, nobody else.

What do we make of all those? Chantelle. Well, I guess we make, for one, we make all. about this, that whatever Mr. Palliev was saying two months ago was no longer on. What was interesting from just a domestic inside baseball perspective was it at first when journalists and Parliament Hill went to Mr. Pueleev about this, he didn't really seem aware that some of his MPs were in Washington. Michael Charing, the Foreign Affairs critic, was also there.

And he wouldn't answer the question because, remember, back then, Mr. Poyev also said, Jamilenei does not speak for the party on this issue. And when he was asked again, he kind of dodged the question. But for those who are not keeping track, Mr. Givani was not given a more formal role in the shadow cabinet since then. So he still, in theory, does not speak for the party, although he did show up at that meeting. I was more interested. I'll leave Mr. Puelev to ask caucus management issues. and obviously he does have some.

But I was more interested in the perspective from the U.S. administration and trade representative Greer in particular, because this took place or that meeting took place as part of an American Chamber of Commerce event where conservative MPs showed up, but also the Canadian ambassador to the U.S., and some oil industry, energy industry executives. And Mr. Greer was there to talk as increasingly you are hearing the administration talk about

how we could do great with energy and critical minerals, and we want to cooperate with Canada on this. And I tied this to earlier this week the visit of the New Quebec Premier, who also got to meet Representative Greer. And I thought, if I were the Americans, and I was looking at the Canadian position and Mark Carney's strategy on this, which is basically we are not going to come begging to the table. We're not going to offer concessions on the way

to negotiate more concessions with the Americans. But if I were looking at this and thinking, this is really not satisfactory. We want them to come with concessions. And they're obviously not doing it. and Mark Carney at this point looks like he's in a strong position and is backed by a consensus, a multi-partisan group. I would try to find pressure points that would in the end translate into,

if not a broken consensus, increasing pressure on the Canadian government and the Canadian position. And how would I do that? I would do that by opening my door, two premiers like Christine Frechette, thinking from all

that I'm briefed on about Quebec, this is one place where there have in the past been fractures between Quebec and Canada.

Those of us who are on this side of the debate know that that's not going to happen. Mark Carney is the most

popular politician in Quebec. Christine Frechette is going in an election. There is no mood here for

Quebec freelancing on this issue. Maybe Alberta Premier. Daniel Smith can from her perspective, but that wasn't going to happen, but if you're Greer,

you know, it's worth a shot. And then you think, well, these energy executives and those conservative MPs, they have no reason to stay within the tent and not shoot inside the tent and tell Mark Carney, get on with it, there are good deals for us.

If you were going to identify one industry, and one province that has a real interest in getting along because it might work, it would be Alberta and the energy industry and the Conservative Party that has its base there. So you kind of play nice to industries that are more likely to disagree with the Canadian approach and more likely to say, let's get a deal. Kuzma might not work out. The auto industry might not do better. We might not get what we want.

But in exchange, we can get better deals on energy. You approve a pipeline between Alberta and Keystone Excel, or parts of it, that Alberta has long wanted to the U.S. So I think that part of what's happening is people from the U.S. administration and on the trade file. or they're not bypassing Canada, but they are playing with Mark Carney's head on this and by doing what they do, which to me sounds totally logical from where they come from.

It's going to be incumbent on the prime minister or not just to say, I'm the one who speaks for Canada. He's going to have to find a way to keep these interests under the tent. And up to a point, Klauev's weakness is going to be a problem for Mark Carney on that score.

because he cannot count on Piapliyev having enough authority anymore on his own party, his own members, to kind of keep the caucus and the party from drawing outside the lines on this issue. All right. Bruce has been patient. What do you make of this? I'm always patient. I'm always learning.

And that's great. I'll deal with the two different. topics. The Pierpoli one for me is he comes off to me now as like a rebel in search of a cause. He doesn't know really what is a safe or a productive space for him to occupy in terms of his participation in the Canadian political scene. Some of what he's doing to me comes off as completely cringeworthy. He stands up in the House of Commons and says, I've been right on everything all along. Mark Carney's right on everything all the time. And to do that over and over again, you kind of have to wonder, well, does he really believe that?

Does he believe that voters believe that? Does he believe that his caucus looks at that and says, yes, that's exactly the kind of leadership that is rallying and confidence building for us? I don't think any of those things are true. So I think he's just kind of meandering from spot to spot, but doesn't really have a sense of, is there a role for him? in a carny world, does his party really want him to be there despite the, whatever was, 87% support that he got in that vote a little while ago? And if there is a role, what is it? So he obviously also doesn't have the kind of relationship with his caucus that we've seen

embattled leaders in the past try to have with theirs. In other words, to act with a sense of decisiveness and force, to punish people who step outside the lines or paint outside the lines, to reward people who are kind of visibly loyal to him. He doesn't seem to play that leadership role that way, and I think it's probably a mistake for him. I think it looked embarrassing for the conservatives to have Giovanni go down again and have the leader say,

I don't have any information about what he's doing there. You know, it's a terrible clip, I think. I also think he's sort of drawing some of the people who, from my standpoint, would have been among the leading lights in his front bench. Shudhma Jundar, Adam, Chambers. They're now talking a kind of a Pollyav language, whether it's about Canada, U.S. or other issues, which I don't think is a great look for the,

for the conservative opposition. An example for me was Adam Chambers, gave a quick scrum the other day, and he talked about how it was time for politicians on both sides of the border to stop treating the Canada, the U.S. trade situation only on the basis of what is their domestic political interests.

And what he was implying was that Canada was staying away from the table in order to, in order for the liberals to have a bigger lead over the conservatives or something like that, which again I thought was a terrible take I don't think it lands with Canadians I don't think they believe that that's what's going on I'll kind of finish on the what I do think is is that I think Trump I think was Thomas Friedman in the Times this morning wrote that he doesn't have the cards that he used to have you know you know Trump likes using this metaphor of who has

cards at the poker table Trump has fewer and fewer cards this situation in Iran is eroding his already extremely fragile public opinion support. I saw one Ipsos study this week that pegged his favorability at 34%, which is a horrifying number if you're trying to raise money for a Republican race in the fall. There's no evidence that Iran needs to capitulate anytime soon. and Trump just keeps on pumping out these social media posts, which seem increasingly unhinged and a bit irrational and certainly disconnected from, you know,

the price of gasoline and the cost of living for Americans. So for Canada to be able to say, we've tabled proposals, we'll go back to the table when they're ready to come back to the table and have a conversation about a comprehensive Canada, US, Mexico trade agreement. But we're not going to go back to the table to talk about one thing or another thing that might be of interest to the Americans.

For the average Canadian voter who's following this, that sounds like an eminently reasonable position. The conservatives haven't figured out that the best place for them to be right now is to hold their tongues or say that is an eminently reasonable position and we stand behind it. Well, listen, it's fascinating to listen to the two of you on this because you're slightly at least different in terms of the way you see this unfolding. I mean, I think...

Well, actually, we're not, because what Bruce is saying about the Canadian position, I totally agree with. My point was about when the Americans are up to do. And if there are two weaknesses for any prime minister in trying to keep Canada united in difficulties, it's Quebec and Alberta. And I note that they are... trying to both those, just to see if those pressure points will elicit a reaction. But we are

not contradicting each other. That is not to say the Canadian decision should be different. That is to say the Americans also have strategies. Yeah. And I think that's what we've seen unfold more of late than we had for the last year. The Americans trying to finesse their position, trying to have an impact. I mean, we even saw our good friend, the American ambassador to Canada, saying things this week like, oh, I don't speak diplomatic speak, you know, that's not me. And there's a way we can, you know, find a better partnership. And there are lots of areas we can do things on trying to sound much more friendly. The way you talk about Jameson Greer, the U.S. negotiator and the way he's positioning things.

I guess what I'm wondering is, has this changed the field at all in terms of these negotiations? Or is it just a little kind of finessing around the edges and trying to, you know, better the positions on either side? Or is this a non-starter or is this actually something that we should be watching here? But the clock is speaking. Not so much progress on either side. That TikTok is becoming louder and everyone's ears. The Americans, the U.S. administration, is under significant pressure to not break Kuzma. But they are looking for a win.

We look at what the U.S. ambassador has been saying more nicely recently. We can get along. It's, again, energy and critical minerals. We want to talk about the things we want from Canada and not the things that Canada, and not the things that Canada wants to preserve or wants to protect that we have attacked. So I think what's happening on both sides is the strategy is becoming finer, more focused. But I agree with Bruce that the American position is weakened on a number of fronts because of the Iran war. and its consequences that will stay with us for a long time.

But the Canadian position, as we saw this week, economically is also improved because of the Iran war. Those revenues, there is pain to come from that, but those revenues from oil and gas are fueling the Canadian Treasury. I increasingly were going to see weeks like this and different things this week, because today is May 1st. You said, well, July 1st in theory, is when we should have a better sense of delay of the land. I don't think anything will be resolved by then. But we are working against some kind of a summer deadline.

Yeah, if we try, I agree with that. I think if we try to imagine the Americans, you know, Republican HQ kind of thinking this through in terms of their political situation. And you say, well, let's imagine that there are two broad theoretical choices. One is to start again pounding on Canada as a kind of recalcitrant, bad neighbor, bad friend, leaching off the American economy. Let's describe that as kind of door number one. And door number two is let's roll up our sleeves and look like we're moving past that phase into maybe a hard negotiation,

but a negotiation on the basis of it's better to have a deal than not to have a deal. understood that Canada has some things that it wants out of a deal and we have some things that we want. To me, the likelihood of Trump, as unpredictable as he is, and I hate to, you know, to even predict what he would do. But I think the likelihood of him saying, let's go back to door number one, is a lot lower today. The likelihood that they go down that road of let's work out an arrangement is much greater.

that in and of itself doesn't mean they're going to start saying today things that sound conciliatory. They're going to do the opposite, which is, I think, what Chantal was saying. They're going to try to ratchet up the pressure on us. They made some changes to the application of steel and aluminum tariffs, which are having a more deleterious effect on parts of our economy than what was happening before. You saw Jameson Greer saying, well, we do want to do more with Canada on energy and critical minerals, but we don't want Canada to try to use that as leverage in the conversation, which is an incredibly hopeful but also naive kind of interjection. But at least it was better than Canada sucks, which is what we're hearing from Howard Leibnick only, what, two weeks ago.

So I think the chemistry is changing and changing to Canada's advantage. And that's where I think the Canadian political conversation is strange for the. the conservative standpoint, to be honest. If you had to characterize where we stand now compared with where we stood a year ago on this file, how would you characterize that? Has anything really changed? Yeah, one thing has changed quite a lot. Okay.

You know, from my standpoint a year ago, the reaction that Canadians were having to what Trump was saying and doing was a lot of fear, a lot of, a lot of apprehension that there wasn't going to be anything that we were going to be able to do to withstand severe economic pain and so too would be the feeling in the rest of the world that we're experiencing

Trump's comments. Today, Canadians don't look at it that way. They are still stressed. They still know that America can do harm to our economy. But they're more resolved. They've been through a year of this.

And for many people, well, the cost of living continues to be too high. Things haven't been getting worse because of what Trump's doing. They've only become more convinced that the problem is him, not us, and that we need to hold firm. So I think that sense of resolve has definitely grown, even if people don't know what the ultimate solution will look like or should look like. people are more inclined to think we're on a path anyway that makes sense for us. And Trump at some point won't be as big a part of our lives. Chantel, how do you see it compared with a year ago? I think we feel collectively a bit more in control than we did a year ago,

where there was this sense that we were going to be pushed and eventually crushed against the wall and ultimately powerless to do very much about. it, that I saw that Angus Reed poll this week that showed public confidence really high, despite the absence of progress and the fact that the opposition parties, rightly so in their role, have been pointing out that there has been very little actual progress on the trade file over the past year, despite that. High level of confidence that we will arrive at some solution as opposed to a high level of fear that everything is going to break down. Canada is broken, the relationship is broken.

But I also think it matters what happened over the past year to Mark Kearney. When people voted a year ago, it was a leap of fate. Here was someone from the business community, whether the credentials were great, who was totally untested in the political arena. looked like the best option on offer at that point. There was a question, I think, looming in the back of the minds of many Canadians, and it was, what if this is Paul Martin? A talented person and does great in the business world would be a good finance minister,

but once he is in that top-level position, ends up looking like a deer caught in the headlights. I think a year later, no Canadian believes that Mark Carney is a good. Paul Martin with all of his virtues and failings. And to me, this end of year, a year later, is the end of the transition period for Mark Carney from where he came from to being the politician that he is. But I will add to that that it is fragile,

and it doesn't only inch on what happens on the Canada, the U.S. trade front. It is dangerous, and I spent much of the week in Ottawa And I thought, you know, this isn't a 25-seat majority here that you guys have. And you're acting as if you're in triumph. I met some senior liberals who told me that they are reminding people who were around when Justin Trudeau was prime minister. That Justin Trudeau's approval ratings were sky high after a year in office. And then what happened happened?

It might have happened sooner. had the pandemic not come in between. So it's been a good year for public confidence, for holding Canada together, for keeping the premiers on side. But it is dangerous to go from there to say, well, now I'm the master of this ship, and let's not look at all the storms on the horizon.

Let's just enjoy being masters of the ship. Okay, just one more quick one on the subject before we move on. How much of what appears to be a slight, at least, advantage to Canada over where we were a year ago, and maybe it's simply in the strength of our own feelings, how much of it has got to do with the mess that Trump has created for himself on so many other areas? you know, Bruce, you kind of touched on that a little bit earlier. But, I mean, he is in a mess. The approval rating shows that.

It's hard to imagine that when he sits down in the office, if he ever even goes there during the day, and he's looking at the things on his agenda, that Canada is even in the top ten. It's just not there. Yeah, yeah. How much of it is to do with that? well you know I think a lot

I mean Trump had a lot to do with the creation of that sense of urgency and anxiety and a year later people don't see Canadians don't see Trump as accumulating even more strength and influence and ability to bend the world to his will they think he has less ability to do that which doesn't mean that they're not afraid that he'll, you know, he'll escalate a war, he'll create some horrifying outcomes. I think people have fully priced in that Trump is willing to do almost anything that he feels impelled to do because of his temperament, not necessarily because of a sound U.S. strategy.

But at the same time, people are more attentive to how Trump sits in America than they have been about any other president in my lifetime. They know that he's losing popularity. They know that he's at war with Republican influencers. They can see the evidence that his ability to kind of snap his fingers and have the entire American community sort of go, well, either that's perfect what you've got on mind or we're just going to have to go along with that.

That is changing, and Canadians do notice it. But maybe I'm a little bit different from Chantel on the, I definitely agree with Chantel on the government cannot afford in any way, shape or form to have a kind of a triumphal attitude. It's very much, I think, as the prime minister says, we're just getting started. We've got a lot of work to do, keep pushing on. That's, I do think that the government, including through this fiscal update this week,

has been saying, we're going to do things that people didn't see necessarily coming. We're going to build more infrastructure. We're going to spend on things that we think are good bets in terms of the long-term health of the economy. And I think that's what the Prime Minister intends to do. And I think that does create some confidence on the part of Canadians, even as it makes some say, wow, it's a lot of money that's being spent or is government trying to pick winners and is that ever worked that well in the past. But it's a good debate to have, but it is a domestic debate. It's a debate about a policy choice that the government is pushing forward on.

And I saw someone wrote a piece that was really about the, whether the civil service, the bureaucracy, is fully able to execute on that vision or is built for more of a slower pace, a little bit more care in executing something that's kind of as big as some of these plans. I think that's an interesting tension that's going on in the city. But I think it's a domestic thing. So both parts work together. Okay. Did you may want to make a quick point there? I just wanted to say, yeah, sure, except the moment for most voters, the choices have not been made. They're trying to see the choices the government makes.

It's one thing to say we're going to do all kinds of things. Name them, show them, make those choices. And when you make choices in this country, it's really hard now to create winners and losers. And that's a moment. forward, not back in the rearview mirror of the government. All right.

Okay, let's take our first break. We'll come back, switch topics. We're going to talk about the NDP, and I'll tell you why right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to the Bridge, the Friday episode, which of course is good talk with Sean Telle Bear

and Bruce Anderson. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks are on your favorite podcast platform, or you are watching us on our YouTube channel. Glad to have you with us. You know, a friend of mine from the NDP asked me, I don't know, a week or two weeks ago, I listen to Good Talk every week, every week. It's my, you know,

required listening for me and my family. But, you know, you never talk about the NDP. You never give it sort of like up front, big ticket discussion. And I said, well, you know, that's, I think probably partly due to the fact you've only got five or six seats at the time we were talking and you're not really yet play in terms of what's going on in the house of commas.

But I hear you and we'll try and talk about you more up front at some point. So we're going to do that now as our second segment. It's probably not the discussion that my friend wanted to hear but the fact is

it's kind of out there now about Avi Lewis, who's the new leader, of course, and his decision not to run in a by-election to get a seat in the House of Commons. Now, initially, when the first one came up, what, two weeks ago, as a result of the decision by their Quebec MP to run provincially, Avi Lewis said, well, you know, I believe that if you're going to run in Quebec,

you should be from Quebec. And that was kind of accepted. Okay, that's his reasoning, and we understand that. Sort of. Well, now there's a seat coming open in BC as a result of the Wilkinson appointment as a EU ambassador. And Avi Lewis has been living in BC. So one assumes if you take the logic from Quebec, at least apply parts of it, he would probably run in BC, in Vancouver.

But no, he says, I'm not going to run. I'm not going to run. I'm going to spend my time visiting communities across Canada and trying to rebuild the party. Look for great candidates for the next election. So what do we make of that? Is that, you know, is that Avi Lewis being smart about rebuilding his party? Or is Avi Lewis turning down the opportunity to get a seat in the house and a bigger voice in the house? What do we make about who wants to start this go-around?

He's also taking a pass on the Beecher's seat in downtown Toronto. Exactly. I'm open, and no one can argue that Abbey Lewis lacks Ontario roots, given that he was raised there, and his father was the leader of the Ontario NDP. So, down the beaches, this is an area that has been kind to the NDP. in the past, so it's not a bad riding to run in. I frankly don't really buy the, I'm more efficient by not being in the House of Commons

and I can be all this without any presence on Parliament Hill. I think Avi Lewis is rightly scared of running and losing and he is lost twice in BC, so it's not as if, you know, there are people you could run. I'll give you two examples that would win ridings, even unnatural ones. One of those is my MP here in Noyes-Saint-Marie. Noir-Saint-Marie.

I used to be Gilles-Cet, the Black-Chequequeath leaders stronghold. But when the liberals decided to run Stephen Gilbo here, it didn't really matter that he was running for someone called Trudeau in a former Black Stronghold. He could get himself elected because he was a household name in urban circles, at least in Quebec. And people thought it was a great idea to send him to Parliament Hill. Well, Abby Lewis tried that twice in BC and failed.

And I'm guessing if I were him, I would think what's the worst thing to stay out of the house and say I'm rebuilding the party from the outside at ground level where the grassroots are? Or I'm going to take a shot again at the BCC that I may actually not win. and at that point I become not a lame duck leader because I was just elected, but at least one that is carrying some significant battle scars early, early on. Fact is that there aren't many, if there are any, safe NDP seats in the country, and there's not at this point an NDP momentum to get him elected anywhere. That could change.

Maybe next fall things will look different, and he'll regret taking a pass on that, BCC. seat. But because I believe we're about to get into the next episode of the pipeline debate between BC and Alberta probably. But so me, I would have maybe kept the option open. But I do not believe that it's a strategic choice made out of freedom of choice, but rather out of necessity and political necessity. You know, I, I've watched a few of Avi Lewis's news conferences.

press scrums in the last couple of weeks. And he's very good. He's a passionate speaker in terms of making the arguments on the left and concern about people and what's happening in terms of the country and those who are being left by the wayside. He's very good at it.

He's a passionate voice of the left. And that's something that you don't hear in the House of Commons right now. So if he was, was there, if he was successful in winning a seat, he would have a stage. Now, it's tough when you're the leader of a small party to get up, you know, in front of the cameras very often. But he would have that opportunity that he's not going to have visiting various communities in the country without a press gang following him. I just find it interesting because he is very good when he's in a scrum.

May not agree with him, but he's passionate in the way he talks. Bruce is looking like he doesn't believe any of this stuff. No, I agree with what you just said, Peter. I agree with Chantelle's point, too. I think that the choice for him, I think, is, goes like this. I run, I lose. my party wasn't sure about me anyway. I've lost twice before.

What does my record start to look like that I can't actually turn my effective rhetoric into votes? Maybe then the best choice is to not run for fear of losing a kind of a budding green shoots of credibility as a voice of a kind of a reanimated left. And I can imagine that that's a rational conclusion to draw. The alternative strategy described as being going across the country and kind of building up the part. I don't believe that.

I don't think that's the way it works. You need a platform. You need to be heard. And Peter, your point is absolutely right. It's not going to be a gaggle of media following him along. We're here in Lloyd Minster and this message is really going over well to the 24 faithful that showed up. it is his best option is to find a way to be present in the Ottawa conversation where the media are, where people are kind of dialed into who are who's saying the most interesting things,

the most dynamic things, presenting the most compelling case, because he does play really well in that marketplace. if the liberals are going to become vulnerable at some point, it's more likely to happen among young people. And it's more likely to happen because young people are saying the status quo economically doesn't really work for us. Works well enough for older people, but it doesn't work for us. And so they tend to be susceptible to pitches from the populist right,

Poliev perspective, but also if somebody could come at them with an argument from the left, among Donny's style, we've got to shake up the system. so it bends more towards your interest. There's a pretty significant market for that. And he is pretty good at figuring out how to speak to that without sounding. I wondered a little bit whether or not he was going to come off as a kind of an obnoxious voice in that. I remember the interactions that he had around the elite manifesto at the time of Thomas Malcair's leadership. but I think he's doing better at, I wouldn't say moderating his tone,

but finding a tone of voice that draws people in rather than says trenchant things but pushes them away. So I think he probably made the logical choice in the circumstances, but characterizing his alternative as being kind of roaming the country and building up the grassroots, I don't think is the right strategy for him and probably not what he's really going to do. You know, some of his supporters will say, well, hey, that's a strategy that work for Jack Layton. Okay, can you make a comparison there? I think the problem is that there's just not enough of a base now. So they lost critical mass because Jug Mink Singh just wasn't doing

what Avi Lewis appears to have the potential to do. And once you lose so much critical mass, it's really I think it's just hard to kind of draw people out especially if they feel generally that things are going in an okay direction I'm talking about young people here but the two surveys that we did recently on Quebec separation and Alberta show again that the risk scenarios

are disproportionately with young people and mostly because of the economic fatigue or frustration that they see so there's a real market there for an Avi Lewis for sure And I think Pierre Polia is to some degree having his lunch eaten by a combination of Mark Carney and potentially down the road, Avi Lewis. Chantelvin, is there a comparison with the Jack Layton situation of, you know, not getting a seat in the house, but working the country?

Now, in mind you, he also kind of turned up in Ottawa almost daily, right, when the house was sitting? Yes, and he did have a profile in Ontario, because of his work at the Federation of Municipalities, which is a big deal at ground level. If you're known to mayors, it's not the same as being known to 24 faithful in Lloyd Minster. But one for us that Alexa McDonough actually left Jack Layton, a party that was back on the rise with seats in Atlantic Canada.

She picked up, of the party in not as bad, but almost as bad as state as it is today. And she slowly but surely moved it back. One also forgets that one of the things Jack Layton did that I'm not sure Abby Lewis is able to do is use his knowledge of Quebec because he was from there. His father had been a Mulroney minister to work Quebec and to lay the groundwork for one day Thomas Mulcair running for Jack. Clayton. People from outside do not realize how big that was in Quebec. But to get someone

credible like Thomas Malcara to run and win took a lot of work and a lot of that work was Jack Layton's work. But he had the luxury of focusing in places where he could make a big difference. In the case of Avi Lewis, and I go back to that Beecher's seat, one place where he really, really needs to focus is urban Ontario, where the party used to have presence in Ottawa, presence in Toronto. If you can't come back there, and it took a number of elections for Jack Leighton to get where he is, well, then you're not coming back. And I'm not seeing a strategy at this point with five members that actually makes a big difference being on the ground. We'll see. As for Quebec, well, I mean, it would be hard to argue that Mr. Lewis is a presence.

Here he is not, so, so far. Okay, we're going to take our final break. But, you know, I'm glad you mentioned Alexa McDonough. We often tend to forget some of the leaders, party leaders, and MPs of the past. But Alexa McDonough was a great politician and a great person and a terrific interview. You know, I was lucky enough to work with. with her more than a few times. Anyway, we'll move on.

Final break. We'll be back right after this. And welcome back. Final segment of good talk for this week. I want to start before I get to the what else is on your mind question. I want to talk about Chantelle always loves this when I do this,

but Prince Charles. King Charles. King Charles now. It goes to the U.S. this week. And a lot of people were afraid, oh, he's just going to be a Trump toady. But it was interesting because he, you know, Charles is not a stupid guy. And he was able to, well, he was able to finesse his remarks in such a way that a lot of people took some comfort. And that he was showing Trump up, whether Trump realized it or not.

You got any thoughts on this, Bruce? Yeah, look, I'm not the world's biggest monarchist. You know, probably Chantalis is a little bit behind me in the affection for that institution. But I had been expecting that King Charles was going to go over and do what I thought would be the bidding of the Starmer government, which is to just make nice with Trump, to praise Trump, to acknowledge the greatness of the Trump administration,

and its kind of effect on the world. And he didn't just not do that. He kind of did the opposite of it in a way that was sort of consistent with the range of words, verbs, and nouns that you would expect a king to use. He took a message of the importance of a world order that people could count on, of defense arrangements that people should count on, of concern for the environment that everybody should share. And he kind of left the room, I think,

feeling either baffled because they didn't really understand what he was saying or accepting of the fact that he was describing some norms that have been lost because of Trump's personal style, if that's the right way to describe it. And so I think he did the world. a solid. I think he probably helped his country somewhat, although I think that's, it's always hard to bet on any kind of outcome with the Trump administration like that. But he did the world is solid. And he probably changed some people's minds about his, his efficacy as a, as the king of

England and using that voice in a way that's useful for, for people around the world. King of Canada too Chantal No it was a good week I believe he's done well it always helps to beat expectations I think he has been doing that consistently

which is getting people's attention including in this country with good reason and he did find a way to slip in the yes king of Canada I do not tread on my lawn you who think of yourself as a king, Mr. Trump. And that's been interesting.

But I watched or I saw some excerpts of those speeches, and I thought, I hope that they never comes. When Canada needs someone who is a king to come and remind people about principles of democracy or the environment, and that we need those lessons to come from monarchy. I think if I were an American, knowing the history of Great Britain in the U.S.,

I would be slightly embarrassed for my country. I think you'd be more than slightly embarrassed. I'm trying to be diplomatic for once. How would you like his little shot to Americans about how they'd all be speaking French if it wasn't for England? Yeah, it was pretty good. They're not going to burn down the building again.

That was also not bad. Not too bad. Okay. What else is on your mind? We've got a couple of minutes left here. So that question. What's on your mind? Chantelle.

I watched the appointment. It was in big news in the sense that everyone knew it was coming off Jonathan Wilkinson's to diplomatic post at the EU. And it made me realize that increasingly the people who were the serious players in the climate file are outside the loop. Mr. Wilkinson was the first minister of the environment. for Justin Trudeau. And Stephen Gibbo was the second, and both of them were effective voices on the file.

And Mr. Wilkinson, in particular, did not ever come across as someone who would have you hug a tree, but who could walk you. And in theory, I think a year ago, a lot of people believed that Mark Carney and Jonathan Wilkinson could be people who kind of mesh together in their somewhat business-like approach to the climate file.

And that's not been really happening. I think it's a loss to the government to have people like that sit on the outside or leave the government altogether. And I also think increasingly we're going to see pressure or seeing some of it in the media today. There will be more pressure on the prime minister to address the weaknesses in this cabinet

because they are increasingly glaring. The environment is one, but immigration is another. And I could name a few more. and that starts to add up, despite Mr. Carney's assertion that he's in no rush to rejig his team because it's such a great team. You know, Mark Carney used to be considered inside the loop on the climate story, right? You think he's firmly outside the loop now? I'll let Bruce answer that. He would know better.

I don't think so, but I'm not sure that pause is particularly helpful to the climate file or to Canada's competitivity in the future. Over to you, Bruce. Well, maybe I'll come to that point last. I keep forgetting that we're going to do this thing every week, which is what else is on your mind. And of course, for me, there's like so many other random things. I am really focused a little bit on this question

of how much inbound investment is coming to Canada. We saw numbers posted not very long ago that said that it was a fantastic year last year, which I think a lot of people wouldn't have predicted based on the initial reaction to Trump saying, we're going to kind of ruin Canada. But I keep seeing pieces of evidence that suggests that the interests around the world

in Canada as an investable place has been growing. And of course, the prime minister has this summit coming up, this investor summit coming up in September and Toronto. So I'm paying pretty close attention to that. And I'm actually feeling somewhat optimistic about the amount of investment interest is coming. And I think some of it is coming pricing in the notion that we will have some form of Kuzma going forward, that we will have probably a better level of access to the U.S. market than other countries will have. So I'm encouraged by that.

On the climate and environment side, I actually started listening to the audience. version of Mark Carney's book Values the other day. Because I haven't finished reading it. I'd sort of picked it up and put it down, picked it up, put it down. I thought, I'm going to have him read it to me, which is he did the audio recording. And I found it quite interesting,

and I think that a lot of people would, in trying to understand some of the positions that he's taking now, would enjoy or benefit from hearing him articulate his view of how markets work and when they don't work, what is the problem? His interest, in my view, in sustainability is never going away. It is kind of baked into him. What he does or says about it on a month in, month out business basis is very interesting to people like us who follow politics all the time, but I don't see much of change there.

And I did note in the fiscal statement this week that the government is planning a sustainability or a sustainable finance summit in Canada in the coming year, which I don't know more about in terms of the details. But he definitely believes in how markets need to support those sustainability objectives. Can I just add that Bruce has not described the page Turner? No, he hasn't. In fact, I was going to follow that up too. I wanted to know in the many times that he picked it up and then put it down.

Did he put it down because... He was going to sleep twice. Like you fell. Oh, it was only twice now. What is he saying any time? I said, picked it up, put it down, picked it, I put it down. I listened to it a lot better. Did you fall asleep?

Did you fall asleep? I'm not the world's greatest reader, and I'm trying to work on that. Yeah, you still haven't read any of my books or Chantel's books. You've written like 17 books in two years or something like that. That's different. Got another one coming up. Another one coming out this fall. I'll do a whole program on it with my co-author Mark Wilgutch.

Anyway, thank you for this. We're out of time for another week, another great, good talk. You guys have a good weekend. Enjoy the first weekend in May. It's going to be a great weekend of which there will be many more, we hope, in this year. Keep in mind the buzz out tomorrow morning, 7 a.m. in your inbox, no charge. You can subscribe at National Newswatch.com slash newsletter. Peter Mansbridge. Thanks to Shantel.

Thanks to Bruce. Have a great weekend, everyone. We'll talk to you again on Monday. Have a good weekend, guys.