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

Episode Date: July 30, 2025

Today an encore presentation of an episode that last aired on July 25th. 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.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. It's the summer of 2025, and that means our encore special Wednesdays will continue through the summer, focusing on some of the best programs we had in the past year. And that past year has changed, right? At the beginning of the year, Justin Trudeau was Prime Minister. The Liberals were in government. Well, today the Liberals are still in government, but it's a different Prime Minister, Mark Carney. So some of the things changed as a result of that, but some of the topic,

are still incredibly relevant. Hope you enjoy this edition of our summer repeat series. And hello there, summer special time for good talk. Here's our first of two summer specials. Chantelle-A-Barre is here. Bruce Anderson is here. It's good to have them both. We've got lots to talk about, so let's get at it.

I guess the first thing we should say, Shantel is in B.C. She's been doing a 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 of 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 going to buy 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 are going to, 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 it seems as indifferent to the relationship that it has with Canada and other allies and 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.

It probably won't matter in places like France or Italy or the UK 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 elect a 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 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 that at the end of the day, Canadians would rather return to that kind of relationship. then 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 U.S. But I've been cycling in B.C.

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 traveling companions have bought those elbows up.

Flax. But the sense I got, and this is a small sample, so it's not a pole. But the sense I got from spending time with them and listening to them is they feel powerless. And actually, some of them talk, 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 U.S. 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 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 states candidate. And the American tourists there are 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 pins or something that tells people that they're not from the U.S. So it's not just a change for us. It's a change for people who traveled outside the U.S. The way they're perceived, the way, you know, in Iceland, after I've been there a few times, a couple of hours after I landed,

I 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 didn't notice the 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, you know, I do think there is this, there are two things that are happening here. One, you're getting, in many cases, Canadians are 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 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 the parts of eastern Canada have always sort of travel 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, you know, I know they're just like when my parents took us to Kenny Bunkport, in Maine. You know, we kept going, both my sister and I, afterwards, you know, 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, we'll see where it, where it plays out over, over some time. But Bruce, you wanted to add another point on this. Yeah, something that Chantelle said really, really struck the cord 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. And it frustrations. 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. 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 yet.

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-based 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 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. This is related in some sense, obviously, because 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 and the latest deadline

none of which have been met so far is a week today August 1st 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 again early next week Do either of you, and Chantel, wanted you, start us on this? Does August 1st mean anything? Does next Friday mean anything? Is it really a deadline in the sense of a deadline? Well, in the same way that we were going to 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 and the Canadian stance on this in the sense that, remember, the last time we spoke, Mark Carney was still going on about that his 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 a 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 this realization that it's impossible to get a deal that will not include tariff does not bode well for the large section of our economy that has been sheltered today 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 to premiers 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. 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, in quotes, deals having been announced already, I think we have to take a measure of salt with those in terms of will they stand up. If Trump develops a mood about something, will he 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 American businesses or American consumers. And 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 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 it's that crazy cold play 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 here but 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 the 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, and Chantelle mentioned the first minister's meeting, was I remember 1967, that's how old I am. Peter, I know you're a bit older, you were a little older in 1967 than me, but not that much. 1867 was good. 1867 was 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. 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 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 an expo as something that is you know the spirit of the times I I understand what Bruce is saying and I I did watch the premiers. 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's 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 it?

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 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 Lego, but I'm seeing him in my mind as I say this. So all these things are in our future, 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 were just talking about a concept. I mean, we've got to take a break here, but I mean, 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 U.S. And the relationship overall with the U.S.

At times of crisis, people tend to bend together. And we're seeing that, you know, with the provinces, with the premiers and the prime minister, to a degree. You know, 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, you know, 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 the...

If I can, I know you want to take a break, Peter, but not in defense of my 1967 illusion. I'll take the meeting 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, you know, 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 the Canadians are saying, yeah, let's focus on that. They're being kind of patient right now, to be honest, with 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 push back, even though, you know, it might change. They want action and stability and dependability 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 an outburst of love of country I don't know I don't want to go that far but I do think it's likely to be a little bit more stable maybe than than the two of you are suggested all right we're going to do I remember the morning after the Misch Lake according to a sign and the headline in the Davao was Canada,

says yes, the 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're back right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to our first of our two summer specials for Good Talk, Bruce Anderson, Chantelli 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 going to stand up for Canada, who's going to negotiate for Canada with the United States, with Donald Trump. And Canadians clearly decided that 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. guy who could negotiate. He'd proven that at various conferences and tables around the world, especially on the economic front. So they voted for Mark Carney. So here we are months later approaching this deadline. 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, you know, the campaign.

And now he's back in this other side of the fence. It's good to have him with us again. But why don't we start? Well, why don't we start with Bruce on this, quite? 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? 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 Poliyev and Mark Carney.

And the perception on the one hand was that Pierre Poliab was a, 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.

have 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 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 time frame. 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 liked 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's doing and say, we like that policy, or he's going to do just what we want, but they are a feeling that this is a government that is focused more on the pragmatic side of things

than on the idealistic side of things. And the last thing I would say, 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 what believes 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 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 Pueleev 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 Pia Pueleev's 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 voters, 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 is not allowed for a demonstration of that

what does 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 Kieran Prime Minister to do that, or to apply what was basically Piapuelev's program to this. And I think it will matter where he draws.

align 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 weather 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 who 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 a relationship with, you know, Alberta 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, you know, on the other side of the issue um but you know when when mark carney's looking at the clock or does he look at the clock you know is does time run out i mean this is a minority government which we shouldn't forget um does the clock play into this bruce chantel either one of you Well, every government knows, especially minority governments, but 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 doables 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, got to take a final break. 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 Chantelle's quite right that the challenge of blending ideals and pragmatism rather than choosing between ideals or pragmatism is the complex a challenge of moving the country forward through this situation that we find ourselves. 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 so, 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 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 the only other thing I would say about this is that I've been struck and this also relates to Chantelle's point about buyer's 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, that, you know, 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 patient, to me, stands in contrast somewhat with the kind of the bubble conversation that I find myself immersed in sometimes. All right. We're going to take it. I don't know where we got it. No, but that bubble, no, Rose, I'm glad you live in Ottawa because it sounds very

auto-wish. No, no bubbles on the bike path on. No, no, Oregon, Montreal. No, no, no, I know that. Chantel is, as far as from all of that, for sure. And we've all long known that, for sure. Okay, we're out of time. We've got to take our final break.

We'll be back and spend a couple of minutes on Pierre Pahliav right after this. All right, welcome back, final break, and final second. segment for a good talk for this special summer edition. We'll do two summer editions on 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 Polyev, 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 Poliyev 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 that 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 as 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 watch his feed, and what I see is Mr. Poiliev deciding that he is going to do with Mark Carney, what he succeeded to do with Justin Trudeau, by always going after character,

rather than opting for possibly a more constructive role in the Canadian conversation as it stands today. I'm not sure that it'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 likable person with his 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 Carney doesn't change from being that, Pollyette absolutely has to change from those elements 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 would be happy about that. All right. We're out of time. Only time to ask Chantelle knowing where she is in the wilds of BC and

bicycling on... In the dark. Yes. Are those bare skin chairs behind you? Yes. Then my iPad would be on a bearer skin. because I pulled one of the couch cushion to elevate it. So now it's quite like a drop water and stuff and nothing terrible would happen. And that was another from our summer of 2025 repeat series of our programs from 2024, the fall,

and the winter and the spring of 2025. I'm Peter Mansbridge. I hope you're enjoying the summer. We'll talk to you again soon. Good see, Bo. Take care. Hi. Thank you.