The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk -- Kings, Queens, Ambassadors and Jet Fighters - Dealing for Dollars, Jobs and Security.

Episode Date: November 21, 2025

Another week where there's lots to talk about with Chantal Hebert and Bruce Anderson. The US is playing hardball through its ambassador to Canada over which jet fighter we "must" buy, while Sweden sends its King and Queen to push its option. And then there's the pipeline story -- could a deal between Ottawa and Alberta be close on that? All this while the PM is off on another global trade mission. 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. It's your Friday, Good Talk, Bruce Anderson, Chantelle-A-Barre in the house. In fact, they're both in Ottawa, which is rare. Chantel's usually in Montreal, but she's in Ottawa today. Some social event last night of some kind, I'm sure. Big party, big party.

Big party. Okay, well, we got lots to talk about this week because, you know, It was another week where there were any number of different things going. I want to start on the fighter jet thing. I'm an airplane kind of guy to start with, so I want to start on this. It needs a tiny bit of background. It's almost 30 years ago now, if you can believe it, that Canada started negotiating on the F-35s.

1997 was when the first discussion started to take place. Over time, eventually, we agreed to buy 16 F-35, so we still don't have them. It's another two or three years before the first one gets to Canada. But we also plan to buy as many as 88. This is a contract's worth billions and billions of dollars. Well, the Carney government decided, are actually going to review those extra purchases and see what else is out there. Well, that's resulted in quite the week,

because the king and queen of Sweden have been here, wind and dined by the Canadian government, state dinner, the whole bit, but also lots of discussion about the Gripen jet fighter, which is a Swedish-built fighter jet. They say they can deliver it within three years, you know, complement the F-35-16 purchases with Gripen jet fighters from Sweden. They'll create thousands of jobs. Now, Bruce's best friend, his number, his number number one ambassador in the world, Pete Hoistra from the United States. He laid out his feelings about all this this week by implying, I don't think he actually said it, but he certainly implied that if Canada doesn't go with the full complement of F-35s,

you can forget about any trade deal, which isn't happening right now anyway. But he kind of laid it out there. You stick with the F-35s. What do we make of all this? Bruce, why don't you start because of your... Yeah, you know, his latest comments probably didn't materially affect our relationship, but we don't have. And I'm glad we're talking about this, Peter,

and I know that it's a fascination of yours because you were a fighter pilot or something... Well, hardly. In my dreams, I was. Well, look, I think it's an interesting development. I think it made perfect sense for the government of Canada to say in the context of the way in which the United States has been trying to assert almost a bullying influence on our policy choices in Canada to say, well, we're going to take control of those policy choices, and we're going to make choices that are in our interests in the context of the relationship that the U.S. administration has signaled that it wishes to have with us. The F-35 is a program that we've been participating in that has a lot of merit for Canada. But I think when you look at the comments that the U.S. ambassador made this week, it's not hard to come to the conclusion that he's trying to apply pressure on Canada in a bullying way,

as he has been doing all along. I mean, if I were the manufacturer of the F-35, I wouldn't think that this is the best way to advance the case. And so much so to the point that the visiting Swedish delegation in Ottawa, I think, did a good number of media interviews. And one of the things that I heard said was that the approach that they were taking was not to bully their way into a sales relationship. What they were trying to do was establish a partnership, that they were focusing on jobs in Canada. So this isn't so much criticism of their rival, Lockheed Martin, but there is a contrast there.

The contrast is Sweden is saying, we've got a good fighter, and if you buy our fighter, we'll set up manufacturing in Canada. That's a pretty appealing proposition. And I think that for the U.S. side to counter it more effective, is something we should look for because I don't know that, I mean, it's hard for me to imagine exactly all of the factors that would go into the government

decision, but it's hard for me to imagine that simply because Pete Hextra said, this is making him feel uncomfortable or annoyed or something like that, that we'd say, okay, well, forget it, Sweden, you know, we're not interested anymore. Why would we say that? That doesn't make any sense to me. We should say that the F-35 would create some jobs in Canada. There's no doubt about that. Not just for the planes that are built for Canada,

but others that are built for other countries around the world. It's different economic model than the one that the Swedish government is offering for sure. Right. Or the manufacturing say is offering. Sean, tell where are you on this? Well, a number of points. The same ambassador again says you can't understand why Canadian, are stuck on this 51st state delusion that Donald Trump trots out once in a while

and still does for the record. If you can't understand that, I guess you can't understand the fact that if your neighbor is saying we would like to take control of you, maybe you're inclined to look for military material that they would have no control over. It's kind of a basic, I'm not a military. person and certainly not a war monger that's you know but but it it sounds like you should explore your options and if your main partner is also saying we want to bring home all the manufacturing and leave you guys to give us critical minerals then maybe you're thinking i want to deal with

people who actually want to invest in more than critical minerals in this country that does not only take us as a source for natural resources and Canadian workers is worker bees or ants that work for the Queen Bee in Washington. That's one, but the other thing is this is laid to one party, and it's the party where the U.S. through its voices or through its president says, if you do this, you're going to get a trade deal, and if you don't do it, you're not going to get a trade deal. I think we've moved past that. We moved past that when the president decided

that having a trade dealer or a discussion with Canada was not serious enough to pursue because he didn't like a commercial. And at that point, you think, what is the point of negotiating with someone who changes his mind overnight for whom agreements have no value? Look at the case of Switzerland

and the tariffs that were put on Switzerland by Donald Trump that were removed after he received a bunch of gifts. gifts from Swiss companies. At that point, you say, so we nicely walk back into the fold of the F-35 and in exchange, something's going to happen. Who believes that? At this point, most Canadians are not in that kind of mood.

Because every concession that we have made so far, as resulted in what nothing, and actually no talk. But there are arguments for the F-35 in substance. We are part of No-Rat, the North American defense agreement with the U.S. It's been the practice, if at all possible, that the equipment we use can be used by both sides, that can be maintained by both sides.

I go back to my initial point. Is that really where you want to continue going, given all that has been said by the U.S. administration and this vision of a Greenland, Canada, all part of the empire of the United States, that's a good question. I would feel more comfortable about the substance of this argument. If the people who know what they're talking about

and who are saying we should stick with the F-35, if so many of them had not been lobbyist for the companies that are associated with the F-35, and that's basically where I'm up. Yeah, it is always, it's always concerned me that so many of those who are in the Canadian military when they reach retirement age, I want to be careful here, so many of the high-ranking members of the military when they reach retirement age end up taking positions with either lobbying groups or with aircraft manufacturers.

and, you know, a number of them ended up with the F-35 manufacturer, and some of them this week were lobbying, again, in a very public fashion, that the F-35 is the better plane and should be the one that's picked. There's an uncomfortable streak there. I'm not saying anybody's doing anything wrong or illegal. They have to follow certain rules to do all that. But it somehow doesn't look right. It doesn't feel right.

Yet at the same time, you have the Canadian government inviting the king and queen of Sweden over here, which seems to put some, you know, obviously we're friends with Sweden, we're fellow NATO members. But, you know, is there some obligation now after having a very public visit like this around this issue of the fighter jets? which a lot of the discussion has been about, not solely that, but a lot of it about that. Is there some obligation now that, you know, Canada's tipping its hand in favor of the Swedish airplane? I don't think that it works that way particularly.

I think that, you know, what has happened, and we have discussed it in the past, and you can see it coming, is that the way that Trump's administration was approaching its allies and the rest of the world, was going to create some reverberations, some different strategies by those who were affected by it, including Canada. And, you know, if you're the United States, you can't have it both ways.

You can't have wanted to set up these military slash industrial alliances, these arrangements that basically help put the military industrial complex in the United States in a very advantageous position in terms of growing its economic opportunities and becoming the leading manufacturing place for military equipment in the world. But then if you destroy those relationships, not just by asking for increased defense spending, because I think that there are reasonable people who will say, well, that's a reasonable ask and isn't necessarily obnoxious, but the way in which Trump has approached many, many, many other countries in the world has been obnoxious and has caused

other countries to question whether or not the U.S. is as reliable or as dependable an ally and whether it actually wants to have some mutually beneficial relationship. Because Trump is essentially said, we don't believe in mutually beneficial relationships. We believe in America first, almost America only. And, you know, if you play that game, you should expect that other countries will try to find ways to assert their own independence from that influence. And that's what I think Canada is exploring. I think other countries are as well.

And I think that's the future of those multilateral relationships, as long as Trump continues to pursue this kind of approach to the world. When Chantel waves her pen like that. And it means I'm not drawing butterflies, basically. But no, the only point I wanted to make was the fact that the U.S. ambassador raises it, almost unprompted, kind of also tells you something useful, which is that there is some Canadian leverage there with the F-35 discussion. We do not have a hell of a lot of leverage in the conversation.

we've been having when we had them with the U.S. But on this one, the fact that it comes out seems to suggest that there's a nerve that has been touched there. There are two ways to see this. Oh, my God, we've made them angrier. That is what the ambassador would like us to believe. And we should just all hide under our desks and say, please, please, let's be nice about the F-35. But the other way to look at it is if he's already complaining, just because we're exploring options, it's because they care about the way that this goes.

And if you think that there are many lobbyists for Lockheed Martin and others in Ottawa, and probably for Sweden, by the way, imagine that the strength of that lobby in the US, where the military industry is a big, big, much bigger deal than anything we have in this country. So there must be pressure being felt on the other side. side, we always think we're the only ones getting pressure. There's pressure on the other side to say, can we play nicer with those Canadians so that they stopped looking all over the map for alternatives to stuff that we have been selling them successfully and for a profit for decades.

Yeah, I'm sure if you're a Lockheed Martin shareholder, you don't enjoy the F-35 being marketed from a bullying standpoint, from a threatening standpoint. you're unlikely to believe, you might believe that that will work in some instances, but you think you're probably going to pay a price for it somewhere down the line, that people aren't going to want to buy things that they feel like they're being told they have no choice but to buy. We also shouldn't forget that the F-35 hasn't had a golden record since it started flying. There have been issues surrounding the F-35 for a number of times,

and as a result delays and price increases and everything else over these last almost 30 years, as I mentioned at the beginning. I want to stay on this topic, but take a slight detour. And it comes as a result of something Chantelle said in her first answer, which is, you know, we really should be thinking about where we're buying some things, given some things that have been said, maybe delusional, maybe not so much. I mean, some people of late, some. you know, pretty smart, respected people are saying,

you know, keep your eyes wide open about what's going on here. Talk of 51st state and Greenland and, you know, certain minerals and the possibilities of what's happening in Canada's Arctic are things we should be aware of and be prepared to defend. Defend. And, you know, there's this feeling that, you know, you remember Trump's talk about the 49th parallel on how it was created in the early 1900s and that it was kind of a, you know, somebody just, you know, drawing a line on a map, which was a stretch, but nevertheless, there is a feeling on the part of some Americans

that that was a bad decision that was made at that time. and that the border really should be much further north than it is now. And with that kind of discussion, that kind of feeling, there are some Canadians, I don't know whether you saw Steve Sands piece in the last week, but it's an interesting piece about what are we going to do if suddenly the Americans say, you know, we've never respected the Northwest Passage as a Canadian waterway, that it's an international waterway, and the Americans aren't alone in that. There's many other countries feel the same way.

that if the American suddenly said, well, you know what, we're going to send warship through there. What are we going to do about that? Are we going to do anything about it? Are we prepared to have the discussion or surrounding that? This whole sense of how, you know, it's easy to dismiss some of Trump's sayings and the things he said about his intentions,

about his desires, about where can't. Canada should be, whether it's 51st state or whatever. But how seriously are we thinking about all that? And should we be thinking more seriously about it? Either of you want to weigh in on that. Well, we don't know if we're thinking about it seriously because this is the kind of talk that anyone from the federal government is going to come on your show to discuss, right?

for obvious reasons. There's also the issue of the United States. How would they feel if, based on their example, the Russians started sending military ships north and the Northwest Passage, would they find that very interesting? I don't think that it's an issue that we are competent to debate for lack of actual facts as to what thinking is going,

into this and with signals Canada is seriously getting. But based on the talk in Washington, of course you would wish that there are people thinking about contingencies and how to react. The problem with dealing with Trump, and that is something that we do know, is from one day to the next, you're no longer sure what you're supposed to keep your eyes on because there are so many issues that crop up. you rightly would not have expected to see crop up and that kind of gets you in in a perpetual watch mode so the short answer to that very long answer was I don't know and I'm not convinced that

Bruce isn't on the secret talks if they if there are any no I think I agree with that that whether we're talking about it we wouldn't know, but I also feel like the destabilizing effect of Trump it has I don't see any advantages I see plenty of disadvantages for Canada and for the world

it doesn't seem to be the case that his kind of territorial ambitions are something that he pursues consistently or around which he expresses a clear logic it's more as though he keeps searching for a new way to shock and to achieve some kind of lasting historic fame

as a disruptive president I think it's quite destabilizing for the world I think that it enables China to imagine a situation where the U.S. is a much less potent force in the world because it can't stay united because it's imagining all kinds of scenarios that aren't really based on any strategic sense of opportunity but rather on kind of partisan histrionics

or personal fascinations. That's a very different role for the U.S. to be playing. And we can look at Trump and say, well, this is only the first six or seven months, whatever it is, of his second term. but he's been having this influence on U.S. policy for the better part of 10 years now. And there is a cumulative effect in terms of destabilizing the things that we felt were more stable because of the alliances that we were involved in.

And when Ambassador Hexter says, well, we'll have to have a conversation about NORAD if Canada decides to buy a different fighter plane. Well, sure, maybe. but America's commitment to its military alliances is hardly something that we can take as a secure and sure and reliable thing based on the way in which President Trump and his appointees have been talking about it.

So I think it's quite destabilizing. I don't know whether, I presume, the minds who are responsible for imagining how we would deal with different scenarios, spending time on all kinds of scenarios, probably including these. Yeah, and let me be clear, I don't know any more than Bruce or Chantel, which is we don't know what contingency plans, if any, are being discussed right now. All I would say, and I'm pretty confident in this,

is that it's not Trump alone who has these delusions, if you want to call them that, about Canada and how North America fits together in the future. I think I would be willing to bet that there are people around him who have similar feelings and how far they want to take it is something we don't know. So I don't know. I think it's definitely worth keeping an eye on and thinking about how far we would want to go in protecting what we have. I think the real question is how far could we go? Yes, that's true.

And that's a constant, right? And that must surround some of the decisions we're making and the billions of dollars we're prepared to spend on our defenses and where we fit in the alliances of the that exist in the world right now. All right, we're going to move on. And I want to get to that favorite eight-letter word for Canada. It starts with the P and ends with an E, and we'll do that right after this. And welcome back.

You're listening to The Bridge, the Friday episode, which, of course, is Good Talk with Shantelli Bear and Bruce Anderson. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, are on your favorite. podcast platform or you're watching us on our YouTube channel. Pipelines or Pipeline. I don't know. I think there's probably been an assumption certainly was leading up to the last election that Pipeline is a word of the past in Canada.

New ones anyway. But that doesn't appear to be the case anymore. There's all this discussion about an MOU, a memorandum of understanding between Ottawa and Edmonton, between Canada and Alberta, on the possibilities of a new pipeline towards the West Coast, the possibility of some kind of adaption to the tanker ban on the West Coast, seemingly some discussions with BC

about this in the BC government which is against a lot of this stuff but the discussion seems to be edging towards some kind of new understanding how far do you want to go with what that understanding may be who wants to okay I don't

because a lot of stuff was put on the public record this week and this is what it looks like from the outside, at least to me. It looks to me like the Carney government has two pets. It has to choose one or the other. Let's look at what everybody wants here. Mark Carney wants more rigorous climate policy. put in place in the oil sands and by Alberta. He wants them to buy into a more rigorous regime.

Daniel Smith says she wants to move more oil to tidewater and if at all possible, to markets that are not the American market. Although there are developments that could be coming to move more oil south. If Keystone Excel, for instance, is a reservoir and takes off again. BC's government does not want the tanker ban to be lifted and the coastal first nations that live where this tanker ban applies to oil shipments do not want it to be lifted and they will not, based on everything I know about the history of this file,

they will not change their minds. This is a longstanding battle. I've spent a number of years, weeks, paddling in that area. I know the area. I know the coastal nations involved ain't happening. And the BCNDP is not in suicidal mode, which it would be if it said, oh, we're going to go along with that. So that's everybody's objectives.

Here are the options as we know them at this point. Daniel Smith's government says, we want a pipeline that goes new. North. We don't care that BC doesn't want this pipeline to go to the North West Coast. We don't care about the coastal nations. We do not have a private sector proponent for this pipeline, but we want it to happen, and that is our bottom line. We want a new pipeline. For the record, a new pipeline, when everything goes well, think of how long it took to get trans mountains expanded online, that you're talking a decade, basically, and a major fight. That would involve litigation, if the BC government is not in the business of doing what Daniel Smith wants,

it does have ways to slow down or prevent this from happening a previous BC government in the case of a previous pipeline, for instance, that we're not going to do any of the municipal work that we have control over to make sure that this pipeline happens. So that's one path. And if the Carney government wants to go there, it will have to deal with a fairly hostile BC electorate that votes NDP most of the time federally

but has voted liberal in the last election we'll have to deal with First Nations we'll have to deal with other provincial governments saying wait a minute the federal government is trying to shove a pipeline down the throat of a provincial government that doesn't want it and we'll have to deal with serious questions within its own caucus and cabinet

we saw that this week. That's path one, and Daniel Smith will be happy, presumably. Path two, which also surfaced this week, would see the BC government say the Transmountain pipeline that was just expanded can be expanded some more. The operator of the pipeline can, as of next year, increase the flow out of oil through that pipeline and continue to expand it over the next few years.

It doesn't require more indigenous consent, doesn't require it to have tankers use the area where the tanker ban is, but it does get more oil to tidewater and to markets. So does Mark Carney pick that fight, and that will outlast his tenure and that of Daniel Smith, to have a new pipeline built and it's a big if and if a private sector proponent

shows up or does he say this sounds like a way forward yes environmentalist in the liberal caucus would not be happy about more oil flowing out of the trans mountain pipeline but seriously those same MPs were MPs when Justin Trudeau literally paid for

and bought us the pipeline so it's kind of embarrassing to say we stuck around when we accepted buying it to expand it and now we're not happy that we're going to be expanding it some more. It seems to me as a reasonable person sitting from the outside that if your goal is to go to Alberta voters and say, I got more oil to tidewater, this offers you, this path, the Transmountain Path,

offers you that opportunity. The other path allows you, if you're the Premier of Alberta, to say, look at how nasty the liberals are in Ottawa and how nasty BC is. It doesn't get you a pipeline, for sure. It doesn't get you more oil to tidewater anytime soon. So I understand that reasonabluson logic does not always apply on politics. But when you do have an alternative that you can work on,

it seems to me that rejecting it out of hand, I will not take half a cake. because I want the whole cake and I'm willing to wait 10 years to get that cake. That's the position of Alberta at this point. It sounds, I don't know, sounds not very constructive. I'm trying to find a polite word.

I don't know, Bruce. I don't know about you, but it sounds to me like Chantelle should be the new commissioner of pipelines in Canada. Oh, my God. She's kind of, yeah. With her ideas on this one. What do you make of this?

Yeah, look, I think that Chantel has really described the situation very well. I think there are two separate issues here. One is whether Canada will develop and export more conventional energy oil. And I think the breakthrough that's happened, if it's happened, is that not only does Alberta want that to happen, but the federal government has said with the proper mitigation efforts, carbon capture and storage investments by the oil companies. We can see that happening.

So that's a major shift really from the orientation of the federal government prior to Mr. Carney, which we're really, if not kind of saying we can't possibly ship more oil to now saying we need to develop these resources. We understand that in terms of how the Canadian economy will work. And we need to alongside that. really be cognizant of our efforts to reduce emissions associated with the production of those barrels. The second issue is a pipeline. And, you know, it's just so hard for me to imagine a federal prime minister saying,

we're going to force a pipeline through a province where the premier of the province has said it. No thanks. There's another pipeline that you can use. force that pipeline to go through against the objections of indigenous peoples who live there and who have had prior commitments to a tanker ban. I just don't understand the scenario politically or otherwise, especially absent a coalition of companies or an individual proponents saying, we're so desperate for this northern pipeline that we're willing to take.

tell you exactly how we would do it, put our money on the table to do it, explain how we'll mitigate the risks, work out relationships with the indigenous people, reassure the BC government, none of which, none of which so far has been presented. And the notion is that the Prime Minister of Canada should say, well, yeah, in theory, we would be willing to go along with that. So I think there would be an MOU. I just don't understand that if you're Mark Carney, that that's a version of it that makes any sense because it was so hard to get the TMX twinned,

an existing pipeline, to have extra capacity added to it, became a huge strength on federal provincial relations, on kind of social consensus around. energy and pipelines in Canada. And when you have, as Chantel said, the premier of BC saying, well, use this pipeline. Are the companies in Alberta really going to say, well, no, no, no, no, no, it has to be this other thing?

Well, they're not saying that now. So I'm just not seeing the business argument. And certainly if I'm a federal prime minister and my opponent, Pierre Pauliev is saying, well, it doesn't matter what the premier of BC, has to say. The federal government should and has the right to, by law, to just force this pipeline through.

Well, you know, if I'm a conservative party and I'm trying to line up candidates in B.C. for the next election, I think that's a hard sell. I think it would be hard sell in any province to kind of be responsible for explaining why it shouldn't matter that you don't want a pipeline running through your province.

It's not really been the way that we've done things in the more recent past of Canada. And I don't think it's an easy argument to present to regular voters and expect them to go, yeah, I guess that's the new way that Canada should work. Because it is, and this is my last point, because it is kind of the weirdest inversion of what conservatives have historically said about liberal government approach to energy policy in Canada, which is that Ottawa thinks that it should get to decide everything and we lose as a result of it. Well,

basically saying Ottawa should get to decide this, even if other people don't want it, is a hard political sell, I guess. And so I see the politics more or less the way Chantelle does. But there's also I mean, in practical terms does not forget that

the Trans Mountain Pipeline, the private company, walked away from the project because of obstacles. And this was even back on Stephen Harper's day, the TMX expansion was seen as the easiest of the pipeline projects to realize. And still the company walked away. And we ended up collectively picking the bill for doing the expansion. Bruce mentions changes. Well, maybe through those positions was that we should not be exporting more oil, but he did pay for the TMX expansion.

So he is responsible for that happening. It's not as if he shut down pipelines. No, and oil production did go up while he was in office significantly. Yes, but the other big move which took place this week was the BC government, the NDP, BC government saying we are willing to be proactive and allowing or helping TMX, whose operators are saying the same thing, by the way, which is why don't you start by low-hanging foods, We can do a lot more than we've been doing. The BC government is not only said we oppose TMX and its expansion,

and now we would allow or help for it. We're willing to dredge the harbor so that we can have more shipments go out. So this is not a small offer, but it also undercuts the narrative that BC doesn't want to do anything and is un-Canadian and Alberta is fighting the good fight. It kind of, the problem we have had with this discussion until this week is being that none of us could say, well, there is an alternative staring everyone in the face that gives everyone some win,

BC, Alberta and the federal government without plunging into uncertainty. Last point, yes, Pierre Puehliev can. say that. He's much younger than I am or you are. He wasn't around when Bill Davis killed the Pickering Airport. Because if he'd been around, he'd stop saying the federal government can do blah, blah, blah, and forget what the provinces think. What did happen with the Pickering Airport for those who are too young or don't remember? Ger Trudeau wanted two airports. Mirabelle, that dead place now, where FedEx flies planes, and Pickering Airport. There are people who think Pickering Airport should have happened. I'm not trying to insult them.

But one morning, Bill Davis, Premier of Ontario with no control over the building of airports, woke up, went to a microphone and said, you can build this airport. I will not do finance, agree, permit any of the infrastructures that are needed to make it work. As in getting there, getting out. And what happened? Pickering Airport died. So you can use the Constitution, say you can ram projects because you're the federal government, you cannot prevent municipalities and

provinces from exercising their rights to license, permit, etc. And you cannot do major projects without cooperation from those levels of government. Okay, last quick point on this. You know, if there's going to be an MOU, it's got to be

signed by everybody, including Alberta. We talk about it as a, you know, Ottawa, and BC have to, you know, have to make certain decisions. BC was an end on those discussions according to its premium. No, but I understand that and they wouldn't sign an MOU, but it wouldn't be expected to sign an MOU. But the things they've said in the last few days, as you both mentioned, indicate progress, if you believe that this is important.

But what does Danielle Smith have to swallow to take, to put her signature on this document? Well, she's got to see the TMX offer as a glass more than half full rather than the depiction of it as a glass half empty and so not enough for her. A negotiation involves everyone giving up something. And at this point, the public posture seems to be I don't really want a win unless it's my. I win, my total win. And if that's the position, I'm with Bruce. I do not see how a prime minister with 20 seats in BC is going to say I'm going to trample all over BC to please a province that will not be painted red any time in our lifetime. Last thought, Bruce.

Yeah, look, I think given the move that David Eby made, it's for sure incumbent upon Daniel. Smith to make a stronger argument why that is not a solution that would work for Alberta's economic interest. So I'll be watching for that. And I'll also be watching for where the BC companies or the Alberta oil companies are coming from on this, because none of them really relish the idea of being part of an effort to push through a pipeline that they know would be so controversial, would be so difficult to complete. They're not businesses that relish that kind of situation. Instead, they relish the predictability of a way to get the supply of energy

that they develop to a market. And if from their standpoint, the expansion of TMX would work, I don't see a situation where the Premier of Alberta says, well, I don't really care that you think that. I'm insisting on this Northern pipeline because it fits my vision, how I've done combat with Ottawa, and I've kind of secured a political win. So if that's how this plays out, you know, I think it will behooves the federal government to be involved in these conversations with Alberta, but it also will be incumbent upon the

Premier of Alberta to find a path that sounds more reasonable and rational and will deliver the economic benefits that she's looking for without as much of the political friction that some probably in her political movement relish as kind of their day-to-day preference in terms of their politics. Okay, we're going to take our last break. Come back and talk about how the week started. Do that right after this.

And welcome back. You're listening to the final segment of Good Talk with Chantelle and Bruce for this week. I'm Peter Mansprey. glad to have you with us. I guess it feels like a year ago, but it was only five days ago that Parliament sat on the precipice

of the government being defeated and launching us into a holiday season-type election campaign. Didn't happen. The Carney government squeaked through by a couple of votes with some high jumps being done by a few members to make sure that, in fact, the government did survive.

and I'm not talking about government members I'm talking about opposition members and what's the takeaway five days later I mean we've sort of moved on to so many other things but that did happen and it was a moment what's the takeaway Bruce why don't you start us on this

yeah I remember Chantelle and I were so categorical in describing our expectations of what would happen And she said, it answered your, will there be an election? She said, maybe, I said maybe not. I was a little firmer in my belief that it wasn't going to happen. But I obviously wasn't prepared to be that category. Oh, it's cheap to say that now, for sure.

You wouldn't fish or cut bait, so don't even go there. Right? But I did at least, with all the risk that that implies, take a different position. Don't tell. Yeah, maybe not. It turned out to be closer to right. But anyway, always keeps in store. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

How to rewrite history. Look, I think the conservatives looked a bit silly. I think that they looked a bit silly because the images that people were trading around the town this week of Andrew Shear and the, I guess, the conservative whip kind of behind the curtains waiting to see how the numbers were going to go. and then once it was clear that they could actually vote and still not cause an election that they rushed to their seats

and said their app hadn't worked, so could they register their no vote? That hardly looked like the image of an opposition party that was beyond determined to force an election, to bring down the government, which is what they were trying to present rhetorically as their point of view, about the budget and about the need for an election

and it I think reflects the fact that they understand as I think pretty much everybody in this parliament does which is that Canadians do not want to see an election right now and that isn't just a question of okay so then Mark Carney needs to put water in his wine he won the election and people are so far looking at what he's doing and saying I might not love every part of it I might not be sure it's all going to work out

but I'm willing to continue to bet on it as the best approach for the country right now. So I think this episode this week was a signal of the fact that the opposition politicians generally do the math the same way, which is why would you cause an election to happen when Canadians really don't think that it's the right time to have one. All right, Chantal. I was struck by how fearful of an election the conservatives really were and how paranoid. they were about it. The reason why we saw these games of two leading parliamentarians and the official opposition with leading roles and getting the vote out, suddenly being on Parliament Hill, but wanting to vote virtually, their app didn't work, but they were close enough that

they could vote. And by the way, once the vote starts, you can't enter the precinct of the House of Commons. So they were physically not very, far one suspects but the reason for that was one they feared that the nDP would pull a fast one that at the end no nDP member would uh would actually abstain but they also feared that the liberals would trap them into an election by keeping some of their MPs outside of the vote and so that's why they kept those two votes in reserve is what if the government is suddenly missing members and that kind of told me

how much we feared it. Now looking forward, I expect that over the next few months we will be more consumed with the stabilization of the leadership of the opposition parties. I devote

on Mr. Puev's future at the end of January and that is going to take precedence over any attempt at theater to say we're going to cause an election and then the choice of a permanent NDP leader at the end of March. So we're going to be on that front in an internal opposition cycle, which rules out an election pretty much until the spring.

I also don't believe that there will be short of events that I can't foresee, that there will be something that will cause all three opposition parties between now and summer to suddenly say, we need an election, something grievous is happening. there will not be a budget in the spring there will be or there could be confidence votes but I don't see a high profile enough issue to trigger that and then come fall

Quebec is going to the polls and traditionally we do not have federal elections concurrent with elections in larger provinces because election workers for parties are busy on one front and not the other so I suspect we will be having this conversation will Mark Carney survive not survive come the next budget next fall

and in the time in between the government should be able to implement its agenda without forever looking over its shoulder at a possible election defeat that being said and you're already seeing it this morning the liberals have no control over the committees

there will be attempts on the part of the conservatives if they can get the block on side to amend legislation. So I think if I were a liberal House leader, I would be nice to the NDP because the liberals will need the NDP again if they're going to get their legislation passed without significant amendments that they don't want

from the other two opposition parties. We'll see. But that is not high profile enough issues for either the liberals or the opposition to claim that we should. How about an election? A lot of, in this last minute we've got, there's been a lot of discussion in the last couple of weeks

about how difficult times have been for Pollyev. But now that we're past the vote and we're kind of into the normal movement of parliament, has his situation in terms of that vote that's coming up at the end of January, has it really changed at all? It certainly has become weaker. He has angered the people on the more centrist side of caucus and of the party with the circumstances that surrounded the resignation of one MP

and the floor crossing of another. But then this week he is made also the red meat base very angry at the fact that the Conservatives actually actively ensured that the government was not defeated on the budget. So I still think, and Bruce may disagree, that this biggest weakness as members ponder how they're going to vote remains the fact that these double digits points behind Mark Carney

when it comes to competence as a prime minister. Do you really want to give a new lease on leadership to a guy who is dragging the party down? Okay, you've got 20 seconds and no more, Bruce, did you agree or disagree? Three quick points. They're 12% who are. swing voters, and they're not motivated by the kind of style and tone that Pierre Polyev uses

in his leadership, and the expressions by an MP on the front bench of the conservatives yesterday, Stephanie Coosie, is exactly the kind of tone that those voters and the soft conservatives in the conservative party, soft polyev people, are saying, we need to change that. We need to look more serious. We need to look like we're serious people. And that's not what they're doing right now. All right. Thank you for doing that. Thank you for the conversation to the two of you. Chantelle, Bruce, have a great weekend. We'll talk to you again in seven days.

Have a good weekend, you guys. Bye.