The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk -- Mexico Fights Back, Canada Rolls Over?

Episode Date: November 29, 2024

Trump threatens tariffs on Canada and Mexico unless both countries clean up their border issues and stop dumping migrants and fentanyl into the US.

Are you ready for good talk? If it sounds a little different, it's because, well, it's cold and there's lots of snow on the ground because this is Winnipeg, Winterpeg. Having a good time. I don't want to associate myself with those comments that I see. Same here. They're all yours, please. Winnipeggers love the term winter pig. They love it. And the air is dry. It's all good.

Bruce Anderson, Chantelle Hebert joining us for our weekly discussion here on Good Talk on the Bridge. Okay, let's get started. Donald Trump threatens 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico unless both countries clean up their border issues and stop dumping migrants and fentanyl into the U.S. That's his view. Mexico says Trump has it all wrong. Well, Canada seems to suggest, yes, sir, we'll get right at that. What's going on? Chantal, you start us on this. Well, it's hard to pretend that there should be order in the chaos that we watched this week,

which I believe may be in the process of writing itself. But yes, you're right. Donald Trump tweets something about tariffs, accuses Canada of having a C for a border and allowing that border to be used to transport fentanyl, none of which is borne out in the sense of a large phenomenon by any statistics in any way, shape, or form. For an idea of the fentanyl crossing the border, I think the numbers I saw, it's less than 50 pounds a year. I wish Mr. Trump would try to collect it pound by pound

until he figures out it's down to ounces. And I'm glad I'm old enough to remember the imperial system, by the way. But so everybody's kind of scrambling. And what really happens, everybody turns their guns on each other, which is really interesting to watch if you're a Canadian that is worried about what's going on. And you watch various premiers, let's not go down the list, say, yeah, Trump has a point. You watch the leader of the official opposition, in theory, the incoming prime minister, if the polls turn out to be right, say, yes, he's right. Justin Trudeau broke the border. And I'm almost quoting here word for word from Mr. Poiliev's latest news

conference. He broke the border, Justin Trudeau. And before Justin Trudeau was prime minister, we never had border issues. The border was great. Except that before Justin Trudeau became prime minister, and over the decades that Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper were prime minister, we concluded the safe third party agreement with the United States. Why did we do that? Not just because we like to write papers that we can sign off on, but because we did have issues at the border, people showing up in droves, and Canada getting to an agreement with the United States that each country was to be considered safe, and hence we were going to be able to send back people who claimed refugee status to that safe country they came from, Canada or the U.S. Nobody, amongst all those premiers who were eager either to strike, in the case of Saskatchewan, a one-on-one trade deal with the United States, forget NAFTA or COSMO or whatever you call the latest.

The premier of Ontario wants to get rid of Mexico from the deal, even before he gets to a negotiating table where, and in this case, the threat is not tied to the free trade agreement. Nobody dares point out that in the real world where we have lived safeguard it so that thousands do not come in to our border. And the reverse, until one last check, it is the United States' job to safeguard its border, not Canada's job to safeguard its border. So the finding at the end of the week is, well, it seems that the United States is no longer able to safeguard its northern border, and it needs Canada to do it for them. And overall, on balance, I think what happened this week,

it's not a great prelude to the next four years. One, we accepted the terms of conversations of Donald Trump, who likes to move them wherever he fits. We have accepted his universe to discuss on his terms. Too many people in this country are busy settling scores with Justin Trudeau and are not kept their eye on the ball, which is, this is serious. But if it's serious, you need to act and treat it seriously. And three, strangely enough, by the end of the week, some premiers were starting to change their tune

from meeting the prime minister and coming out saying, well, we didn't get any answers, François Legault, Mr. Ford, to the next morning, I'm really satisfied with what happened last night. And I think that's because Canadians have been pushing back on the spectacle that we saw this week. Bruce, how do you see it? Well, I'm still reeling from the way that Chantal started her answer. You know, when she kind of looked at you and said,

you're right. I know. I like that. We could have just ended the show right there. Did I say that? I think it was like the second time in the 15 years or so that we've been doing this. So I know, Peter, you're going to take it away and kind of just maybe replay it several times over the weekend. And I don't blame you because you know that's a that's really a powerful thing sounds like i'm gonna edit your answer out yeah so here's what here's what i'm thinking about trump's language is shock talk that's what he does and if we step back from how shocked we are at the style of his communication and just say, well, he said, I want Mexico and Canada to help solve this problem of fentanyl and illegal migrants on our border. shocking? Not to me. He's talked about that issue. That is an issue for the United States. Chantal's absolutely right that on some level, it's America's responsibility to control its own

border. But that doesn't mean it's a completely beyond the pale for a U.S. president to say, we've got a giant problem and we want you to do more to help us. Now, the fact that he, and I read this in Andrew Coyne's column, which I thought was quite a good column, I didn't agree with everything on it, but he said, Coyne did, the fact that Trump put this point, not as a, if you do this for us, we will do something that you want, but rather, if you don't do this for us, we will do something to harm you, is a measure of who Trump is. He is a bully, and he is a predator. And his whole approach is to use that kind of forceful approach to kind of shock the system to build a wall or control the fentanyl or control the migrants. And I'm sure he's not surprised that we're saying it's 45 pounds of fentanyl, and there were 21,000 people interdicted on our border, and that's a much smaller number than Mexico. But the Kuzma agreement was the tool that he had at hand,

or at least the one that somebody gave to him as a way to prosecute this border control issue. So it sounds like I'm defending what he did. I'm not. I'm saying it is who he is. It is not shocking to me that he used shocking language. What happened on our side of the border to me is I'm pretty close to where Chantal is on this. We have really important strategic interests as a country in managing this. This is a super important strategic issue. Would it be better if all of our eggs or so many of our eggs weren't in this basket? Sure.

But we've been saying that as a country since I was five years old, and probably before that, I just didn't notice it. So it is a reality. And those strategic interests are being met in many cases with simple political tactics, communications, politics, in the moment by people who are looking to score cheap political points at the expense of who they see as a lame duck prime minister. And I think this is a thing that's being revealed in this piece. And Chantal may be right that the aftermath of the first minister's meeting where the prime minister got to talk about,

here are the things that we're going to put on the table, was somewhat reassuring and somewhat coalescing. But I do think that the way that this issue has landed and the way that the premiers and some other people in the business community, for example, have responded confirms what we had already known a little bit before this Trump initiative, which is this prime minister cannot as easily as one would maybe want

command and control the center of the conversation about a big, giant, strategic national issue. There are too many people who see the clock is running out on him. He has no chance of winning re-election. And therefore, there's no risk to them, no cost to them to criticize his approach. So I think we're in a difficult situation. Maybe it's gotten a little bit better in the last 24 hours, but I don't think we know that for sure. Let me ask you this. Let me deconstruct a couple of these things. Did he do the right thing calling the premiers together in the, you know, in the conference call, et cetera, that he had?

Was that the right thing to do? You know, I understand the history on these things, but in this moment, at this time, with this president, with Trudeau's own particular situation, was it the right thing to do? Yes. 100%. Why? this president with Trudeau's own particular situation, was it the right thing to do? Yes. 100%. Why? Because he needed to hoard cats rather than have them on soapboxes

all across the country doing their own little song and dance. And it did, up to a point, work. Because what Canadians do want, regardless of what they think of Justin Trudeau, they may want him gone tomorrow. because what Canadians do want, regardless of what they think of Justin Trudeau, they may want him gone tomorrow. They possibly will want him gone in six months when there's an election. But meanwhile, what they want is to have Canada be speaking in as much as possible with one voice. One of the wiser things I saw this week coming from someone who has had experience with this file from day one,

the initial Canada-US trade agreement back in the Mulroney era, is from former Premier Jean Chagall, who actually gave interviews and said and wrote, wait a minute, people. This reaction is only, it's like panic is overtaking all these players. And in there he wrote, you may think that Justin Trudeau has a weak hand, and it is true by the calendar he does. Whether you believe he can pull it off or not. He will be facing voters and the odds are against them. But Jean-Charles said he is the prime minister. We're not getting a new one next weekend. So rally. And what I found interesting in that piece and in other pieces is that by comparison to all the players who were in

a rush to come to the fore, and I include in that the NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh, and Pierre Poilievre. The one that faced the least criticism from the outside was the prime minister, who, by comparison, didn't look like he was losing his marbles over this. Maybe they are internally, maybe they are in a panic. But he looked, and his ministers looked, more confident and more calm and less all over the place than the people we heard this week. the carbon tax. How is that related to Donald Trump's trap? Let's change the country's drug policies. How is that related to those 50 pounds or 46 pounds of fentanyl crossing the border? I mean, I understand that it's fair game to take kicks at Justin Trudeau. But again, in this instance, I think a lot of Canadians are looking for a leader, be it the next prime minister or the current one, that will put Canada's defense first. Just one point on what Bruce said.

I'm not sure that Donald Trump knows how many people get across or how much fentanyl get across the northern border. I think he doesn't give a damn. That's why would he care about a fact on this when he has not cared about facts on myriads of more important things. But I think he's probably quite happy to see how much of a hornet's nest he has managed to kick. And the danger is that whatever happens this week may encourage him to do it again and again. How many times can you threaten tariffs over four years? It's not even related to the KUSMA process, which only comes for rediscussion in 2026. You can impose tariffs outside of it. It may not be legal. It may not

be what the deal says. But by the time you're finished arbitrating, believe me, we'll have industries that will be devastated. So it's not as if we can say, oh, we'll see you in court. That's not an avenue that is open to us. Bruce, do you have anything different to say on the issue of involving the premiers the way that the prime minister did this week? Does it need to be different? Yes, I do. No, no, no, it doesn't. I just want to make sure before I move on, I just want to make sure that you're in agreement on that.

So I do want to just clarify. The point I was making is not that Donald Trump sits there and kind of goes, I know it's only 45 pounds versus, you know, kilotons. It's that his point all along, I think, has been I've got to I've got to toughen up the border. And in the last iteration of Trump, it was this endless fascination with building a wall. How many days do we have to listen to how much money is going to be taken from Mexico to build this wall? And he persisted in that, even though people would look at what he was saying and what was happening and say, it's not happening. It won't happen the way that he says. He doesn't care. He uses it as a bully pulpit idea. And so in this case, this idea of we've got these two big borders.

I'm just going to kind of challenge the two countries that need us economically to clean this problem up for us. Understanding that for many, many, many American voters, that probably sounds like a pretty sensible idea and not one that that would make them immediately kind of be concerned about the economics of. I'm talking about many American voters. I'm not talking about kind of Americans who kind of follow these issues very closely. But back to the point about should he have called in the premiers, he absolutely should have. And I think it bears saying that in the history of Justin Trudeau as prime minister, he has tended to do the best job in moments of significant crisis or risk where there's a requirement to get really serious, to put away the selfie stick, to kind of grind on the substance of the issues, to maybe go back behind closed doors for a couple of days

until you know exactly what the measures are that you can deal that you can put on the table to solve for. That's typically been when he and his government have been at their best. I think when they've been at their worst is when things are kind of going more or less OK and they just get kind of fascinated with whatever the ideas of the day are. And then they get kind of reactive and a bit performative. And some of this stuff about affordability has that feel to it. It's the kind of thing you do on the back of an envelope because you're not really focused. I think Trump has kind of brought a certain focus to the conversation in the federal government. And last thing I would say is that when I hear Jonathan Wilkinson or Jean Chavez or Mark Miller talk about this issue.

I agree with what Chantal is saying. So when people in Canada hear somebody say those kinds of things, that's kind of what they want. I don't think they hear the prime minister too much on this. I think part of that's they tune him out. Part of it is he gets distracted. I don't know if his team wants him to be distracted by other things, talk about other things, but it would be better for him and for his government if he stayed pretty focused on this. If there weren't so many kind of relapses, it's almost like the people around him sometimes look at him through 2015 eyes and all the rest of us don't. So I think there's an opportunity for the government to show what it's really good at. And I think there are some signs that it's doing that. But it's still the case that the others are all going to test his authority,

not his legislative authority, but his political authority in this moment. See, when I first saw this happen earlier this week, when Trump made his initial announcement, I thought this is actually somewhere that Trudeau could move in with some impact. He just had a, I think most people agree, was not a good week last week with the GST thing and the $250 checks, and we'll get to that in a minute. But here was one where he's seen this movie before,

as Chantal mentioned. It's like he saw this in the first Trump term. So he knows the path. And he knows how a strong leader has the potential to do well in something like that. I mean, we watched the Mexican leader this week, and I know the issues are somewhat different. But the new Mexican president, I mean, she took Trump on within hours of him, according to her, misinterpreting what she'd said and, you know, hit back hard. Just like her predecessor, you know, four or six years ago did against Trump on the wall issues.

You know, as Bruce mentioned, we're not paying a penny. Trump can say what he wants. So it just seemed to me that this was in a way a golden opportunity after last week for Trudeau to make some headway, looking like the strong leader in the prime minister. Chantal, you want to say something now? A few points. First of all, we're talking about something that happened over the past four days. I would argue that before we decide that golden opportunities have come and gone, we give it a bit more time. That would be the reasonable thing to do, because this is one file where rushing to judgment on the government's actions can come back to haunt you. If a week and a half later, everyone is saying, well, Justin Trudeau did this and that, or the opposite. But I also think that

one of the gifts of this file for the prime minister, and it's not a gift he was looking for. I don't really believe Justin Trudeau wanted Donald Trump to arrive on the scene on November 5th. But it is that it features some of the stronger ministers. Let's be serious. This is a very uneven cabinet. There are ministers in there. I'm sure they're good people, but I couldn't name them or tell you what they actually do. But the lineup on this one, I mean, Dominique Leblanc, Christophe Freeland, Mark Miller, François-Philippe Champagne, they are some of the strongest ministers. And one of the things that has evaded

Justin Trudeau and his cabinet over the past year has been a capacity to feature the stronger parts of the team. And that, I believe, is an asset, especially since if we're going to go to partisan politics, he is facing at this juncture very much a one-man show on the other side of the aisle. What has happened this week has not been the business community coming together with one voice to say we need an election tomorrow so that Pierre Poiliev becomes prime minister. There are voices that say we need an election. John Manley, former liberal minister who handled the post 9-11 period under Jean Chassé says that.

But he's not saying we need an election to replace Justin Trudeau. He's saying we need an election so that whoever is prime minister has a stronger mandate than someone at the tail end of a term. So if it is used properly, I think also that it's an asset for Justin Trudeau to be able to deploy others. Since yes, his audience has shrunk, and yes, when he talks, people tend not always to hear very much of his message. And he's got, and there are some efficient ministers on the communications front, and they don't seem to be mouthing the usual, oh, we have your backs, don't worry, be happy lines that I think all of us are totally, and I can do it in the other official language. It still is.

What is the French version of that? Because I don't know if I've heard it enough. It's also poor French. Yeah, we don't deliver poor Canadien in French, by the way. He's been saying that for nine years. I figure I can't cure him of that really bad expression. Peter, I just wanted to mention one thing that Chantal touched on as well, which is as challenging as this has been for the government, and I agree with

Chantal that it's a, I don't think I'd call it a gift in disguise. I agree, you know, nobody wanted to have Donald Trump come right after his election with a flamethrower and kind of throw everything into kind of question in terms of the trading relationship. But it is an opportunity for people in politics to show what they're made of, whether they're serious people. And I think that in this context, you know, maybe this is the first moment since the pandemic, where Pierre Poliev has really kind of had the light shone on him a little bit in terms of, are you a serious person? Are you mature as a politician? Could you step into that role of prime minister next week or next month or next quarter?

And so far, and I completely agree with Chantal as well, it's early to make declarative statements about how this story is going to unfold. But so far, it hasn't been a great first chapter for Pierre Pellievre, in my view. I think he doesn't seem as though he knows where to put himself in a moment of national importance. I think he defaults to, I'm going to try to sound serious, but I'm going to keep on playing the same, you know, one or two songs that I know how to say, whether it's the carbon tax or, you know, I'll, I'll talk about fentanyl and how I feel about it or something like that. It isn't compelling. It isn't interesting.

It doesn't suggest a maturity or a seriousness. But, you know, in the same way that Chantel says that on the liberal side, there are smart people doing smart thinking about public policy. I think that's true on the conservative side, too. I just think that as long as these two individuals are kind of the only two representatives of their two political formations, maybe voters aren't getting to see the best that both parties have to say on this issue at this moment. One of the more interesting from the conservative side arguments that I've watched and read and found interesting to take stock of this week came from Aaron O'Toole, who was around for that first phase in part,

not completely, but still did play a role in the Team Canada approach before he was leader of the first Trump administration. And a lot of the stuff, you can agree or disagree on it, but it was substantial arguments that he was putting forward, what went wrong the last time, what was missed, etc. And it was an actual good contribution, something that you read and you think, yes, you know, this, I may be wrong, but I think this is the kind of contribution that people would expect from an aspiring prime minister who is 20 points ahead in the polls. Not that he waves the flag behind Justin Trudeau, that would be useless, but that

he contributes to the conversation something other than scorched earth arguments that sometimes have absolutely no relationship with the issue at hand. And I'm convinced Mr. Poitier does not take advice from Mr. O'Toole or inspiration, but maybe he should. Yeah, I think you can be safely assumed that you're correct on that. I don't think that there's many sit-downs with Erin O'Toole and Pierre Polyev. We're going to take our first break. It was interesting listening to both of you list the ministers who are, you know, have a role to play in this discussion and this debate.

And neither one of you mentioned the Minister of Foreign Affairs. You'd think it had something to do with Canada-US, that the Minister of Foreign Affairs would have a role to play. She's had a difficult couple of days. She got hammered in a piece by Justin Ling today. As a result of her back and forth with Gary Kasparov at the Halifax Security Conference last weekend. Anyway, I'll let that pass.

Just to be fair, I'm not trying to defend Mélanie Jolie as the greatest foreign affairs minister we've had, but back when you and I were around for the first free trade agreement, we heard a lot more about Minister Pat Carney than about Foreign Affairs Minister Joe Clark. Because this is the trade file kind of is part of foreign affairs. But when it becomes that big, it does tend to shift over to other ministers. For obvious reasons. The foreign affairs minister is always on the road, caught up on, in this case, Israel, Ukraine. So you're right, though, that I wrote a list before I spoke about it,

and it never crossed my mind to put her on that list. Okay. Your point accepted, and as always. Even Bruce's points, accepted as always. Bruce. You should just say you're right and just sort of close this first chapter. You're right. You're right. I mean, I got rid of my you're right early in the conversation today,

and it was much appreciated. Sometimes I feel that people will found the club to defend Bruce here. Okay, we're going to take our first. You mentioned the point about Pat Carney and, and I have said before, and I really believe that in this in this post Trump environment, assuming that there will be a shuffle, maybe, you know, before parliament rises around the 17th, I guess, or December is having either I think they got to look at the trade file or the you know, before Parliament rises around the 17th, I guess, of December,

is having either, I think they got to look at the trade file or the Canada-US situation and say somebody needs to be clearly the single most important point person apart from the Prime Minister, close to the Prime Minister, presumably, because I don't think that, and I agree with Chantal's list of who those players have been, who are among the strongest players in the cabinet. But there is a little bit of five or six of them trying to figure out who's exactly going to say what at what moment. And when they come out of a cabinet meeting and four or five of them scrum, they're all saying pretty similar things tonally but they each have different aspects of the file dominic leblanc and mark miller and

uh and christian freeland and so on and i think that's worth um taking a look at if i were the prime minister trying to figure out what to do with the cabinet shuffle i'd look at that yeah okay so who's your candidate to be the czar? Right now, and now it's time for the break. Come on, bring it. You can do it. He's copping out. Okay, we're going to take our break.

When we come back, we're going to talk those $250 checks and GST for a holiday and where all that's landed after a week. I mean, it's a good point. You know, don't rush to judgment on the first 24 hours. Give it a week or two on whatever the issue is, I guess. And we'll see where you are on that one a week later. But right now, we're going to take that first break. Be right back after this.

And welcome back. Peter Mansbridge here with Chantelle Hebert and Bruce Anderson. You're listening to Good Talk for this Friday. You're listening on SiriusXM, channel 167. Canada Talks are on your favorite podcast platform, or you're watching us on our YouTube channel. Okay. It was, you know, on last week's program, I got some mail. I don't think it represented the majority of the opinion. In fact, I'm sure it didn't because I got a lot of mail after mentioning it. The mail I got initially was people saying, hey, you know, you're being unfair here.

There are people suffering out there, and the Trudeau government has acted to try and deal with that suffering, both with the GST thing and with the $250 checks. Arguments about how fair the distribution was and whether there should be changes to that. But initially, most people, and by my unscientific going on with the mail I got, over 100 letters came in, emails came in. I'd say it was about 80-20 who felt it was just a straight-up political ploy.

But here we are a week later, and after last night, they passed the GST holiday, the two-month holiday thing. The $250 checks are still kind of up in the air as people look at different ways to maybe improve that package. Where has this landed for you a week later? Bruce, you start us this time. Well, I was thinking maybe this is going to be the moment where I get asked first in this particular episode.

And, of course, you are ready, right? That's, you know, I'm just killing time now. Yeah, no, he's treading water now. You can see it. He's going, what am I going to say? He's going, what would Chantel say if I'd started there? Here's what I think. I think that the, as I said last week, I think that it can both be something that looks to people politically motivated, and therefore they can be a bit cynical about it.

And it can also be something that helps people and helps some businesses. I think both of those things are still true. I think with the passage of time, the more people have kind of had a chance to look at it. I would say that the luster of it hasn't grown. The sense of could it have been better thought out has developed. Now, part of that is just like any initiative that government, especially an incumbent government this deep into its incumbency runs into is you put out an idea and then everybody else in the world gets to say, here's the one or two things that I think are wrong with it. They don't all have to agree. It's a little bit like that whole referendum process happens. But the things that are coming to the fore, there are certainly some retailers who I think have

legitimate reason to say it's complicated to turn this tax on and off. There are other parts of the business marketplace where the complexity isn't that great. I was having an exchange, and I'm not sure why, on X last night with people about this whole question about how does it relate to restaurants. And I was making the point that, you know, for restaurants, January is usually a pretty soft month and having a tax cut in January is going to produce more revenue for those businesses. But there are other retailers for which people will maybe say, I'm going to defer the purchase until the tax cut comes into effect. And so it does create some different dynamics

and those criticisms or complaints or pressure points that we're hearing from certain parts of the business community, I think are legitimate and reasonable and remains to be seen whether they have much impact on public opinion. The second big criticism is the fairness. Who was left out?

People who weren't working in 2023. They could be students. They could be retired people. They could be people with disabilities that keep them out of the workforce. They could be people who couldn't find a job. But in every case, while the government may have an argument that it is already doing and has done other things for those groups in society, I think it probably has made the liberals feel vulnerable to those criticisms because they didn't really get out in front of this idea and say, here are all the things that we've done for young people. Here are the things

that we've done for seniors. Here are the things that we've done for other groups in society. But this group needs more of our help. And this is why we're targeting this the way that we we did. And so there was the you know, with the. I think the governments are always kind of fascinated with let's drop something on the table that people didn't see coming and expect that they'll consume it the way we want them to consume it. And then they won't hear what everybody else is saying about it. And it'll be a win. And it's like it's the first play in a four-quarter football game there's going to be a lot of stuff that happens after that and you need to take that into account and i don't think they they probably did uh the two other things that i think are are kind of accumulating some scar tissue uh there are some people for whom it's a,

can we, can the country really afford it? Who's paying for it? And there are issues around the deficit that didn't exist before. And in particular, I spent a lot of time looking at the fact that young people have legitimate reason to think that when government spends more money now, that is spending money on their credit card that they're going to end up having to pay for. And they already think taxes are too high and everything costs too much. And so they have legitimate reasons to say, is this something that's going to help me that much or is it going to help other people? And if it's going to help other people more than me, I think I'm already doing enough to cope with the economic circumstances and the affordability issues and that sort of

thing. So I think the can we afford it and who's paying for it is an issue. And then the last thing is, does it seem too political? And this is one of those things where I think the government has to impose more discipline on itself. I saw tweets from MPs, you know, who were saying it's the most wonderful time of the year. They were kind of getting lyrical about the gift that they were giving to Canadians. And just from a standpoint of political communication, I thought that was horrifyingly bad. They couldn't have seemed more tone deaf. So they could be creating more problems for themselves if they keep on talking about it like that. It is either a necessary move to help people with hardship or it's some act of generosity and largesse where where politicians pretend that the money didn't come from the people, but rather from the politicians. And that, you know, sounds, if that sounds dumb, it's because it is.

It's just a terrible way to communicate. Shantou. Hi. Now, wait, later, I am struggling with the notion of the narrative of necessities and hardship. I hope that when governments are serious about hardship and necessities, it doesn't mean they're going to be using my money

to give a break on taxes for chips, popcorn, beer, or to the people who still have enough money left after Christmas to go to restaurants in January. That does not fit my definition. It may help the restaurant business. I'm not saying it doesn't, but it does not feel like it's geared to necessities. We've seen some people equate this with the liberals have been spending and giving to selected groups since they've been in government. I don't think that comparison actually works because when people say that, they're talking about dental care and childcare and pharmacare. Those are all structural

programs that actually do make a real difference in the life of people who need programs like that to make ends meet. But this GST holiday is kind of here today and gone tomorrow. I agree with Bruce that it's a really bad idea to say, come on, you want to steal Christmas by opposing this. Give me a break. This sounds so stupid that it would be better to not say anything. But then I'm going to the $250 check, which actually is the more substantial measure. To receive a $250 check, even if you've got money, is always pleasant. Who gets money, even if it's your own money that you're getting for nothing. But again, the narrative of necessity for a program that applies to a family household where both spouses make $148,000 a year fails my test of what

necessity really is. And here, and I had mentioned it last week, here again, I see a repeat of the very dubious idea last year of exempting some home eating fuel from the carbon tax, only to wake up in the morning and realize that everyone else who was heating with natural gas was saying, me too. Well, you're seeing exactly that with the, why are we seniors being excluded? And the idea that seniors don't need it because they've had it somewhere else. Surely that household with $300,000 as a joint income doesn't need the $250 each that they would be getting. Finally, I'm troubled by something that is more inside the bubble. The government has spent on this GST tax break $1.6 billion or will be spending or forsaking that revenue. In exchange for that, it bought itself, by my account, about 12 hours of normal time in the House of Commons to do what the government is supposed to be doing in the House of Commons,

that is legislating and debating legislation, because the NDP agreed to support the government in suspending the privileged debate that has bogged down the House of Commons for a couple of months now, long enough to pass this. Well, do the math. $1.6 billion is very expensive per minute to have a functioning House of Commons. And all week I've been told, you know, the Conservatives, isn't that a bit Trumpian that they're blocking Parliament, stopping the system from functioning? My answer to that, and increasingly many people's answers who are watching parliament, is the conservatives could never be doing that if the Bloc and the NDP weren't playing in the same movie. They don't have the numbers. So it's not just the conservatives are doing this, it's the NDP

and the Bloc that are holding parliament hostage to a procedural debate led by the Conservatives. But how much is it going to cost to allow Ms Freeland to present a fiscal update? At this point, the cost would be over $5 billion because that's the $250 check would have to be expanded or modified. So it's going to cost at least $5 billion to open up Parliament long enough to get legislation to do not that, but to finance, to pass estimates to finance pharmacare, dental care, I mean, and also point to the Bloc

to allow the money that has been promised to the Quebec government for refugees. That's half a billion dollars to flow to the Quebec government. So my question at the end of this week is at what point did the NDP and the Bloc Québécois decide that they have played in the procedural movie long enough and that it's time to return to the business of parliament that would need for all these things to happen. And the $250 check, by the way, the way it's framed now, never going to pass. So if it comes back, it's going to have to come back in some other shape or else it's going to have to come back with ribbons

that cost billions of dollars that are attractive to the eyes of the NDP. I know Bruce wants to get in on this, but I got to take my final break and then we'll go right to Bruce back right after this. And welcome back. That was our final break on this week's edition of Good Talk with Chantel and Bruce. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Good to have you with us, as always. Bruce, you wanted to make a point on that last part. Yeah, I think a lot of people who kind of don't follow politics very closely might be unaware of just how much parliamentary business has been paralyzed for the better part of two months, I guess now. And that the

issue that the Conservatives are using to block the work of Parliament is important. I don't really quarrel with, although I think the idea that it's worth two months of stoppage of the normal course of parliament, it's hard to square that with the issue that is at the heart of this disruption. I think the Conservatives think that they've had the government kind of on the ropes and the opposition kind of splintered, the other opposition parties sort of splintered in different areas. And so it's a way for Paul Yev to kind of assert that his influence politically is as big as he wants it to seem. But I think there is some risk that if he carries on too long with that,

that people will just kind of wonder, you know, I don't understand the security clearance thing. I don't understand why Parliament has been stopped for a couple of months over this thing. If there's a larger point here, he's not making it clear enough to me. And if we do move as a country towards a situation or a moment in time where people start to look a little bit more more at Pierre Polyev, those are not choices that will be additive for him in terms of his reputation with voters. And so I think he should probably think about whether or not this is a moment where he wants to change course and decide that the business of the country requires a different approach. On the tabling of a fall economic statement, I did see a story today, I forget where, that implied that the government was looking at other alternatives.

If they weren't able to deliver it in the House of Commons, that's been done before. I think, frankly, from the standpoint of the government, it's not a bad solution. It's not perfect, but the version of government standing up, kind of reading a windy, self-congratulatory political shows that we're familiar with and a whole raft of people going on and saying this is what's wrong with that this is what's wrong with that this is what you're trying to undercut my business is that what you're doing no no i'm not talking about the premium this is bad oh boy. Let's not have those shows anymore. Those are great shows. I admire them and many of the hosts of those shows, too. Okay. We've only got a couple of minutes left.

Has the channel been changed? I mean, a couple of weeks ago, it was all about the knife plungers and the Liberal Party trying to get rid of Trudeau. I don't know whether they've all disappeared or whether they're just a lot more quiet right now. But we're not talking about... This is a Chantal question for sure.

We're not talking about that anymore. I mean, we're talking about GST all the days, the $250 checks, how to stop Trump, blah, blah, blah, blah. Has the channel been changed? Trump was a big channel changer and will remain so. To go back to Bruce's point about Pierre Poiliev and the filibuster in the House, the danger, I think, to the conservatives now is that

a lot of the action is going to be happening outside of parliament and people will be focused on this Trump-Trudeau more than the Poitiers-Trudeau debate going forward. I'm not sure that the government really needed those GST breaks and the $250 to change the channel positively. I'm not sure that's going to work, but it did change the channel too. It at least sure that's going to work, but it did change the channel too. At least gives the impression that at this point, as opposed to three weeks ago, the government has

regained a lot of the initiative that it seemed to have lost since September. Bruce? I was kind of in full nod mode until the last part of the last sentence. I don't know if I'm there that a regaining of momentum. That's not momentum. It's initiative. Different words. Okay.

Sorry. Okay. By the way. I think the government did solve for a challenge that they had created for themselves, which is that they were seen to be kind of a day late and a dollar short on this affordability issue. And by that, I mean, you know, a lot late and the party least able to kind of get out of its own way and say, we're going to help people with affordability. I mean, Chantal's right that the government did do things that were big structural programmatic changes that would help people over the medium

to long term with cost of living. But because the nature of those programs is what it is, and that doesn't argue against them, they take time to work. You can run into complexities. There are fights about the funding for the $10 a day child care issue. People don't don't necessarily kind of feel them the same way that they feel something that sounds like next month you're going to get a tax holiday and a couple of months after that you're going to get a $250 check. So they did solve for the are they the only party that doesn't have something to give me to make me feel like my life is a little bit more affordable? What's the lasting impact of that?

I think, yes, they've got the initiative back on that conversation, but I don't know whether or not it sustains. All right. We're going to leave it at that. Good discussion, as always, here on Good Talk with Bruce and Chantel. We'll be back and who knows what we'll be talking about seven days from now. I mean, that's the beauty of this show

is you just don't know what will be the issues a week from now. Could be any number of them. We'll see what they are. A quick reminder, the buzz comes out 7 a.m. tomorrow morning in your inbox,

7 a.m. Eastern time, that is. If you haven't subscribed already, there's no charge. Just send your email to the link at nationalnewswatch.com slash newsletter. That's it for this day. Have a great weekend and a great week to both Chantal and to Bruce and to all our listeners out there. It's great having you with us. Talk to you again in seven days.

Salut. A bientôt.