The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - GOOD TALK  -- THE 2025 SUMMER SPECIAL #1

Episode Date: July 25, 2025

The statistics are pretty impressive. Canadians are staying home or at least they are staying away from the U.S. in this summer of 2025. This doesn't look like a one off, it could become generational. The deadline for a new trade deal between Canada and the U.S. is one week from today, what are the chances? Chantal Hebert and Bruce Anderson are here for our first of the summer's Good Talk specials.

Are you ready for good talk? And hello there summer special time for good talk. Here's our first of two summer specials. Um, Chantelle Bayer is here. Bruce Anderson is here. It's good to have them both. We got lots to talk about, so let's get at it. Um, I guess the first thing we should say Chantelle is in BC. It's good to have them both. We got lots to talk about, so let's get at it.

I guess the first thing we should say, Chantelle is in BC. She's been doing her normal kind of summer traveling around different places and this week she's out in beautiful British Columbia. Bruce is in Ottawa, but has been traveling back and forth up into the Gatineau. And you know, I've been, well, I had a little cataract surgery, so I was kind of not anywhere for a couple of weeks. But heading out to, I'm actually heading out to BC next week to do a little salmon fishing off the West Coast. So I'm looking forward to that. But I mention all these things for a reason because I saw a substack from Jennifer Rubin, American writer, just in the last couple of days, talking about travel. Of the 184 countries

monitored in the world, there's only one country that's actually down in travel income, people coming into their country, and that's the United States. And most of that is thanks to Canadians. And you look at the cross border figures on the border states, you know, whether it's Maine or Vermont or North Dakota, Montana, you name it, they're all down and we're talking billions of dollars, which has made me think and wonder, and I'd like your thoughts on this, whether this is going to become generational, whether it already is

generational. This feeling about the U.S. and, you know, I'm kind of bi-Canadian, I'm not going to travel on my holidays to the States. This is pretty hardcore stuff when you look at the numbers that I saw in that article this week. What do you think, Bruce? Is this kind of a one-off or do you think we're looking at a new kind of thinking on the part of Canadians? I think it's too early to tell Peter.

I think the real question that we need to know the answer to in order to answer that is what will America be like five years from now? Will it be a place where, um, it seems as indifferent to the relationship that it has with Canada and other allies in other parts of the world, or even aggressive in those relationships. That's certainly the way that it looks to Canadians and people in other parts of the world now.

And one of the mystifying factors of that, I think for a lot of Canadians, is how many Americans seem not really concerned about that, not outraged by it, not looking for their government to change the approach, not necessarily seduced by the arguments that Donald Trump is making about other countries ripping off America and taking advantage of it, but not as upset as we might have expected them to be. Now that probably won't matter to your point about where the biggest drop-off in tourism is concerned probably won't matter places like france or italy or you can as much as it will matter in canada

because we thought we had something different in terms of a relationship with the average american we could imagine that america could elected government that didn't exactly reflect the same values as we have, might choose to go to a war that we wouldn't choose to those kinds of things. But that's happened to us and into our in our relationship in the past. But this feels different.

That having been said, if America does change post Trump and adopts an attitude towards Canada that is more similar to what we've seen before, my own sense is that Americans would be happier with that. They're not necessarily clamoring for it. But then at the end of the day, Canadians would rather return to that kind of relationship than believe that there is a new normal that will stay this way for the long term. Because I think people believe that that was a valuable relationship, not just economically, but in terms of the way that we felt about our place in the world and our

role next to our neighbors. So I think it's too early to tell and it depends mostly on how America evolves. Chantal, what do you think? Like Bruce, I believe it's a bit too early to tell. And like Bruce, I believe that it all depends as to the way forward in the US. But I've been cycling in BC and the people I'm cycling with are all Americans. And I've been interested in trying to see what they see, because when you cycle, you see everything. And Peter, I don't think I've seen as many Canadian flags outside of July 1st. They're everywhere. A house after house after house. Mailbox. Some of

my travelling companions have bought those elbows up. But the sense I got, and this is a small sample, so it's not a poll, but the sense I got from spending time with them and listening to them is they feel powerless. And actually, some of them thought, this is interesting, Canadians are fighting back. But from where they sit, they don't see how to get out of this. It's not so much that they accept it as this happened and how do we move, get out of this vortex, which is also an interesting concept. I was also curious to see how Canadians would react to American tourists because it cuts both ways. And my traveling companions are not going around with a US flag. Let's agree on that. So they kind of fade into the general decor. But by and large, I would say I can't speak for them. But looking from the outside, I would say that they they were reassured

as to the way that they were received. I should add one other note if we're going to do travel. I was in Greenland, so I figured I'm going to visit all the 51st state candidates. The American tourists there, a lot less, but also a lot more discreet about. And in both Greenland and Iceland, I noticed that a number of Canadian travelers, as was the case during and after the Vietnam War, are making sure that they have pens or something that tells people that they're not from the US. So it's not just a change for us, it's a change for people who travel outside the US.

The way they're perceived, the way, you know, when in Iceland after I've been there a few times, a couple of hours after I landed, I've realized that the best thing I could do for myself was make sure that the people who were serving me in restaurants knew that I wasn't American, which I did by saying merci instead of thank you. And I did notice a change. So there is a lot of discomfort, but not very many ideas as to the way forward on this. Okay, Bruce, I want to come back to you on this, but I just want to say that,

while I think I tend to agree with both of you that it's too early to tell the long-term impacts of this, but I do think there are two things that are happening here. One, you're getting, in many cases, Canadians getting a better appreciation of their own country and what it can offer in the summer because they're doing more traveling inside Canada and we'll see the stats on that at some point, probably later this year. But there's that, but I also think there But there's that, but I also think there is the potential for a degree of generational change here. That when kids grow up and they travel with their parents in the summer and they're making choices about, you know, as wonderful as Maine is and, you know, and Vermont and parts of Eastern Canada have always sort of traveled that way. If they're not traveling that way,

they're doing something else. And it has an impact on kids and the way they grow up. And I know just like when my parents took us to Kennybunkport in Maine, we kept going, both my sister and I, afterwards, in the years later as we grew up and took our kids. So those kind of things can have an impact and we'll see where it plays out over some time. But Bruce, you wanted to add another point on that?

Yeah, something that Chantel said really struck a chord with me and I see it in some of the research that we've been doing, including some research in the United States. There's a number, a little bit over a third of Americans who really are outraged by the leadership that they see now. Now we can look at that and say that is many, many millions of people, and it is. But in their system, as polarized as it is, most

of those people feel quite powerless to change the trajectory of the way in which the country is being represented to the rest of the world. It frustrates them and you and I, Peter, know friends in common who are Americans who have that sense of deep frustration that they can't see a way that they can change that trajectory. It will depend on these two big tectonic machines, the Democratic party and the Republican party. And so as weak as the Democrats look,

the reaction for those people is either to feel completely dispirited and try to turn the channel from the thing that is making you most frustrated or to just lose hope that the country will return to that. Now, the best hope that people have, I think, is that there will be some economic pain in their country that will cause businesses and consumers to feel like they need to backlash against the Trump leadership on these issues. But people generally don't want to experience that economic pain and they look at the stock

markets hitting record highs. And so that again adds a layer of disaffection for the engagement that it would take to really reverse this direction. There's another 20% at the other end of the spectrum for whom whatever Donald Trump says is fine by them and is probably right. They just didn't know it until he told them that. Now that number is a little bit smaller in the context of this Epstein situation that's developing because that's hurting at the base of his support. Yes, a lot of mainstream non-base MAGA people who are a bit transfixed by it,

but I think that that number is still going to stay probably in about that range. It's all those folks in the middle who are really kind of being silent or acquiescent or don't know whether they should believe most of what he says or most of what his critics say, including a lot of voices that could be influential in describing a better relationship with Canada, in describing the essential nature of the economic ties in our auto sector, for example, or steel or aluminum or others. And yet very few of them are doing that because Trump has not only been aggressive towards international allies, he's been super aggressive towards American businesses and, and stakeholders who speak out in ways that are critical of his policies and has intimidated

a lot of them. Now, whether they should be intimidated or they should stand up is a debate we can have. But so far, the bulk of the evidence is, they're cowering a lot. And boy, Americans and Canadians and people around the world could sure use a little bit more participation in the debate from those folks. Okay. All right, let's move on.

Uh, this is related in some sense, obviously, because, uh, there's been a lot of attempts throughout this summer. I had to do something about the trade arrangement between the United States and Canada, uh, and the latest deadline. Um, none of which have been met so far is, is a week today. Um, August 1st, um, do either, you know, looking at what we're witnessing and you know, we see Dominic Leblanc has been back and forth again to the U S in the last couple of days and he's going to get early next week.

Um, do either of you and Chantal, wanted you to start us on this? Does August 1st mean anything? Does next Friday mean anything? You know, is it really a deadline in the sense of a deadline? Well, in the same way that we were gonna resolve this in time for the G7 or then July 21st, no, a deadline to what is really the question,

what are we racing at? I think there has been an evolution in the Canadian stance on this in the sense that remember the last time we spoke, Mark Carney was still going on about that this red line was tariffs, no tariffs. That line has shifted over the past two weeks to it's going to be really hard, probably impossible to get the deal without tariffs. And then it kind of shifted a bit more over the past few days to I won't accept a deal that's not good for Canada, which does not necessarily speak to someone

about to sell something that is going to work for Canada. But my concern, it's not so much over the August 1st or there will be tariffs. It's that my concern, it's not so much over the August 1st or there will be tariffs. It's that this realization that it's impossible to get a deal that will not include tariffs does not bode well for the large section of our economy that has been sheltered to date because of the free trade agreement that is still in place and that can be reopened, abandoned, renegotiated as of next summer. So I'm not convinced that you can, and I get the point I was watching from a distance,

the premieres this week and the argument that tariffs, no tariffs, that's one debate, but stability, predictability would be the first thing you should want and then let's see where we are. But I am not convinced that from this president and this administration, given the other deadline looming on free trade, I'm not sure we can achieve either objectives on tariffs or on stability. Bruce.

Well, that's an interesting point on stability. I think that Trump doesn't like stability. The rest of the world wants Trump to like stability, but he's proven time and time again that it is not, it feels to him like it's boredom. And so one of the biggest challenges I think for every country that's trying to find some measure of stability in the relationship with the United States is that they're finding that the challenge is not to come to an economic agreement, it's to come to a feeling that you can trust the undertakings that would be made by the Trump administration. And even as we've seen some

thing, quotes, deals having been announced already, I think we have to take a measure of salt with those in terms of will they stand they stand up if if Trump develops a mood about something will they change the terms of those deals in fact the letters that he sends out to countries around the world finish with that thought that these tariffs will go up or down depending on how we feel about the way in which you're dealing with us so you know I think that it's an extraordinarily unusual situation for leaders, not just in Canada, but around the world to try to steward their relationships with this

administration. It would be difficult enough if there was an economic argument where America was going to try to extract some economic benefit from these deals that was credible and that you could figure out how to work with them to accomplish the objective that Trump says he wants. But if you lift up the hood on this, there isn't that rationale. These tariffs don't work the way that he's describing. Of the $100 billion or more that's been collected so far, most of that has been paid by Canadian, by American businesses or American consumers.

And if he, if he actually asked those consumers or businesses in America, is this what you really want? Do you believe that this is going to produce that burgeoning manufacturing activity in the United States, they would say no. Americans still are by and large free trade oriented, they believe that the free trade deals that they've had have been good for America, including the one with Canada and Mexico has been mutually beneficial. So there isn't really anything that's rational to try to work with from an engagement and negotiation standpoint on the other side of the table. There's only this sense of if we had chaos today that's another good day if you're in Trump's White House because

that's sort of the point is to grab the news cycle every day you can and have people marvel at the power that you can exert over other countries, over the FCC, over companies that are doing things that you don't like, over the Fed chairman, you saw that the kind of crazy tour of the Fed building yesterday. So it's easy for us I think in Canada to fixate on the relationship with Canada and the negotiation around these tariffs with Canada and what's coming up next with Kuzma. But for Americans, it's like you just want a day when the only thing you can think about is that crazy Coldplay situation because it takes you away from the horror show that's happening in Washington and national politics

there. So I forgot where you started Peter. But I, August 1st, does it mean anything? Yeah, look, I think that the most important thing, frankly, that we can, we can feel some confidence in right now is that I think prime minister is doing what he needs to do, which is to signal that willingness to engage with the United States, but also limits to what

he's willing to give up and how that's characterized from one moment to the next to me is always going to be a bit of an evolution based on the circumstances. But what I was really struck by in Chantel mansion, the first minister's meeting was, I remember 1967, that's how old I am. Peter, I know you're a little bit older, you were a little older in 1967 than me, but not that much. 1867 was good. 1867 was, there were some really good meetings. But I do remember the feeling of unity in the country then, and I sometimes think that we haven't really had as much of a sense of we're kind of in this together, we're doing

this thing together as a country. And I don't want to overstate where we're at right now, but I was pretty struck by the degree to which the premiers, at least to a person, the ones that I saw speak, talked about the importance of lessening our reliance on the United States, increasing our diversification in terms of markets, building things together, trying to understand each other's perspectives, whether it's on pipelines or something else, looking for ways to engage with indigenous communities that might be different from one province to the other, but we're all organized around the same idea that let's find a path of respect and let's see if we can find mutual benefits.

And you could have made the case that this many months after this debate about tariffs started that could be breaking down. Instead, I think that it's strengthening, at least for the moment. And I think that's a super important thing for Canada to try to hold on to as we as we recognize that we're going to be dealing with Trump for several more years. What can we do together in the meantime? How can we hold that political will stable? How can we use it together to do some of the things that will make our economy more resilient? I'm not sure that I want to go to 1967 and expo as something that is the spirit of the times. I understand what Bruce is saying and I did watch the premieres. But one, there's a fine line between saying all these things and admitting that you feel

as powerless as you really feel about the Canada-U.S. situation. I think they collectively put up a good front on the powerlessness. There is no magic formula. They don't have rabbits in that hat. It's an empty hat. But they are also all politicians who are one, trying to seduce the federal government into accepting projects that they want for their province individually, but also that they will want to be selling to Canadians. So the last thing they need is to gather and start going after each other because they will raise in their own backyard constituencies that will say, wait a minute, whenever those projects come. But I think the test of all this unity is going to be in actual practical things, like what are those projects?

How feasible are they? How do you maintain this? Yes, possible to secure indigenous support for some projects. It will not be possible for all. I can predict that. There are provinces where the people who will be selling the projects will have no credibility. The fact that they're the salespeople, and Bruce knows that, if you are a very unpopular political leader and you are the person selling the project, you probably will kill it. And I'm not naming Francois Legault, but I'm seeing him in my mind as I say this.

So all these things are in our near future, but they haven't happened yet, so it's a bit too early. The thing with 1967 is it became great as spirit once Expo existed. We are not yet standing on the grounds of Expo 67 here. We're just talking about a concept. I mean, we've got to take a break here, but let's face it, and our history shows it, at times of crisis, and everybody seems to agree that this is a moment of crisis on this trade arrangement with the US and the relationship overall with the US, at times

of crisis people tend to band together and we're seeing that, you know, with the provinces, with the premiers and the prime minister to a degree. The rubber will hit the road when the real issues hit the table, whether it's dairy quotas or pipelines or whatever it may be. Then we'll see the traditional divisions, I'm assuming here, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that we'll see those traditional divisions will start to play out in a firmer way. But in the moment, this moment, there is something quite warm to watch these play out and to hear the things they're saying about each other at the microphone and how good the conversations

have been and how everybody's getting along and Doug Ford's, you know, stuff about having to find this role. If I can, I know you want to take a break, Peter, but not in the defense of my 1967 illusion. I'll take the beating on that and move on. But there is more public opinion behind this sense of let's focus on what we can do, let's focus on the future. It isn't just premiers performing their role as pump primers for their local interests and looking for federal financing to support projects that they like, which isn't to say that public opinion can't change, but it has not only been kind of durably interested in this issue of what are we going to do, not just in terms of elbows up, elbows down,

negotiation with the United States, but what are we going to do for ourselves? What can we do for ourselves? And I think that there was a time when I would have expected people to become kind of defeated by that question because it's really hard to know because the rest of the world doesn't kind of advertise the opportunities that are there for Canada in a way that everybody can see them and say, well, yeah, why don't we go and do that? Sell this thing to those people. But rather than become disinterested or disengaged or dispirited about it, what I see in the public opinion now is that Canadians are saying, yeah, let's focus on that. They're

being kind of patient right now, to be honest with, with the the evolution. I think a lot of key stakeholders that I work with and that we all talk to are impatient and want to see, you know, they don't want to see this deadline pushback even though, you know, it might change. They want action and stability and pendability and reliability now. The public opinion doesn't look like that to me. The public opinion looks to me like it's we're in a difficult situation. The problem is south of 49, not north of 49. It's going to take some work, some thinking, some agility, some planning, some investment to try to get us to a better place. And so

far I just don't see hardly, I see hardly any partisanship in public opinion. I see mostly people saying, let's keep working in this direction and see what we can get to. So whether we call that kind of a, an outburst of love of country, I don't know. I don't wanna go that far,

but I do think it's likely to be a little bit more stable maybe than the two of you are are suggesting. All right. I remember the morning after the Mieze Lake Accord was signed and the headline in the Devoir was Canada says yes to Quebec. Yeah. And right. So I'll wait like Peter for the rubber to hit that road. We'll see. We can hope, but we'll see how it plays out. Okay. We're going to take a quick break and there's lots more to talk about.

So we'll be back right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to our first of our two summer specials for Good Talk, Bruce Anderson, Chantelle Bear, both in the house for our discussions. 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. We're glad to have you with us. Whatever platform you are listening or watching on. You know, a couple of months ago in the middle of the election, one of the primary issues I think was

who's gonna stand up for Canada, who's gonna negotiate for Canada with the United States, with Donald Trump. And Canadians clearly decided that their their person for this was going to be Mark Carney and they decided that what they knew about Mark Carney which in many cases was not a lot but what they did know they were convinced here was a guy who could negotiate he'd proven that at various conferences and

tables around the world, you know, especially on the economic front and So they voted for Mark Carney. So here we are months later Approaching this deadline What have we What have we learned about Mark Carney, the negotiator, the prime minister, after these months? Is he what Canadians thought he was when they gave him the mandate they gave him? And I ask this carefully because I know Bruce worked alongside Mark Carney or helped advise him during the campaign. And now he's back in this other side of the fence and it's good to have him with us again.

But why don't we start with Bruce on this question. What have we learned about this guy given what we thought about him during the election campaign? Is he the guy we thought he was? we thought about him during the election campaign, is he the guy we thought he was? I don't know the answer to that. I think that the, so I appreciate the question,

but I don't think, I think people have a perception of what the choice looked like between Pierre Pauliev and Mark Carney. And the perception on the one hand was that Pierre Polly was a very able counterpoint to Justin Trudeau and the frustrations that people had with Justin Trudeau but that Mark Carney looked like a better fit with the challenges that were right in front of the country once Mr. Trudeau had left and given the position that Donald Trump was taking. Beyond that, I don't think people had much of a chance to get to know Mark Carney and to understand

what kind of an individual he was. They knew he had economic expertise and he knew he was a kind of accomplished on the global geopolitical stage. I think sometimes when I think about what has happened as he's assumed this role is that a lot of people said that they wanted change and they wanted it to happen fairly quickly. Mark Carney is somebody who is turning out to be somebody who works very quickly. He has a very, you know, strong work ethic and he has a real sense of the pace is important in order to change the things that need to be changed because if you slow your pace, everything will slow down with you and eventually you'll lose momentum. So I think he's a big believer in pace and maybe people didn't see that coming but they

see somebody who's very focused on making things happen within a relatively short timeframe. I think the other thing about him is that I like to think of the country as having had kind of a several year experience where much of what was being communicated by federal leadership was about idealism, a little bit more of that than about pragmatism. And Mark Carney is more on the pragmatic side, which is possibly a function of the circumstance that he finds himself in. But I think to a lot of voters, including a lot of voters who didn't vote for Mark Carney and the liberals, they're seeing a government that feels pragmatic and they like that.

When we looked at our approval numbers earlier this week, approval of the federal government performance, we're seeing 57% in Alberta, which I don't think I've ever seen anything like that before. And it's not because they look at everything that Mark Carney is doing and say, we like that policy, or he's gonna do just what we want, but they are feeling that this is a government that is focused more on the pragmatic side of things

and on the idealistic side of things. And the last thing I would say as it relates to what kind of a negotiator is he on behalf of Canadians, or how does he sort of think about his role as cheerleader in chief or leader of the national government. To me, he's a little bit of a less is more guy. He doesn't feel like he needs to speak all the time about everything. And I think people like that. I think there's a reaction that's positive to that because it feels like he's not trying too hard to win their affection or support.

He's trying to do the job and communicate to them what it is that he feels he should, which includes on the trade file, keeping his cards pretty close to his vest, which, you know, some people might have a different point of view. I happen to think it's the smart thing to do in this context. Okay. Well, especially considering that the person is negotiating with beliefs that we have no cards. So maybe not say that we have some or show them prematurely. There is no buyer's remorse out there.

Bruce's numbers show that. But when you talk to people, you see that People are not at this point saying, oh, if I'd known that he was going to be like this, I would have come to some other conclusions, stayed with the NDP, gone to, or the Conservatives. I believe that he is benefiting immensely from the notion that Canadians have that their choice was Pierre Poilier for Mark Carney. And for many voters, including conservatives, he was the better choice in this context by far. It's possible that for as long as the conservatives have Pierre Poilier as leader, he will be an asset to Mark Kearney as far as it goes when you think about popularity. But Bruce mentions ideals and pragmatism, and for sure this is a Prime Minister who

comes across as a lot more pragmatic than his predecessor. But the balance is important and I think many Canadians are still watching to see how you balance ideals and pragmatism in his case. Just because many voters wanted a more pragmatic Prime Minister does not mean that voters sacrifice their ideals. And at some point they will want to see, because the circumstances have not allowed for a demonstration of that, what is this guy's bottom line on ideals? I'll give you one example. There is a lot of pressure on Mr. Carney to continue to dismantle all of the climate policies that Justin Trudeau put in place. I don't think

that all voters, when they supported the liberals, gave a blank check to the current Prime Minister to do that, or to apply what was basically Pierre Poilieff's program to this. And I think it will matter where he draws a line on these issues, because I do not believe that Canadians have said, well, you know, all these things that we believed were important, and we talked about how important climate was on the doorsteps in previous elections. All those things were setting them aside, and it's okay for the government to just turn the clock back on policy.

And those have not been yet demonstrated one way or another, not because Mr. Carney has run away from those challenges, but because it's too early and there have been too many other things to deal with to know where those lines will be drawn. I think the next federal budget is going to be a very important policy piece, not just for the numbers, but for what it says about whether ideals will be sacrificed on pragmatism or maybe opportunism. You know, I'm wondering when the clock enters the situation here, the picture in terms of feelings on the part of not just the people, but those key players that sit around the table, whether they're premiers or industry leaders or whoever they happen to be, union leaders, indigenous

leaders. The clock has worked in the prime minister's favor so far in the sense that people are giving him time. But at a certain point, time runs out. Whether it's the trade deal, whether it's the promises of nation building projects, whether it's the with, you know, Alberto over, you know, pipelines or whatever that, whatever the case may be.

Danielle Smith told me in June that her clock runs out in the fall. She wants to see, you know, like real progress, real ideas, real announcements before that. Or what? Or what? Or what? Or I guess she starts talking more on the other side of this issue. But when Mark Carney's looking at the clock, or does he look at the clock? Does time run out?

I mean, this is a minority government, which we shouldn't forget. Does the clock play into this? Bruce, Chantelle, especially minority governments, that you should strike that iron while it is hot, that it's not going to get hotter, it's going to get colder, and that every decision is going to cost you something. So what happens when minority governments are elected? Usually they want do-ables within 18 to 24 months. That is the average life of a minority government. I'm not saying this one couldn't last longer, given what's happening to the NDP and what

may be happening to the conservatives. But for sure, that phase when your audience is actually watching you with the mind of wanting for you to do good, to succeed, is at the beginning. And yes, there is a clock on that, but it's not a notwithstanding Premier Smith's assertion. It's not a clock that is ticking very loudly for September or October. It's a bit, I think there's a bit more time this time next year, I'm curious to see where we will be at and what we will be saying.

Okay, I gotta take a final break. Your question is really interesting, Peter. So I would say a couple of things. One is that this individual who's running the federal government now is not somebody who comes from a background of trying to figure out a lot of the intricacies of politics and how you assemble a coalition and how you sustain it and where in the country you find pockets of support by identifying different policies. And that's not to say it's better than those who had, but it's different. I don't think at this point, and that could change at some point, I suppose,

that Mr. Carney spends a lot of time thinking about the political clock. I think he spends a lot of his time thinking about the policy choices that he needs to make and how he can gather and sustain the political consensus necessary. And Chantel's quite right that the challenge of blending ideals and pragmatism, rather than choosing between ideals or pragmatism, is the complex challenge of moving the country forward through this situation that we find ourselves in. And there aren't a lot of historical reference points for how to do that in an age when keeping people focused on a certain set of choices, keeping people united on those choices, when it looks like sometimes there's

friction between the ideal and the pragmatic. That's not easy, but I think that's the political calculus. And I don't really think it is a political calculus for him because I think he is focused more on what do we need to do and how am I going to try to use whatever political capital life I've got now to accomplish those policy goals rather than to be in a position where I could win another election at some point in the not too distant future. The second thing and only other thing I would say about this is that I've been struck and this also relates to Chantel's point about Meyers remorse. That the bubble which I live in and I don't want to associate you with that you too but

probably you would recognize that you are part of the bubble too, tend to be a lot of different stakeholders from different perspectives whose daily grind is trying to identify what's going wrong or what could go wrong tomorrow and what could or should be done differently to try to amend that bad outcome that's just around the corner. And what I see in the public opinion, and it's been true for a long time, is that most people aren't paying that much attention to it. They're not looking for what's going wrong and what could go wrong. They had tuned out the last government. They were really frustrated with it. They knew what they wanted, but they

weren't transfixed by that choice every day. They were just like, let us get to the ballot box and we'll fix this thing that's driving us nuts. But right now, they're a little bit in a more patient mode and that patience to me stands in contrast somewhat with the kind of the bubble conversation that I find myself immersed in sometimes. All right, we're gonna take it. I don't know where we're going to we gotta. No, but that bubble, Bruce, I'm glad you live in Ottawa because it sounds very Ottawaish. No, no bubbles on the bike path on, uh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no Shantel is the best part from all of that for sure. And we've all long known that for sure. Okay, we're out of time. We're gonna take our final break.

We'll be back and spend a couple of minutes on Pierre Poliev right after this. All right, welcome back. Final break and final segment for a good talk for this special summer edition. We'll do two summer editions, one at the end of August. This is the end of July one, obviously. Final topic and we've only got about five minutes to deal with it. And it's Pierre Poliev.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but is this dead man walking or is this a guy who has a chance to make it back with his ultimate goal of winning an election at some point? Where are we on Pierre Poliev after watching the dance that's been going on the last couple of months as he tries to gain back a seat in the House of Commons by leaving Ottawa and going to Alberta. Chantal? Watching someone who actually believes his own rhetoric that he came close to victory, brought the party forward, he's within inches of power and all his recipes are good recipes with very little,

you know, some attempts at change to maybe open up to, you know, giving mainstream interviews, for instance, a new thing that shouldn't have been new, but has become new. But that shouldn't have been new, but has become new. But is he dead man walking? When you talk to many conservatives, that is the answer you get, that that is where this is headed. I don't know, but I do not see many signs that there were lessons learned, or that he has found a way to position himself in the

current universe that is very different from the way he positioned himself in the previous one. I watched his feed and what I see is Mr. Poilier deciding that he is going to do with Mark Carney what he succeeded to do with Justin Trudeau by always going after character credibility rather than opting for possibly a more constructive role in the Canadian conversation as it stands today. I'm not sure that that's going to work and I'm not sure that the conservative party will give him the time two or three or four years to accomplish the mission of demolishing the government. But at this point, I fully expect him to be back in the comments. Same person, same attack dog

when the house resumes and he has a seat. Bruce. Yeah, I'm pretty close to where Chantal is on this. I think the, you know, as long as he is a kind of an unlikable personality with a sense of entitlement to the job of prime minister and a weak resume, if he's up against somebody who comes off as a likeable person with a strong resume, who's kind of working hard to sustain or build public support, he's going to be in the loser's position. Now, the Carney version of that might change, but that's the way that that battle looks like now. And if, if Carney doesn't change from being that, Paul Yev absolutely has to change from those elements that of his approach that people have consumed and decided they don't like. So he's right to kind of focus and squint his eyes on the outcome of the election and say,

oh it was so close. But if he widens the lens a little bit and he looks at the relative popularity of him versus the liberal leader, it's miles apart and it's grown bigger. And his sense of entitlement to the job that he has is kind of palpable, I think, among conservatives that I talk to, that the notion that you would take a lesson from what happened not just on election day, but in the weeks leading up to election day when the party watched its fortunes go from up here to down here and that you would not materially do anything different except, you know, I like the idea of these, he's doing more interviews, should have happened a long time before.

There was this sense of I can control the universe. I don't need to bend to its will. It needs to bend to mine. All of that proved to be false. All that proved to be self-destructive. All of that looks like barnacles on the conservative party brand right now. And he should be leading the change in that conservative party brand. He should be leading the direction to say, here's what we need to champion going forward,

not just to say, hey, this guy's just like Trudeau was, which doesn't carry any weight with the average voter. Or he's only doing what I would have done, which also sounds kind of silly. So he's a man without an argument who was in position to have that leadership role because people thought he was a winner and now he doesn't look like a winner. So he's got a lot of work to do to hold on to that job. But you know, the balance of history tells us he probably will. And if he does, I know more liberals who'd be happy about that than I know conservatives

who'd be happy about that. All right. We're out of time, only time to ask Chantel knowing where she is in the wilds of BC and bicycling on- In the dark, yes. In the dark. Are those bare skin chairs behind you? Then my iPad would be on a, on bearskin because I pulled one of the couch cushions to elevate it.

So now it's quite like it dropped water and stuff and nothing terrible would happen. Have you seen lots of wildlife? I saw more wildlife in Greenland, but possibly because I was looking for it when you're cycling. You see deer, a lot of deer and some bald eagles, but otherwise you mostly are looking out for the wild cars. Well, listen, enjoy yourself and cycle safe. And you have a great summer as well. Bruce, we'll gather again a month from now

at the end of August for our next summer special on Good Talk. Reminder that the buzz comes out tomorrow morning. It's out there every Saturday morning through the summer. And you can subscribe at national news, watch.com slash newsletter. Um, you know, some of the thoughts on some of the things that we've heard us in the past week. Um, thanks Chantelle. Thanks for Bruce. And thanks to all of you. Have a great summer. We'll talk to you again in a month.