The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk -  Let's Call It The G6, Forget About Trump

Episode Date: June 12, 2026

Lots of good talk on Good Talk this week, starting with Chantal and Bruce on Mark Carney's trip to Paris today and his talks with Emmanuel Macron.  France is hosting the G7 next week, but for many, it's really a G6 with Donald Trump's America, no friend of the group.  That and CUSMA and social media bans top the discussion agenda today. 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 is your Friday Good Talk session. So here we are. The Globetrotting Prime Minister is Spin the Dial, and he is in Paris today. And fulfilling his duties as the outgoing leader of the G7, he's meeting with the incoming leader of the G7,

which is Emmanuel Macron. So that's why he's in Paris today and will be next week when the G7 takes place in France. G7 was called the G7 for the seven nations who are in it, but a lot of people now talk about it as the G6. Not that there aren't seven nations there, but there are only six that seem to be of a similar nature

in terms of where they'd like to see things be. And the seventh, of course, is, Donald Trump's America, which seems to be on the sidelines for many of these people, for different reasons. So going into this, I wouldn't mind starting on this this weekend, seeing as it's happening kind of right now. Bruce, what's your take on the Carney Macron meeting in light of this with the background of, you know, G7 versus G6? Well, I think all of these relationships are more important in some ways than they have been since the concept of a G7 or a G20 developed. I think that we're living in a time where the anchors of the world order,

essentially the role of the United States for many countries, no longer is the anchor. And I think people are looking for what kind of relationships they can develop that can allow them to have conversations, not just about trading relationships, not just about security, but to be able to have conversations about things that happen in the world where governments might need to try to coordinate a response

or coordinate a strategy. And there arguably are even more of those kinds of situations now than we've seen in the past. For example, if we think about the role of regulation in technology. So the relationship between Carney and the other leaders, I think on the whole, from what we can tell, is a good relationship. There's mutual respect. There's cordiality.

There's the ability to have conversations. There's a sense that Carney has a kind of a fresh voice and is using it effectively on the global stage. But he doesn't go around looking for fights. He goes around looking for solutions, for common ground, for the ability to kind of find a path forward for everyone. So whether or not, you know, you know, the Macron-Carnney relationship is the best of its kind.

I don't really know, but I do think that the role of the Canadian Prime Minister in this context is, and this isn't just about Mark Carney, has become more important and will be more important in the next several years. Chantelle, how do you see it? Yes, Mark Carney, in theory, is passing the torch as the outgoing chair of the last G7 to the current one. but I think there's another passing of torch and it goes in the other direction.

Emmanuel Macron is on his way out. He has run as many terms as he is allowed, and it may be their last meeting of the kind certainly is last G7. But when you look at the G6, I'm excluding Donald Trump, I think there will be a vacuum that Mark Carney is more likely to fill

as one of the leading voices of the G6, than any of the others. And why do I say that? Well, in part because he has one of the longest runways to a re-election bid, because he only was elected last year, and by virtue of his acquired majority, he's got three years ahead of him, which makes him one that is likely to see the end of this Trump term and whatever comes next. But also, If you look at Canada versus the other five, and I'm going to set Japan aside because its geopolitical reality is very different from that of the others. Italy, Germany, France, the UK are all contending with extreme right parties that are on the right, that are on the rise and that for the most part have as part of their bread and butter anti-immigration policies. That also makes Mark Carney stand out as he, yes, has opposition on the left and the right,

but it is more normal opposition than what has been going on in Europe. Certainly, Pierre Puelev is not going around saying the kind of things that the right is saying, the extreme right in the UK or in Italy. So by virtue of his current political capital, by virtue of the key, current Canadian situation, which is difficult but is not leading to the kind of polarization so far that we've seen in Europe or even in the U.S. I think that means that Mark Carney's role in the so-called G6 is going to become larger over time rather than just this side player. Because for those who weren't around, and we were, Canada ended up in the G7 as an add-on

to the initial plans and mostly out of its friendship with France and the UK. And here we are at a juncture in history where it does matter that there is a North American voice that maybe can talk to the Trump administration on different terms at the time when Europe has to reconsider how it's going to deal with the notion that the Trump administration is about to or could be leaving it at the mercy of Russia. Let me just ask a question here for a moment because, you know, in the past Canada and those of us who cover Canada,

get criticized for trying to claim more importance for the country on the world stage than actually exists. Now, there's no question that, of late, Canadians at least have been assuming that we are playing a much bigger role or have the potential of playing a much bigger role on the world stage because of Mark Carney, because of Davos, because of the world situation. Are we being, are we overstating the fact of the role that Canada is playing right now or could be playing right now?

Well, my favorite line on this notion that we are so big is to ask audiences, How often did you wake up in the morning wondering what Norway thinks about something? So let's keep things in proportion. I do think, and you can tell it from our perspective, from the coverage, there is a lot more foreign coverage of Mark Carney's government and whatever he has to say than I have ever seen about any prime minister, and I include Brian Mulherny's efforts on apartheid. But you will see Mark Carney's name in the New York Times, in the Guardian and their French equivalent.

A lot more often than Justin Trudeau, for instance, once the initial excitement over the dynasty, the Trudeau name, had kind of faded. But the downside of this is that if we're taking up a bit more space, it's also by default. This is not a time when the UK and France and Germany are in strong leadership positions for all kinds of domestic reasons beyond the usual Trump thing. And that basically leaves Mark Carney as the man standing, the leader standing with the more solid footing today. We'll see where we are a year from now. We're also the closest to Trump.

And so the Trump-Canada relationship is of interest to Europe, Greenland, Denmark. The list is long. And we have been one of the staunchest allies of Ukraine since Russia has been as attacked Ukraine. And that is one legacy of Justin Trudeau that Mark Carney has been running with. Just quickly, on the Ukraine, you know, it was more than four years ago now that Russia, to Ukraine. That war has lasted longer than the First World War. World War I, yeah. Amazing. Anyway, Bruce, on this positioning of Canada and all this. Yeah, I wanted to pick up on one of Chantal's points and add another if I can. What I was hearing in my mind as she was talking about

the forces at play in some of these other democracies is that in a lot of these countries, there is a polarization that's happened between voters on the left and voters on the right. And typically voters on the left will want a really vocal and passionate champion of the most progressive ideas. And voters on the left will want the same thing looking for conservative ideas. What that's produced in a lot of cases is choices that don't really appeal to mainstream voters. And that feel as though whatever they're going to get, they're going to get more polarization and less sense of community and forward progress.

Carney, by his nature, kind of broke that pattern a little bit. I mean, he's a progressive person with a strong business and economic orientation. He's somebody who wrote a book that talked about the marriage of the idea of value in marketplace and the idea of values from a humanity standpoint. And I'm not saying that that's a way. exactly how he won his election in Canada. But I am saying that if you look at some of the other countries, the UK and France in particular, you do have a situation where there probably are a lot of voters who are wishing that they had a leadership option that felt more like it wanted to grow

the economy. It wanted to champion some progressive ideas. But it was going to try to do that without pursuing this polarization for political effect. The second thing I wanted to say is, is that just even the way that we are having this conversation today, it kind of reminds me of the times when we say, well, how important are we as a country, as though there's a league table and we're trying to score points to become more important, right? Can I leave the kids' table forever.

But Chantel's absolutely right. It doesn't matter that we don't wake up thinking about Norway. It matters if Norway contributes to a conversation about sustainability and sovereign wealth in ways that make people look, you know, that's an interesting idea. The way that they handled that is something that maybe the other parts of the world could emulate. And so my point is really this, that I think Carney's influence, if it's larger than it has been for other leaders in the past,

I generally agree with Chantelle about that, has more to do with the things that he's talking about. And the reason he's talking about these things has less to do with wanting to be seen as a global leader, as somebody with a kind of a superstar or he pursues what he pursues, I think, on the basis of what's the best thing for the people who elected me? What should I be trying to do for Canada? And yes, for the world, but not to achieve some kind of fame or acclaim in that international, marketplace.

Let's, just before we leave the G7 issue, do you think it matters to Donald Trump, whether he's there or not? And I think back to last year, you know, the G7 was in Canaanas, Canada hosting Mark Carney on the world stage, really for the first time after the election. And he, Trump left after a day. Now, you know, I'm sure the U.S. President can always think of something else. he should be doing or discussing or being somewhere else because, you know, it's a busy job. But it was a bit of showboating on his sense, and everybody kind of took it that way and are assuming

anything could happen this time round as well, including not even turning up because of, you know, whatever the day's negotiations are in Iran. But do you think it even matters to him one way or the other, whether he's there? Or does it matter to the other that he's there? There's also a question a year in. Yeah. Because this is someone who likes to meet with people who will spend the time that they are with him, telling him how great he is. That's unlikely to happen at this meeting.

There is already no prospect, as far as I understand from a community from the entire group, which tends to happen, not always, but most of the time. Usually it doesn't happen when Donald Trump is at the meeting. So, I mean, there are many things that these leaders can discuss together without Donald Trump that may be more effective as a discussion than anything that happens with him there. Well, to that point, I was going to say we all know somebody like Donald Trump, but that's not true. We don't. But I'm thinking there's always that person who you can imagine being at a meeting

whose whole kind of orientation and style is going to be distracting or disruptive or counterproductive to the meeting. Trump has proven that that is the point for him of attending these things, not just something that happens because he hears an argument that he disagrees with and he can't resist reacting to that. He wants the meeting to be about him. He wants the conversation after the meeting to be about how he threw his weight and America's weight around. If it's not about that, he's bored with it. If it's about anything too substantive, he's bored with that. I mean, we see what his preoccupations are, is putting his name on buildings, putting his face or his name on money.

He's got a big wrestling thing going on on the White House lawn. You know, I know Chantel really likes that kind of wrestling, so I'm not going to be too critical about it. I can't wait. But it's a circus for him. The whole thing is kind of a circus. And yesterday it was, we're going to really finish Iran off for the 38th consecutive time until it was time for the stock market to have to go up again,

and now we're going to have peace with them. So how disruptive could he be at a meeting like this? Maximum disruptive. So they do have other things that they need to talk about, probably best among themselves, including the fact that America is greatly reducing its commitment to NATO on the European continent, a very big shift, at a time when Russia is finally losing,

this war, I think, with Ukraine. So there's a lot at stake there for all of the other countries, and I don't think they, I'm pretty sure they're not concerned if Trump doesn't come. I think it'd probably be more that they have to spend a lot of time thinking about how to manage the Trump presence if he actually does participate. They would also have to, I understand, have a birthday thing if he built up. Of course they would. Yes. That's right. You know, this is cake candles singing. Yeah, right. I can just imagine.

Okay, we're going to take our first break. Come back and we'll talk. Well, it's kind of related, but it's Kuzma. And we'll do that right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Friday episode, which is, of course, good talk with Chantelle-A-Barre and Bruce Anderson. I'm Peter Mansbridge.

You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks. or on your favorite podcast platform, or you're watching us on our YouTube channel, and we are glad. Of course, that you have joined us, no matter which platform you are using. Okay, topic two, and as I said, it's kind of related

because it falls down to the relationship between Canada and the United States and Mexico to some degree as well. We're talking Kuzma, the trade negotiations. Now, not surprisingly, I think a lot of us are a bit confused as to what's really happening. We saw a week where once again Donald Trump trotted out some of his favorite lines, which include we don't really need Canada.

We don't need Canada at all. We don't need anything Canada has. And maybe we don't even need Kuzma. Maybe I'll just not have the trading relationship anymore. So you have that on one hand. And then you have Bruce's favorite ambassador, Pete Hochstra, from the United States saying, no, no, no, no, you're reading him wrong.

What he really means is we need Canada. And so you've got to be up front and put in the window all the things you can offer us and the deals you can make. So this is a new approach from Hoekstra in terms of the way he's been going about these discussions. But, you know, is this just the same old game? This is like, this is the art of Trump's deal in spite of the fact that his... Art, you call it.

Yeah, well, his deal art has been a bit of a bust of late on so many different fronts. Modern art, you know, when you're supposed to look at the painting and figure out the meaning and what it says to you, it won't say the same thing to Bruce as it says to me, that's art, that's the art we are in. this point, then let us demonstrate it over the next few minutes. So it's much deeper kind of thinking. Yes, so it's beyond our understanding because we have small minds and it takes big minds to figure out what's going on. From the outside, it does look like the one thing that hasn't changed is that we are

invited to a movable feast where we bring all the dishes and only one person gets to eat. And that person is not us or Mexico. It feels like that. Maybe some great things are happening, but it's been a year. And at this time last year, Mark Carney was still hopeful to resolve some of the trade issues by July 21st and then August 1st. And then here we are. A couple of points about Kuzma. Donald Trump can say, and nobody will know what he really means about Kuzma until

one of two things happened. The United States issue a six-month notice to say that they are bailing out of Kuzmo. They can do that, and that's the end of it, except that was six months, I would predict, will be really hard and rocky in the United States. Because at that point, a notice like that from the administration would gel mines in the too silent business constituency, It wants Guzma to continue, but it is not saying anything. The other option, and that's why there's no clarity on that statement, the other option is the deadline comes, there's no notice issued, and then we are going, there's no, this isn't like Cinderella, no one's going to turn into a pumpkin on July 1st.

It just means that it moves Kuzma in yearly reviews for a decade, which is way beyond, even in our best imagination, the Trump tenure and the consequences of all that uncertainty. But as for the ambassador's comments, I had a bit of sympathy for him this week, trying to paint something that seems to say black into something white, but his notion that Canada should get in sales mode, that's exactly what Mark Carney did when he went to New York in that speech. which was to open up other horizons on aluminum, on critical minerals. It was the word Kuzma wasn't in there.

It was here are all those things we could still be doing and that you are better off doing. But I don't believe there's a singularity of you in the administration over the future of Kuzma. And that's why increasingly we're getting conflicting signals. But as you know, in that administration, the last word belongs to guess who, who may or may not decide that he's done with it, because that's the more exciting thing to do that thing. What about you, Bruce? Well, you know, I always really wake up when Chantel says something as shocking as I was feeling some sympathy for Pete Hextra. I do you would do that. I had a certain for him, really.

I had a moment of that myself. It was very, very fleeting. Bulletin, breaking news. And then he said, you know, but Canadians have no sense of humor. And I thought, dude, you can't help but, you know, savage yourself in front of these audiences. What is it that goes through your head

that makes you think you want to keep on kind of poking at the relationship in such an ungainly way? I like bourbon. I've always liked bourbon and he's making me hate bourbon as an idea even when I was looking forward to the day when this is all going to get wrapped up

and bourbon was going to come back and be part of my life again. I've actually got a bottle which I will not touch for the time being but he may leave a bad taste to my mouth about bourbon forever. On the substance of the thing I actually think the conversation

has shifted. I do sense that even though Trump said some of those things that he said again. He also mentioned potash. Others have talked about lumber and aluminum and uranium, I think. And there is a different tone, I think, in the conversation from the U.S. side. There obviously has been fairly consistently from Democrats and from some Republicans in states

where the relationship is really important. I think they feel emboldened and empowered. more and more because Trump is weakened. He's weakened by the Iran war. He's pushed and put himself in a situation where he said he was going to change the future of the world with this war. And basically what he's going to do is have spent tens of billions, maybe hundreds of billions of dollars to put the world back in a similar but maybe weaker place than has been. The reserves of oil are running close to levels that are dangerous for the U.S. economy, for the U.S. economy.

I think that the government had to pay another $22 billion in refunds on tariffs. The U.S. government did to Americans who paid those tariffs. Didn't think that the tariffs were a good idea. The name's coming off, the Kennedy Center. He's getting booed at events that get televised across America and then

reprogrammed all across the world for people to see. He's got a losing hand right now. I don't think that he's going to cave, but I think that it was never likely to be the case that he would go, well, I just have to make this decision by this July 1 deadline because he's not a guy

who likes to be in that situation. It's more likely that he would want to put himself in a situation where he'd say, I wasn't conditioned or constrained by these deadlines. I set my own path. And at some point, I do believe we're going to get to an arrangement. Another interesting clue, and I have to give credit to James Moore, I saw him do this on a panel yesterday, make this point on a panel yesterday,

that that Gordy Howe Bridge is going to open up. So the question is, if it was going to open up this week and the U.S. asked us not to do that or asked that that be delayed, that wasn't the same as saying we're never going to use that bridge. That bridge is a ripoff. Canada is ripping us off. It was none of that, right? It was more like, let's postpone that event to a time when it feels like it doesn't create conditions that are uncomfortable for the U.S. administration. In other words, the point that Moore was making was, if you ribbon cut that bridge, doesn't it create the expectation that there's forward momentum on this deal and that then puts pressure on the Trump administration? I think it's an interesting point. But the fact that it wasn't,

we're never going to use that bridge and we're never going to do anything with Canada, that wasn't what the ambassador was saying. That wasn't really what Trump was saying. That isn't really what James and Greer is saying. So I think things are moving. towards on a different timeline, but moving towards some kind of solution. That's the sense I have.

All right. Here's my problem with that. Is it the bourbon? No, I hadn't realized you were so. I like it. I almost said addicted to bourbon. Put it on eBay. You're going to make money.

Yes, that's right. Yeah. You never know what you might get for that. No, here's my issue. Things may be moving. in a positive direction, as you're suggesting, Bruce, at the negotiating table.

My problem is, if it's anything like so many other things that Trump involves himself with, by the time the negotiators come walking in the Oval Office and say, hey, we've got a deal, he'll find a dozen things he doesn't like about it. And they may be real or they may be imagined

or whatever, he seems to get in the way of deals. And Iran is a classic example. If you believe, and I have trouble believing all the stuff that comes out of the White House, but if you believe it, he's put his foot down and said, no, I don't like this, back away from it.

Yeah, look, Peter, I think there's so, that's always going to be a safe bet that he's unpredictable, and he'll kind of destroy the progress that he's made. But another safe bet is he does like to wrap things up with a ribbon and collect a prize for accomplishing something. Like he solved 20 wars and he created. Yes, except none of these things happen. So he doesn't even need a deal to be able to.

What does happen, though, is that he moves away from a thing that, and he did sign a deal with us that he said was the best deal between two countries in the history of the world. And so there is a chance, I guess, basically. on his past track record of wanting to claim the prize and the solution, that he'll arrive at a point where he doesn't like 35% approval ratings, where all of the Republicans around him say, it's fine for you, but we're going over the cliff here. And so what are the things that he's going to do? Well, I think one of the things we're watching is what he's doing on Iran right now, which is trying to find a solution which doesn't look so much like a climb down. but ends this war because it's very unpopular in the United States and very unpopular among people in his own movement.

I'm not sure that Trump is trying to find an agreement that does everything that Bruce says. I think people in the administration and around the administration are trying to do that, which goes back to Peter's point about when it lands on his desk, what happens to Kuzma or whatever. I thought we had come to the conclusion that anything that involves the word track record talking about Trump should be thrown out the window because when he was re-elected, wasn't the general thinking being that we've done this once and we know it works and we can do it again. And that has proven to be that whoever was that person in the White House surrounded by adults back then is not the person we are dealing with at this point.

Mr. Trump found something great to say about the best deal he negotiated the last time, the current Kuzma deal this week. What did he find that was great about it? The clause that allows the U.S. to walk away, which is not kind of the signal that you want from someone who says, I negotiated this. It's full of good parts. And, you know, it's my creation. I'm not going to throw it the baby out with the Batwater.

but I was listening to Bruce. I guess my uneasiness on this relative optimism comes from my experience with constitutional talks in this country, this feeling. And if you guys remember, and I covered that on a daily basis, it came in waves. There was a wave of optimism,

followed by a wave of pessimism, followed by more. But if you looked at actual facts, thing had happened. It was just a mood change. And I was listening to Bruce and I was thinking, perhaps real things are happening in a positive sense. I don't get that impression. Or perhaps we are now living in the Meach moon phase, full moon, half moon, no moon, and we go back. I don't know. But it feels a bit like that when you listen to it and you think, I know this feeling. And then, you know, you get this phone call from your desk.

It says, do you think big progress is happening? And you say, actually, I find no evidence of anything happening. But this week, we are in the Canada saved section. I'm not going to say what was the expression. I say it in French, but I don't in English. What was the other face, Canada, whatever? But you can imagine. Nothing cuts me to the quick, like being accused of being a relative but consistent optimist.

It's true. And my wife, she doesn't criticize very many things about me, but that is one that she will come back to. And I plead guilty to that. I tend to want to imagine that things aren't going to continue to get your part, pardon my language, Peter. I'm going to use that word if you continue. But all of the evidence is that they have gotten shudder. and quite a bit share for a good long period of time. You've got multiple passes to use that kind of word.

However, to return to my theme of relative optimism, I think the things that are happening are happening not necessarily at the negotiating table or even in politics. They're happening in the way in which businesses are transacting. And what's happened to inflation is putting more. pressure on the businesses, which putting more place and on the consumers, which is putting more pressure into the political marketplace. So American inflation going up again is a real factor. And as you were saying, it doesn't necessarily mean that Trump wakes up worrying about it.

He said, you know, in this week, I love inflation. Well, that, you know, is the single best clip that the Democrats will have harvested for their use politically heading into these midterms. I love the inflation. People don't have, including the MAGA voters, many MAGA voters don't have the confidence anymore that when he says, I love the inflation because I can turn it up when I need to vanquish Iran and then I could turn it down immediately upon vanquishing Iran. That credibility is gone. Businesses are carrying on the way, the best way.

they can, but feeling the weight of his policies, not feeling as though, well, one day these policies are going to unleash a whole bunch more economic opportunity for us. So if I'm optimistic, I'm not optimistic that Trump is going to get smarter, more lucid, or less ornery, but that the weight of consumer and business activity is going to reshape the political math for Trump and the Republicans in the next, call it, 140 days. All right. Last question on this point. None of us are inside the negotiations, so we don't really know what's been going on, but you hear the odd thing. And you see some action by both governments on certain things that may well have an impact on the negotiations. So I asked this this way. You know, over the last year, we've seen in a number of areas where Canada has either moderated or changed its position. on issues that seem to matter to the Americans. What have we seen on the other side?

What have the Americans changed? Chantal. Nothing? Literally zero. If this was meant to have the start of an adult conversation that would lead to an outcome, nothing has happened. And yes, we have made moves of all kinds

on the digital tax more recently on the CRTC battle with the platforms and including some of our counter tariffs. That has also happened, or even this week the introduction of a bill to tighten up controls over slave labor products, which legislation, which is mostly for sure in the sense that we already have a system in place, and it's like rooting out crime. you're never, ever with legislation going to get to completely erasing criminal behavior. But there have been many of those gestures, and all that you have heard in return is you still

have sectoral counter tariffs on aluminum, steel, et cetera. That's a major irritant. That's from Jameson Greer, but also from Ambassador Oxtra. Oh, the wine and beer and alcohol. that is not on the shelves, which I don't think any Premier that is at this point not having these on the shelves would restore without taking a big hit with their own voters. I can't see Doug Ford saying my gesture of goodwill is I'm going to do that, or Web Canoe or Christine Frischette.

Or Canadians are not being nice to us, they're not traveling to the US. What do you want to do? Organize government-sponsored trips so that we can ship people to some beaches in the US to prove goodwill. But none of those have been followed up. I'm not signed by giveaways from the administration, but by the establishment of a process that normal adults will engage in if they are serious. It's been demand after demand. That's what I meant by the movable feast. You keep bringing food to the table. And it gets consumed, obviously. But the only answer is never a thank you or will you share with us, it's just find more.

We're still hungry. And it does look, when you look at Dominique LeBlain, the minister in charge's latest statements, that he talked about there will be side deals with Mexico and Canada. It feels like there is a long list of concessions that are being asked. And whoever is so-called negotiating with Canada

is basically putting that list and saying, If you don't take all those boxes, we're going to do bad things to you. To go back to Bruce's point about business in the U.S. becoming more concerned, it may be that the best thing or the best shot that might change things would be for Trump to issue a notice of leaving Kuzma, because that would really shake things up in the U.S. And with the exception of that shock, I think we're going to be into this no man's land of whatever,

maybe till the end of at least this term. I think Chantel's right on that point, that if Trump really thought that it would be in his political interests or in the interest of America to flush Kuzma, he would have said that. He's not saying that. And he's not saying that because he knows that this is a material, a materially useful thing for enormous numbers of people and businesses in his country.

But to answer your question a different way, what is America had done? I just want to run through a list I was thinking about. You know, he went to China after beating up on China. He got nothing out of it. Zero, nothing. There's no deal. There's no discussion. of a deal. He doesn't talk about China anymore. He got elected twice talking about the southern

border. Never built a wall as nearest I can tell. It doesn't talk about it anymore. And this horrible thing that he put in place that we come to symbolize just by calling it ICE, the deportations, they don't talk about that very much anymore, right? It became a huge flashpoint, politically very dangerous for Trump and for the Republicans. And so they decided to change the channel from the thing that they said was the most important thing for them and for America. He said that he was going to solve the Middle East problem in Gaza, between Gaza and Israel. And he created this giant board of peace, the Donald J. Trump Board of Peace,

with some dozens of countries that were all supposed to give a billion dollars and FIFA, that the soccer people that were supposed to give 90, million dollars as near as I can tell from the latest stories none of those countries have sent their billion dollars in so this board of peace has a logo um but no agenda and Gaza is still in horrible shape but he's walked away from it we don't hear him talking about it anymore there's a little bit of a discussion about whether his family's going to get involved in a development there or not but again that was another major preoccupation that he really wanted to throw his weight around on and be seen as this giant figure strutting about the world stage,

only to lose interest when it turns out it's complicated and he gets bored with the complication. Ukraine. He said he was going to solve the Ukraine-Russia war on his first day of his second term. You made the point that is still going on that war longer now than World War I, and Russia is losing and Russia is running itself into bankruptcy trying to win this war and meanwhile the Ukrainians

have developed technologies that the rest of the world is looking at and saying you know what? There's an interesting story there about how to equip yourself and how to fight a modern war so what am I really saying Trump accomplishes very very little even on the things that he touts as the most important signature initiatives of his time in office. And I'm not sure that Kuzma even raises

to that level of it's super important for him. So the chances in my mind that at some point he gets bored hearing that he's underwater on all of these economic approval indicators, that the midterms are coming up and people are saying, could you meet, could you please meet us halfway and not sound like you're lighting fires in our economy all the time? that that starts to make the case for him not to acquiesce to that pressure, but to declare some kind of victory. And in that instance, it won't be the negotiators bringing him something that he then goes, I don't like this about it, I don't like that about it.

I think that was last year's channel or last year's episode. I think this year it might be, I need something, go fix it. I want to declare the victory and I want to get out of the conversation. More optimism, this notion of Bruce, that there are actually telling Trump about this declining standing. I am not sure that's how. You know what? If they were, they probably wouldn't be doing this wrestling thing. If they were telling him, they would probably be thrown to the wrestlers.

Fair enough. When, if you want to understand how the Trump White House tries to deal with issues when they're in deep doo-doo, The New York Times has a good piece this week. It's an excerpt from the new book by Jonathan Swan and Maggie Higerman on how they tried to use the situation room of all places to try and figure out how to get out of the Epstein mess. It hasn't worked so far, but it's an interesting way of looking at how they look at things.

Of course, Trump's not in the room. All his top people are in the room, but he's not in the room. when they're having these discussions. So it's an interesting piece to read. Okay, but do they end with a short straw contest to say who's going to go try to talk to Trump? No. Okay.

They haven't got that far. Or at least the book hasn't yet. I haven't read that part of the excerpt from the book yet. We've got to take our final segment. But before we do that, we've got to take this break. Be right back after this. And welcome back. segment of good talk for this week. Shantel, Bruce, Peter, all here with you.

You know, I listen to an interesting piece on the BBC this week. It was the three-month period in which Australia's social media ban has taken place. They remember, they announced it last year. It took effect, I think, at the beginning of December. And they're finally able to look at three months of results from that. And when they announced last year, a lot of other countries, including Canada, kind of perked up and thought, you know, we're looking at something similar and we're getting our act together. Well, they kind of announced their plan this week, or at least the initial parts of their plan. But the interesting piece on the BBC was they went and talked to young people in Australia about how this is going. And there's no doubt some kids said, yeah, I haven't used social media for three months.

I feel better for it, et cetera, et cetera. But the majority of kids they talk to said, well, this was no problem. I'm still on TikTok. I'm still on Snapchat. I'm still on Instagram. They weren't able to stop me from doing stuff. You know, there were a few questionnaires that I had to fill out, but it was no big deal. And I was able to carry on as I had me.

And so are most of my friends. Now, that wasn't universal, but it seemed to be the majority of the people they talked to in what, you know, I gather would be an unscientific look at the situation. But it's interesting in light of what we're looking at now. I don't have long. We've only got a few minutes, but I want your thoughts on what we saw this week on the social media question and impact for young people. Chantelle.

Okay, I'll preface this by saying. I do believe it's an important conversation. Set aside legislation, politics, etc. It's a conversation that all of us, including younger Canadians, need to have. And if it only leads to more people paying attention to this issue and its consequences, that will be a good outcome. I also understand that we are going about this in a different way from Australia, in part based on the Australian experience so far,

and that we are trying to incentivize the platforms into putting guardrails, that will mean that young people can continue to be on social media, even if they're not 16, in a safer environment. So where my doubts come in, they come in first with the platforms. I have seen very little evidence of serious goodwill on the part of any of those platforms to actually clean up their act in an effective way. And two, our track record of standing up the platforms over the past two, years is that we put in legislation and then we back off. And why do we back off? We are in a place

different from France or other countries on that, because the stars are not necessarily well aligned for the government of Canada. They take on the platforms on anything, even as they are trying to get some trade issues result with the United States and the platforms and their owners have an audience in the White House that is second to none, I believe, with that president. So I'm not convinced that we will see this legislation anytime soon, or that we have the backbone to actually implement it. And there are many, many gray areas in which we saw this week. As for the Australian experience, I don't know, guys, you were in high school

in what's the 60s or the 70s, did you have a hard time getting marijuana? I mean, when did teenagers not find their way around things? And if you actually tell them you can't do something, wouldn't they want to do this? And you can think of all kinds of mechanism, face recognition. I had a baby face. I would never have been allowed on social media until my 30s. on face recognition.

How do you tell the difference? One mother asked, who is also a host of a show here, how do you tell the difference on face recognition between a 16 and a 17-year-old? Great, good luck. Do you want your kids

to be sending in their ID papers to a platform? No, you don't. So the notion that we will get the platforms to clean up their act, I think that's a good thing to be undertaking, but I believe the conversation

is ultimately more important. and then no legislation. All right. You've got a minute and a half for sober. The first thing for me is that it's important that we remember all of us as we think about this, that it is a conversation essentially about how do we protect children. It isn't really about whether governments should get involved in regulating what people consume. And I think that's to the government's credit, those that are taking action on this,

that they're really trying to make sure that it doesn't become mired in this conversation. about the right of everybody to consume information that they want to consume on the Internet. It is about protecting children. And I think the evidence has been so overwhelming that the argument that we shouldn't do this or we shouldn't do anything is a really, really weak argument. We have to do something, I think, is a moral imperative. And then the question of, well, what can you do and what should you do and what's the best way and will it work?

I think those are all, you know, good questions, legitimate questions. But from my standpoint, whatever is tried, if it helps protect 20%, 30%, 40%, that's better than zero. And right now, I think there's too many places in the world, too many situations where the level of protection is zero effectively. And so parents need to be involved in this. people generally need to be involved in this government regulation has to be part of it. But to Chantel's point, this isn't solved with one piece of legislation or one battery of regulation. It's solved by society saying we need to protect our children from what's going on. Last point for me is that a few years ago, this was a conversation principally about can we trust industrial tech giants not to do things deliberately that are harmful to our kids and that they know are accumulatory.

harm to our kids. That's not really the only issue anymore. The question is, will artificial intelligence create these dynamics without any human involvement on the part of the technology platforms that will perpetuate and worsen the kind of harms that we're seeing? I think that's a very, very large question and we need to address it. Okay. And on that, we're going to have to close it out for this week. It's a great conversation, as always. next week is our final good talk before the summer break. So invite governments to wrap everything up in the next few days. So we can have a final talk about it.

Thanks to Bruce. Thanks to Shantel. Have a great weekend, everybody. We'll talk to you again on Monday. See you guys. Bye.