The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk -- Running From Behind: Why Pierre Poilievre Should Listen To A Winner

Episode Date: February 6, 2026

 Not even a week after Pierre Poilievre's resounding victory at the leadership review vote in Calgary, the Conservative leader found himself struggling. Why? Because he seemed offside on strategy with the often referred to "Godfather" of his party, Stephen Harper. That and a lot more Good Talk with Chantel Hebert and Bruce Anderson. 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-Bair and Bruce Anderson. It's your Friday morning, Friday afternoon, depending on where you are, your good talk for this Friday. And as always, lots to talk about on Good Talk this week. And let me start this way. It was kind of a dial-the-clock back week in the nation's capital in Ottawa this week, with a lot of things associated with Stephen Harper on the... the 20th anniversary of his first election victory.

He won three, which is no small feat for any prime minister. But his first one was in 2006. So the 20th anniversary, there was a portrait of Stephen Harper hung in the parliament buildings. He made, yes, he made jokes about that hanging. But nevertheless, there was that. There were speeches. There were parties. I found a Thursday night speech that,

Harper gave, more than a little bit interesting, because he sounded very much on the issue of the relationship of the United States. He sounded a lot like Mark Carney and not very much like Pierre Poliiev. He went even further than Mark Carney in terms of the way he wanted things to unfold. But nevertheless, he was clearly on the Carney side of things, not on the Polyev side. Keep in mind there was just a couple of days ago that Pierre Polyeuf spoke to his party in Calgary. And he never mentioned the word Donald Trump, the name Donald Trump, in that speech. But some sense of what we witness from Stephen Harper, who's been pretty much quiet over the last 10 years since he left office.

I mean, he pops up every once in a while, but this was quite the week for him. Bruce, why don't you start this week? Yeah, sure. You know, I have some scar tissue with respect to Stephen Harper because I was working for the progressive conservative party. that he essentially put away politically. I was working with Joe Clark and Jean Choré and trying to keep that idea of a progressive conservative party going.

His record as somebody who built a different version of the conservative party, I think, does stand the test of time in terms of being a political accomplishment. No question about it. What he did was a difficult thing to do to unify the, those factions of the conservative movement, not perfectly, but well enough to succeed electorally. So what I'm about to say is going to sound a little bit odd for those people who kind of known that I wasn't always the biggest Stephen Harper fan, but I thought he did some

good things this week, good things for the country and useful messages for people to hear. For me, there was a series of contrasts that caught my attention. the contrast between a former Prime Minister Harper sitting down with a former Prime Minister Kretchen and having an interesting, sometimes lighthearted, sometimes serious, but never tendentious conversation about where the country's at. If I think about that, and I compare it with what we're seeing play out in the United States, including the latest outrage of Donald Trump posting images. of the Obama's as apes, that contrast couldn't be more sharp.

And good for Stephen Harper for doing that kind of thing with Jean-Cretchen to illustrate that you can be political adversaries, but you have a duty to respect the role of political leadership and its importance in our system of government. So I thought that contrast was great. I also enjoyed watching the conversation happen when Mark Carney unveiled the or spoke at the unveiling of the portrait of Stephen Harper. He said positive things about him. There was a little bit of a lighthearted moment, but you could feel, I don't know, maybe this is an inappropriate way to put it, but there was a Canadianness to it.

There was a politeness and a little bit of a joking spirit to it. It was a very positive exchange for people to see. Regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum, that contrast really stood out for me. The contrast between Stephen Harper and at least two of the leaders that succeeded him, Pierre Poliiev and Andrew Scheer, was also very striking. I have not felt that Pierre Pauliev or Andrew Shear were the, match for Stephen Harper in terms of presenting a thoughtful policy approach, one that people

might disagree with, but certainly with Stephen Harper, you could see this is somebody who cared a lot about thinking about policy from a national interest standpoint and driving policy change in a pretty significant way and a persistent way over time. I don't think Pauli Evershire really kind of looked like that kind of leadership. I have a little bit more time for Aaron O'Toole's leadership of the conservative party in that regard. And the last point for me was that Harper's speech spoke about improving competitiveness and bolstering unity. I think those are both really important points. I think there are points that he points of view that he shares with Mark Carney. And I think that they're in a way, the thing that, especially the unity piece, the thing that

Pierre Pollyette tends to struggle with, because he tends to be a a more divisive political leader. Chantelle. So first format, the Cresne Harper fireside chat has now become part of what there's a road to build

in the sense that they have been doing this on a number of occasions. And you can tell that they enjoy doing it. It's like a band that likes to reunite to do this. Trisain Harper and then we saw Carney Harper and I was reminded that it's always easier to get along with a former prime minister that is not the prime minister that

defeated you. In both instances, I think Jean-Grézain would much rather spend time with Stephen Harper than possibly with Paul Martin. And the same would be true of Paul Martin and Stephen Harper if they were doing that. The same with Mark Carney. I'm not so sure we would have seen the same kind of spirit that the portrait unveiling if Justin Trudeau were still the Prime Minister and not Mark Carney. I thought it was a, from a political perspective,

I thought it was a flawless week for Mr. Harper, that he was basically pitch perfect on every occasion. And remember, when you look at these four, these three prime ministers, I mentioned, a lot of people voted for Bojohn, Hitz and Stephen Harper over the years. We tend to forget that. And a lot of people have voted for Mark Carney and have in the past voted for Stephen Harper.

We try to think of ourselves as really polarized. But when you look at voters, that's not how it works. A lot of people looked at the three and found people that at various times, probably not all the time, they had had occasion to support and cast a ballot for. And I think that's important in the current. environment to keep in mind. I know you want to talk about the substance of the speeches, and you have to keep in mind that those speeches were all the speeches were delivered, with the exception of the

fireside chat, I'm guessing, with Pierre Puelev, the current conservative leader in the room. And there was very little on this. I think there is a consensus very little in the speeches that matched the rhetoric that Mr. Puele, who has been the alternative prime minister for the past year and a half, has offered to Canadians. And up to a point, I think this week was not, could have been a great week for Pierre Puele, coming out of a convention with 87% of the endorsement. of his members and moving on to Parliament Hill

on a solid speech on a Friday night, but I think that the Stephen Harper, we kind of took that away on a number of scores. First, yes, Mr. Harper, in that speech you alluded to, which was delivered in front of a mostly conservative crowd. This was party time. It wasn't the official occasion. Not only was Stephen Harper more aggressive

up to a point in the current Karni government, but he was even more aggressive than anything we've seen come out, and we see come out of caucus mouth at this point. And that does put Pierre Puev in kind of an interesting but not comfortable spot. The other front where I think it took away momentum from Piaa Puailliv and kind of reversed it is the nostalgia that many conservatives felt. when they left those events. And when Bruce talks about the current successor

not being a match for Stephen Harper, it is not hard to find many, many conservatives after this week who actually feel exactly the same way. And finally, I'm curious to see going forward, given the marching orders that Mr. Harper gave the conservative movement in this country, whether caucus members in particular will not feel more emboldened to speak out against some of the directions that Mr.

Puehlia would like to give the party in the House of Commons, in Parliament, or elsewhere, by using Stephen Harper's word on coming together to fight this battle and not thinking that the official opposition's job at this juncture is to undermine the government to prove that it's doing everything wrong, so that you should be in government rather than offer constructive criticism. And on that score, I found there was more of an alignment between Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney, who has been very proactive on social media, for instance, on the Canada U.S. file, and Mark Carney, then Pierre Puelev, and I'm not sure that the chickens from this week will not come home to roost at some point in the caucus, because it does liberate a sense of this is where we should be

and we are not in the right place. Can I just add that, Peter, on that. I agree with Chantel completely on that. What's the chemistry going to be in the caucus and how many people are going to feel more liberated even though, probably I've got this 87% number, more liberated to say, we're not comfortable with this or that.

I would add James Moore to those names of prominent and thoughtful conservatives who, for whom allegiance to Pierre Poliyev, whatever he says, is not how they operate. They're not openly and regularly critical of him, but you can read between the lines when they're not happy with some of the positions that have been taken. And I would also say that Doug Ford and Daniel Smith are both also part of the conversation sometimes that sounds like it's more, these are conservatives who are, more comfortable with the leadership and the policy positions that Mark Carney is taking

than they are with the positioning of Pierre Poliab and Ford, especially on the automotive side of things, I think is a really interesting example where there has been a little bit of friction about the decision that the government took on Chinese EV tariffs. But after the automotive announcement the other day, Ford was pretty enthusiastic about it. And I think that kind of bridge building with conservative premiers, wherever it's possible, also is a challenge for Pierre Polio. It's not easy for him to know where to put himself, and I don't think he's succeeding. Okay. We're going to get to some of that, especially the automotive stuff, a little later.

But I just want to follow through for a moment on Stephen Harper. Because at the end of the day this week, is that message that he was putting forward, especially on the Thursday night speech, was the message he, was putting forward. Was that directed at the country, the party, or was it directed at Pierre Poliyev? I mean, this is the guy who is the godfather of the

conservative movement as we know it today. Harper, I'm talking about it. So words coming out of his mouth about the direction of the party, the country, and the direction of everyone, no matter which party, the government, the opposition,

in terms of its fight with the United States. Who's he directing that message to? I mean, we can say all of the above, but do you think there was one area in particular he's directing that message? Chantelle? I thought it was all of the above. And the way that you put pressure on a political party,

even one that you are at the Godfather too, is by speaking to voters who in turn have certain expectations. For sure, there is a section of the base that Mr. Polia has to manage that is not at all into what Stephen Harper was saying. On the contrary, and up to a point, if you want to look at the larger picture, not the partisan, does it help, does it hurt? It should give him more space to maneuver himself back into the conversation on Canada-U.S. relations in a more constructive way, in a way that Stephen Harper says. But the problem is that the conservative strategists around Mr. Poitiev have concluded, probably rightly, that this leader will never stack up to Mark Carney on that particular issue.

That their best chance is to bring that fight to some other battlefield that is not Canada, U.S. and Trump. Their problem is that the Trump thing doesn't look like it's going to go away anytime soon. and as long as it is one of the key reasons why Canadian voters look at leaders to figure out who best represents their interests, Mr. Polyer, no matter how much pivoting he does, has one waited too long, two doesn't bring the kind of credentials that allow him to stack up against Mark Carney. And to say that his best shot would be that Mark Carney fails entirely. And then suddenly Pierre Poliyev wins. I think listening to Stephen Harper, that can happen.

And the sense that with Stephen Harper, you talk about the Torres Day speech, I was struck by the portrait unveiling opening where he thanked Carney for being there at a time when he faces unprecedented challenges in the history of this country, which basically amounts to saying, if he fails, it won't be for lack of trying or having the skills for it. It will be because this is where we are. And if that happens, we're going to have to regroup, take the hit and move on. And that is really where I think the two paths kind of separate between Pierre Puelev,

who could find, think that he would have an advantage and failure, but actually would not, I believe, in any way, shape. perform and the need for that Canadians have for the government, the current government to succeed. And their sense strongly held so far that whatever everyone is saying about, he's not bringing home and he wins, etc. Canadians still believe that they elected the right person by a huge amount margin. Yeah. Yeah, Peter, I think Stephen Harper is effectively the father of this version of the conservative party. And I think what he was doing was almost implying that he doesn't think that Pierre Poliyev is going to be the prime minister at some point. As long as you really think

that's what he was saying? Do you think he was saying that? I think he's saying to the party that he helped put together. Here's how to think about how to be a competitive political party again. focus on policy, smart policy, bolster unity, don't get carried away with political games. I think he was trying to remind the party that there was a moment when it stood for more than it appears to stand for now and isn't perplexed by these MAGA influences that not only are part of Pierre Polyev's base, but they're part of the base that he kind of cultivated. He nurtured. He helped make into a part of the chemistry of this conservative party,

which I believe Stephen Harper thinks was a terrible move. And I personally look at the conservative party and say, well, they're perplexed all the time because, you know, to your point earlier, Peter, he didn't mention Donald Trump in his speech to that conservative convention. well Canadians broadly looking at that will kind of well how could you give a speech it was pretty long speech and not talk about Donald Trump as an existential threat to Canada is something that we need to kind of be thoughtful and careful about so I think Harper was sending a message to his party that if you want to be competitive again this is what that sounds like and it isn't what they're getting right now from Pierre Poliev and I

I think he was fairly clear that his comfort level sitting with Carney and Kretchen-type liberals was pretty high, at least relative to his comfort level as a cheerleader for Pierre Polliatt. Okay. How much of this message that Harper was sending do you think was received in the Polyev offices and Polyev himself? And I asked that because the other image that was in a way striking during the week was the image of Polyev and Carney sitting together, I think, in Carnie's office. You know, across the table from each other, we don't know. They looked as comfortable as I would in the waiting room of my dentist.

But they were there, just like you do go to the dentist, because you know that there's an issue that needs to be resolved. So they were there. We don't know what they talked about. There was no, like, transcript put out of the conversations they had. You want to read out. You want to read out. But we assume that it took place because at least both sides had agreed that it was a time to show some kind of, you know, some kind of conversation that wasn't pointing fingers and insulting each other.

And I will say one thing on this. The prime minister came back from all that travel and set out to me. every party leader, opposition leader in the House of Commons. He met Don Davis. He was going to meet Yves Francois Blanchet. Pierre Paulyev had been going around, saying how he wanted to help Canada succeed. The prime minister says,

can you clear a time for a meeting with me? It's really hard to argue you're going to be out of town since you're stuck in Ottawa doing all the Harper stuff all week. So you meet with Mark Carney. And the readout from Pierre Puelev was I told him everything that he should be doing, basically reread the platform for things to work out. But I do not see that as, and it's not the first time that Mark Carney has met with opposition leaders. I don't put any more stock in it than in the non-existent photos of the same meeting with Don Davies of the NDP. And yes, this week some legislation got passed, but let me be at my cynical best here because I can do that once in a while.

The thing that conservatives fear most around Pierre Poitiev, for yes, Stephen Harper, who didn't help this week, is a snap federal election with the current numbers. And it's not all on Pierre Poiliev, but it is that the third parties, the bloc and the NPP in particular, are really not doing well. So an election this spring could bring about a conservative, a liberal majority, and that is the end of the road for Pia Palladiev, as leader of the official opposition. The only easy way for the liberals to convince Canadians

that there needs to be an election, and I'm not one who believes that there should be one, by the way, unless you're gaming in some liberal backroom and thinking, how we can grab a majority, would be to show parliamentary obstruction on the part of the opposition, to say at this time, at this juncture, critical juncture, the opposition is playing games with our agenda and making it hard for us to achieve what we desperately need to achieve.

That's all rhetoric that I'm offering here. I'm not trying I would buy that, but that would be, and the only way that Mark Carney gets that is for Pierre Puev to be looking like he's playing. games with the government's agenda. So what does he do to? It's a defensive move. It's a shield move.

I'm going out of my way to show how we cooperate to take that argument away from the government because I cannot afford to have an election campaign take place now. So I am not, as you've figured out now, of the school of the great conversion to constructiveness and cooperation. No, I'm not.

Just a sec. She's so cynical, that day. I am. You know, the mail I get, every week, nobody ever accuses Chantel of being cynical.

They accuse Anderson and Mansbridge being cynical all the time. But, you know, Shantel is perfect in there. Yeah, well, I don't believe in Santa Claus anymore. So,

you know, I have to give up on some of those beliefs along the way. I'm not going to let my grandkids watch this podcast. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Think about mine, but their English is still limited enough. I think I'll be okay.

You wanted to say something. Yeah, I'm certainly, I'm where Chantal is. I don't think there needs to be an election. I don't think there should be an election. I think the government is, you know, is able to move its agenda forward. But I do think that the conservatives are awkward right now in their commitment to collaboration. I completely agree with Chantelle that they've made the calculation that they don't want an election because they can see what would happen in an election.

You know, Chantel's point about the preference for Carney over Polly-Ev is huge and getting bigger. And so that would be a devastating outcome for Paulyev. It would end his political career, so he's going to try not to do that. But the awkwardness, you saw the physical awkwardness in the photograph of him and Carney, but also this kind of the, if you look at the social. platform posts of conservative MPs, they're really struggling to sound like they're enthusiastic about cooperating. And it does stand in contrast with the Keny's and the Moors and the Fords of the world.

And I don't think it's going to be very convincing to people. Now, whether that matters or not, who knows. But I don't think that being awkward about unity actually builds in. value for Paul yet. He would be better off, even if it alienated some of his mega base, to look like he was actually into trying

to solve the problems of the country together with the prime minister, but he just can't bring himself to do that, at least so far. We just don't see the chemistry that way. All right. We're going to take our first break. I want to talk a little more about one of the things that was happening in the conservative party

this week, but you tip the scales towards the auto industry a few moments ago, and we should touch on that. So we'll touch on that. Right after we take this break, we'll be back in just a moment. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Good Talk Friday episode with Sean Tilly Bear and Bruce Anderson. Good to have you with us.

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, which got the addition this week. of the more butts conversation from Tuesdays and that is now also on our YouTube channel so whatever way you join us glad to have you with us um okay uh the auto industry in Canada changed to a degree this week as a result of a number of different things headlined I guess by EVs electric vehicles I don't want to get lost in the weeds on this but I do want to you to each try and explain to our audience and to me exactly what happened this week in terms of the impact it's going to have on the auto industry in Canada and on Canadian auto purchasers.

What's it going to mean? Chantelle, do you want to start this round? Yes, it's complicated and it's work in progress, which is why the initial, the easy stuff is the coming back of rebate for the next few years on some EV vehicles. Not necessarily those. There are, even there, there are all kinds of exceptions. So I'm not going to go there. Go online if you want to buy an EV and find the conditions are for getting $5,000 or $2,500.

That was actually an incentive that was already in place under Justin Trudeau. that was suspended because money ran out. So it's a popular move. And I was very much requested by the auto industry and also by Premier Ford, who used the concessions on China to push on that button again. So that's one. The other feature that is really interesting,

we are ending the quotas that basically prescribed it X percentage growing every year of cars sold in this country would have to be EVs to 2035, I think, when all cars, new cars. I'm not saying you can't buy a used car, but all new cars would have been electric vehicles. We're getting rid of that. But in the process, when I look at the entire package, the rest is the part that is work in progress. And clear what we are doing is we are taking.

our auto industry and not splitting it from the American auto industry that we've been welded to for decades, but still going closer to other models. And for instance, we are not going to require that all vehicles are electric at this in 2035, but we are now adopting the emission scales for vehicles that the Europeans have been using. So we could have gone the American, the Trump administration way, get rid of all restrictions and let's not do EVs, and that's the end of that. And we have usually in the past always walked in lockstep with the Americans on auto industry issues.

We are not doing that. The gamble is that we are going to try to develop the. auto industry that the Trump administration doesn't want for the U.S., i.e. the electric vehicle, hybrid low emission industry, that at this point, not only is the Trump administration not interested in, but actively fighting by promoting the, you know, gas-guzzling vehicles of the past. If that works, you will see a transformation over time of the auto industry's face in this country with the dominant American automakers being matched by South Korea, even China investment. So, but whether that will work or not, there is a gamble there. It is still better than just

sitting back and saying, well, let's just, you know, subsidize our workers until Donald Trump is defeated and then all will be restored. Part of the work in progress that is put on the window is also meant to offer leverage to Canada in the upcoming negotiations on Kuzma. And what happens to the auto industry as part of those negotiations. But I will just say one thing on the politics of this, it is very rarely in this country when Premier Ford, the auto industry, and former environment minister, Stephen Gilbo, all have good things to say about the policy announcement.

I'm not sure I've seen a day like this. We talked about this earlier. Where was the voice that said this is all bad? It came from the Conservative benches in the House of Commons and echoed in an empty chamber, which goes back to our earlier points. Maybe take the time to analyze and offer deeper thoughts about policy announcement rather than suddenly line up against the industry,

against the Premier of Ontario, a conservative, and against, strangely enough, a lot of people on the environmental side of the ledger. Gross. Yeah, I think this starts, this announcement starts with the assertion that Prime Minister has made over and over again, which is we have to live in the world as it is, not the world that we want. Second, that we can't just lament what's happening in the United States. We need to do something about it.

what is doing something about it looked like. I think it looks to me like not precluding the possibility that America might change direction on EVs and might reverse the kind of policy positions that Trump has been taking towards the automotive sector, which some critics in the United States have called industrial suicide. So leaving open the option to rebuild relations and those supply chain relationships, with the U.S. auto makers. I think that given that the midterms are coming up later this year, that's very prudent not to kind of burn those bridges.

But at the same time to say, look, if America continues to go in the direction of we don't want anything to do with e-vehicles, there is a role that Canada can play there. There's a bet that can be made. And I think that's the one that the prime minister made. I do think that it's also his perspective that incentives rather than mandates are a better way to achieve the kind of progress that climate concerned citizens want. That's why he introduced his notion of climate competitiveness. How do we articulate a climate-friendly policy that is also consistent with the need to be competitive so that people have jobs?

I think this is part of that piece. And it was part of, I think, what hadn't yet been unveiled at the time of the MOU between the federal government and the Alberta government in the fall, where some of the climate advocates, including Stephen Giebeau, were saying that there isn't enough in this for me to feel comfortable that the commitment to fighting climate change is strong enough. I think Prime Minister knew there were more pieces that were going to be developed, including a Canadian electricity strategy, which he described in very broad terms. terms last week to double the electricity supply in Canada over the coming years. So I think it's part of a piece of what he's been saying that he wanted to roll out. And I think it is remarkable the degree to which people across different parts of the Canadian landscape have said, yeah, this is a direction worth going in.

You know, this could have really gone in a bad, bad way if Doug Ford's position hadn't, I don't want to say changed, but adapted over the past month. And I want to try and understand why that happened. I mean, he went from the biggest enemy of the auto announcements right after China to as Chantelle said, just the other day being an advocate. What happened in there? Well, Mr. Ford is a politician. Obviously, considering he's not on his first term,

One brings some skills. He knew, I'm guessing, from the start that this position on Chinese, these 49,000 of them, less than 3% of the Canadian market, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on for very long. It was a popular announcement. I wrote, tested that in Ontario, with Ontario audiences, yeah, you could tell that the Premier wasn't going to have a great run for his money on this. but one, if you're the Premier of Ontario, you should always stand up for your province's auto industry too. I don't think there was a shift in this position as much as a getting to where he wanted to get. One was getting rid of the auto mandate, which was, I would argue at that juncture, an easy call in the sense that the signals from the federal government for weeks had been that those auto mandates, the EV mandates, were going to disappear.

You want to be able to show a win. But the longer game, and both Mark Carney and Doug Ford are playing it, is to bring actual manufacturing, auto manufacturing plants to Ontario. The South Korea Agreement in principle is a start on that. We are one of the largest overseas market for Kia vehicles. It would make sense to be producing manufacturing, some of them in Canada. What Doug Ford always said was, I don't like the Chinese EV concessions, let them come here and build cars if they want to sell less cars. That is the policy.

So I never saw a huge rift between the two. And certainly Mark Carney's visit, which probably gave the premier a preview of what's coming, with industry minister Melianizoli following suit within the same 24 hours, I believe. allowed Doug Ford to say, I got a win here. I got wins. And his reaction, I was interested in the fact that he wasn't there with the prime minister. I'm thinking from a political angle, it's probably actually best to keep enough distance and creative tension from the Ontario perspective with the federal government. but I never for a second believed that we were witnessing a permanent rift that was going to grow over weeks.

I just saw good politics and possibly good policy as a result. Is there a rift anywhere in the Canadian, you know, first minister's federal provincial relationship right now? I mean, I don't want to overstate what's happened between Alberta and Ottawa. because there are different. It's not a perfect relationship right now, but even there, I would say that the public comments of both Premier EBN and

Premier Smith more recently have been a moderate in tone anyway, even if they're expressing that they have a different point of view on things. And so I think the answer to your question is, Peter, there is a pretty strong tendency to try to reduce the amount of really tendentious language for the sake of the politics of it.

And underneath the surface, there could also be a pretty broad sense of common purpose in terms of what sort of an economic approach makes sense for the country. More than I've seen, I think more than any of us have seen in quite a long time. Well, it's also that when the prime minister has popularity, personal popularity is at 50% plus, most premiers know that some of their voters, large numbers may be, think that the prime minister is doing a good job. And so the let's run against the federal government thing does not pay off in the way that it pays off when the prime minister is at the end of the cycle. and has become the most despised person in many provinces. And they've all gone through that. We've seen it.

So Pierre Trudeau, when he patriated the Constitution, would never have managed to get that done if he had not been resurrected in an election. And that, to me, by the way, and I know it comes sideways, would be a major argument for not chancing in early spring federal election. Because Mark Carney now is the primary.

who brought the liberals back from the near-debt. But if he goes in an election and it doesn't result in the majority, he will be the prime minister who has failed to bridge the gap from minority to majority. It's not a risk worth taking in the current circumstances. It's the opposite argument to the, you're running so high, sir, that you should go in an election and you're going to be victorious. So I think federal-provincial relations for now are in. in good shape.

I'm curious to see what happens in the Quebec election next fall and what happens going from there. But things are also moving in all kinds of ways in Quebec, so it's a long way off. You know, you can only ever really deal with what you've got in the present. And I think you both agree. And I agree with Bruce. I can't remember a time in my coverage of politics in Canada

where there's been such. unity, I guess, is the word, but there is a common purpose. Maybe that's the better word. Even when Pierre Trudeau had that success after patriation, he had success with only nine of the ten provinces, right? So, you know, who knows where this is going to end up over the next year or so? But there does appear to be common purpose as we speak. Okay, final break time. Then we're going to come back and talk about Jamil Giovanni.

and his mission to Washington this week and what that means. We'll do that right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to Good Talk for this Friday. Chantelle I Bear, Bruce Anderson, Peter Manspritch with you. Jamil Giovanni, you've probably heard the name. He's a conservative MP.

And one of his claims to fame, if not his most talked about claim to fame, is that he went to school with J.D. Vance. I think they were roommates at one time at university. And they're close. They still talk, apparently. He went to Washington this week, looking to see whether he could work out a deal on the Canada-U.S. situation.

Now, we don't know exactly who he saw, where he went, what he discussed, what he offered, what he received. but we hear from him that things were really good and that he either directly or indirectly talked to Donald Trump as well who said, I love Canada. Yeah, right.

Let me show you the way. It's the kindergarten version of serious politics. Exactly. I know where Chantel is coming from on this. I think so too. Well, let's talk about it. What's he got to offer, except a nice, photos from his Ereson University.

This isn't like the fraternity meeting. But did he go with the blessing of his leader or his party? What do we know about how this actually happened? My understanding, and I could be wrong, but from various sources, my understanding is that no, Pierre Puehliv did not delegate Mr. U.S. to go on a self-appointed trade mission to the U.S. And I, you know, looking from the outside, without the help of sources, I would guess that if Mr. Poitiev wanted to be seen doing this, he would have appointed Mr. Giovanni as a trade critic in his shadow cabinet, which he is not. And usually it's your trade critic.

Second, if Pierre Poitiev really believed that he was going to set out on the conservatives, can resolve all this and bring back love and happiness. in the Canada-U.S. relationship, he would have gone to Washington himself after a carefully crafted trip, which, by the way, is a glaring omission on the part of Piappu. You have every official opposition leader that we've covered leading up to elections have done these kinds of trips. Justin Trudeau went and supported Keystone Excel, the pipeline from Alberta to the U.S., when he was the official opposition, when he was in opposition. He was never an official opposition either. To come back and say, it's all great.

And Canadians shouldn't be angry at the U.S. They're creating their own misery. It's like Mr. Giovanni acting as a spokesperson for the U.S. administration in Canada as opposed to defending Canadian interests. It's like saying, you know, you're getting beaten because you ask for it, was basically what came out of it. What I also understand is that many conservatives in caucus have looked at this. They're not terribly impressed, but they're also completely convinced that Mr. Giovanni sees himself

as a potential successor to Pierre Guillaev's leader, which brings me to my question, to which I still have no answer. I have very basic questions when people start seeing themselves as the leader in the place of the leader. How is this French? I'll stop there. Okay. Bruce. We don't know very much about

Jamil Janani, except that he is a pretty consistent and relentless self-promoter, which is hardly discredit if you're in politics. I mean, you know, a certain amount of that comes with the role. But he's been doing this kind of, I'm myself,

I'm going to go out on my own tour thing for a while. He's been a champion of some arguments about how young men are being disadvantaged and, you know, that's a popular thing, I think, within the conservative movement. And there's, you know, there's some arguments there that have broader reach, too. But basically, he looks like he's been cultivating that part of the base that otherwise Pierre Poliev would have assumed was his and his alone. Was it sanctioned?

I didn't see anything that suggested that it was sanctioned or supported or cheered on by the leadership of the conservative party. And I do see that the entire leadership team that Pierre Poliyev has appointed, the shadow critics, the associate critics, and the leadership team numbers something north of 70 MPs. And so Jamil Chabani is not one of the top 70 MPs. If you just use that as a, okay, you've got a draft. And he doesn't get drafted to one of those roles among the first 70 conservative MPs suggest that that's deliberate because he was a high profile person. He was a journalist and kind of widely recognized as a star candidate, a bit of a star candidate, I think.

So if all of that is true and he doesn't make the top 70 list, that's telling you something about the nation. of the relationship between Poliyev and Giovanni, I think. And on the spectacle of him standing near the White House, holding the phone up to his face, saying, you know, the news is good, Canada, we don't have to worry anymore. It's all going to work out. I've come down here, and there's really not very much to worry about, but we shouldn't be trying to annoy the Americans. that's so juvenile and so unlikely to persuade anybody who's thoughtful

that to make that contribution at this moment in time when Stephen Harper is saying we need to be thoughtful, we need to be unified, we need to focus on our own competitiveness, we need to distance ourselves from this over-reliance on the U.S. market. He's just kind of out of touch with his party. And I think out of step with Canadians, too. One of the, I hesitate to dwell further on this, but one of the arguments he's brought forward is I offered my help to the Carney team

and no one responded, so I'm going to be doing this. To tell you the truth, in proper political protocol, Mr. Carney would ask Mr. Palliev, you know, anyone on your team wants to join us. in this effort. Aaron O'Toole did that as the critic under Andrew Shear, when the free trade was being renegotiated and played a really constructive role.

But then so, we're inside the tent and presumably with the agreement of the leader at that time. But this, you know, they don't want my help and I can solve everything. So here I am coming out of my phone booth. as a member of the CPC caucus and becoming Superman just in time to save Canada, Ed kind of looks politically immature to tell you the truth.

You know, I find the interesting way you said is that, you know, we haven't seen Pollyev going down to Washington during his time to seek out relationships, to talk to people, whatever. And it's more than just Washington. I don't recall him doing an overseas. Well, at least he didn't stand in front of a phone booth in London to say how Brexit had been great. That would be with Andrew Shear did. Andrew Shear did.

The UK. Unforgettable. That and bragging that he was one of the first to say how great Brexit was. So that's a start. But you are right. I have not seen Mr. Poliev go to France or, and, you know, when the leader of the official opposition wants to do this, Canada's diplomats work on that visit. They offer help. They don't say you're not the government and we're not going to help you anymore.

If Francois-Blanche, if he went to France, would get some help. Mind you, that would also be surveillance in the sense of wanting to know what's being said by the French to the a sovereign this leader, but these things, these things can happen with support from Canadian government diplomacy. And they have not happened in the case of Mr. Puele, who has made it a virtue to say he would not go to Devast for the World Economic Forum and who is now boxed in his own rhetoric for saying that all Mark Carney does is travel the world and spend money on high-price trip. So at this point, Maybe he could take the bus to Washington.

But he hasn't, and that has been striking. You're being cynical. I am. Well, he's also been a very fierce advocate for not participating in global conversations, which has turned out to be just like Andrew Shears, I hated Brexit before it was cool to hate Brexit, which will kind of live in political infamy is the stupidest thing that he could have uttered.

But, you know, Pollyev made a big thing about, I will never allow a minister of mine to go to the World Economic Forum. And here we are where we need new relationships. We're going to need more of those conversations. So he has not yet executed a pivot on that, but unless he does, he'll remain out of touch. All right. I have to wrap it up for this day.

week. Good talk. We'll be back, of course, and we'll all be away from central Canada, which will give those who complain that we're to central Canada. Bruce will be out of the country, Jontel, be Alberta, I'll be in Manitoba. But we will be here. Look forward to good talk next week. I have everybody. Have a good weekend. You two included. Talk to you again on Monday. Take care of you guys.