The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk -- The Conservative Bleeding Continues As The Year Ends

Episode Date: December 12, 2025

For the third time in a month a Conservative jumps ship, with two of them joining the Liberals. Will there be more? Ottawa starts to close down for the holidays and Good Talk assesses where things stand at the end of 2025. 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 Iber and Bruce Anderson. It's your Friday morning, good talk. We've got lots to talk about today. So let's get right at it. This is our, well, it's our last one with Chantel before the break. She's off on another one of her world tours, the Chantelle-A-Bare World Tour, the holiday season 2025.

Look who's talking. That's risky. That's risky stuff there. You're way out on our limb. It's kind of crumbling under the way of those golfers. We're wishing you good luck and a wonderful voyage. We have one more show before the year-end break and filling in for Chantal next week. We'll be Bob Ray, who is quite worried about this.

Those are major shoes to fill, so he's getting all excited for that. Okay, let me set the scene for our topic one. You're the leader of Canada's official opposition, leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. You're at a fundraising dinner in a high-end Toronto neighborhood. I can't remember Rosedale or Forest Hill. There's a lot of big money in the room, I'm assuming. And, you know, you're feeling good, sort of.

It's been a difficult year, but you're feeling good. the holiday season and things seem to have settled down when all of a sudden at one point in the evening somebody comes up and whispers in your ear, sir, another one of your MPs has crossed the floor and joined the liberals. In this case, it was Ontario MP Michael Maugh, who the night before, the night before had been at the conservative Christmas party and had pictures to taken along with Mr. Polyev and his wife and all of Mr. Moss's family. But there are 24 hours later he's crossing the floor. So what does this do?

What does this tell us, Chantelle, about the state of the party situation in Ottawa. I'm not talking the Christmas party. I'm talking with the political party where the liberals now one seat away from forming majority. What's your sense? Well, it tells us what we already know about the Conservative Caucus, and it is that a number of MPs are unhappy, dispirited, depressed, thinking of moving on to another career or probably musing about whether they would not be more comfortable

defending liberal policies as they stand under Mark Carney than Pierre Poiliev's rather polarizing attacks on those policies. What it does to the mindset of the people around Pierre Poiliev is it can only induce paranoia. Imagine that you went to a party with all your friends in the next morning. One of them was on radio or TV backstabbing you

or friends stabbing you in this case. case, and you would think I didn't even see that coming, what else could, am I not seeing that could be happening? And it is impossible, as Mr. Pueleven's team are discovering, to be, to get inside the brains of caucus. And it seems, and we will see over time, but it seems that there are, from conversations, there are loyalists. Let me not tell you. that the entire caucus is not loyal. They are loyalists. Then there are those who are thinking of leaving.

Then there are those who are thinking of staying so that they can vote, they and their writing association, against Mr. Puelebe at the Leadership Review, or leave once that leadership review is over if Mr. Pueleve is staying, which is a really bad place to be. So do I exclude

more of these kinds of events over the next few weeks or even months. No, not at all. I do believe that this party and this caucus is in a place vis-à-vis its leader that will lead MPs to reconsider their future in politics. Their future as we saw this week in the case of 1BC recently elected MP, their future at the federal level rather than the provincial level. So if you're a conservative member, and you're going to be voting on whether you want to keep Mr. Puehliev as leader, it should give you pause that MPs. No matter what do you think about going to one Christmas party

and then another and having your picture taken, having said all that about how do you go and do this, it should make you wonder whether he is the leader to take you all the way to an election victory. What do you make of it, Bruce? I think that it's been remarkable to me how little Pierre Polyev has appeared to try to do since failing to win the last election and then having that kind of rash of conversations about floor crossing earlier. It seems as though his response, at least.

least from what we can see externally, has been to do little or nothing, even though I think the evidence is that there are people in his party and in his caucus who think he lacks charm, who think he lacks relevance, who think he lacks gravitas. And that criticism of him has been around almost since the moment Judson Trudeau departed the political scene. I say that because I think that Pierre Polyev's essential relevance was that he was the thing that people, the person that people could choose if they wanted to get rid of Justin Trudeau. He didn't have gravitas then. He didn't have charm then. He did have relevance. And I think with Mark Carney in office, the challenge of relevance is even more, is more pronounced. It's not just the absence of an

advantage for him. We're in this conversation about how are we going to relate to the United States. And Pierre Polyev doesn't have very much to say about that. And I think it's very calculated, not very much to say. I think he knows that there are too many people in his voting coalition who don't want to hear any criticism of Donald Trump or Donald Trump's policies. it's obvious we're in a conversation about how we're going to do more business with the rest of the world and instead of having anything productive

to say about that and I know people will take issue with this I mean the conversation the conservatives seem to want to have is how many plane trips the prime minister took and what the cost of the plane trips were and I think that's so out of touch with where Canadians are at the anxieties that they feel about the future of the economy don't take them to a place where they say, but whatever else happens, don't take too many plane trips,

don't meet with too many businesses from around the world, don't try to figure out another economic path. So he's really found nothing useful to say on the question of relevance to the big economic issues of the day. He talks about affordability, but I watched what he was doing yesterday, and it was hard to really understand what he was saying when he was talking about these hidden taxes, And I think, you know, affordability is an issue, but it's an issue that people see happening not just here. And they understand that it's complicated. And so if somebody has a solution, bring it forward, but explain it to people. Don't just say, I'm not in power.

The other guys are in power, so I'm going to beat them over the skull with the word affordability. Politics doesn't work like that right now. Voters want gravitas. and at every opportunity, other than wearing fewer t-shirts and more dark blue suits, Pierre Polyev has seemed to not really be interested in finding that gravitas. So he's lacking competitiveness. It's been evident for months. He hasn't done much to solve for that problem.

And the last point for me is that even though it's been years since it's ever been fashionable to say within the modern conservative party that you're a progressive conservative there are some there are people who don't want to be part of a party that veers too hard towards the maga world that's especially prominent as the maga world looks more and more devastating in terms of its economic thinking the racism that we see the vitriol that it is injects into our politics. And those kinds of conservatives have had to be becoming more uncomfortable. And Pierre Polyev has not done anything to make them feel more comfortable, in my view.

He hasn't really changed the way that he lines up his critics or talks about issues. And so he's vulnerable to having those people look at the Liberal Party and say, it might be a little bit too far to the left for me, but it doesn't feel, it doesn't feel so different from how I feel. And I think that's what Michael Maugh was talking about yesterday. And I think that's a, it's a real problem for Pierre Pollyette. You know, obviously, you know, Bruce has strong feelings around this issue. And some of them are based on the fact that, you know, he's looked at the political situation through his research.

And he sees certain data come up. But he's not alone in that. I mean, I found it really interesting. this week that Angus Reed, who over time, I think it's fair to say, some of his data has been favorable to the Conservative Party of Canada, different times over the years. This week he came out with new data that suggested that, you know, there are more conservativeist thinking today even than a month ago, that perhaps Pierre Polyev is not the way forward for that. That's still a minority opinion within the party that he's researching, but it's gone up.

It's gone up in numbers in the last month or two. And that's got to be a worrying sign for Pollyé. How could it not go up? Considering that for the past four months, poll after poll, after poll, has shown Ker-Poliev to be a drag on the party and a liability and not an asset. If you're thinking about election prospects, forget the numbers. You look at the leader and you think, and I have a leader that gives a lift to the party, not the leader, that the party is going to have to drag into the elections.

Bruce talks about progressive conservatives. That's in particular, too, in Quebec. I've never seen a Quebec caucus as invisible and as unhappy as the cure. and Quebec Conservative Caucus, but almost to a man and a woman, they would all be more comfortable describing themselves as progressive conservative. And indeed, with I think one, maybe two exceptions, they all backed Jean Chalje for the leadership. But it's not as if conservatives are not engaged in the Canada-U.S. economy conversation. I'm going to give you a list of people who have not gone around chair.

for Mark Kearney, but who have still been in the conversation as conservatives and have contributed some constructive comments. Aaron O'Toole has been doing it quite a lot. Jason Kenney has been doing it quite a lot. The both seem to be able to say, this is good, we should do more of this. This is really stupid. We shouldn't be doing this. And I believe both of them remain conservatives, Premier Ford.

has been in the conversation, front and center. Tim Houston and Nova Scotia has been part of the conversation. Daniel Smith has been part of the conversation. James Moore. James Moore. There I say, Jean Charié, it's not as if there are not conservative voices in the conversation, but what do they have in common?

They literally do not seem to be having a conversation with Pierre Puehlivre in any way, shape, or form. They're not even on the same page as him on a number of issues. It was kind of weird this week to watch the conservative party think in the House of Commons. It was going to score points using the MOU that Daniel Smith, the Premier of Alberta, signed on energy and climate, and take out the climate component. And at some point you say, so are you saying you disagree with the commitments on climate that the Premier of Alberta is taking? how does this actually work? And it seems that almost on every issue, including this one,

Pierre Palliev's priority has been to find things that he can disagree with rather than things where he can claim credit for. And the disagreeing with always trumps the, I mean, Mark Kearney has stolen most of the energy climate platform of the country, climate platform of the country. conservatives. And Pierre Puev manages to still get or claim no credit because he's too busy showing that it means nothing. I know Bruce wants to get back in here. I added the name Lisa Rae to the list you were giving because she's been, you know, pretty responsible on the stuff she's been trying to enter the conversation with and has entered the conversation with. So she'd

keep that in mind. I guess what I'm wondering is for the past few months, ever since they announced the leadership review for the end of January, for the most part people say he's safe, it's fine, he's going to get through it. It just seems that over the last while, and this Angus Reed thing points you in that direction, that this may not be as as slam dunk as people have been saying, that this could be close that he could be in trouble but close is a defeat right if you win with 60% your your toast if

you're a leader in this country given the history of how much how high or where the minimum bar was set it's not it's at 51 at 50 plus one right although every time i hear that question i or ask myself that question i check in with a couple of conservative friends and i did that yesterday And one of them, it was a great line. It was kind of echoing Trumpism. He said, no, no, it's going to be low three digits. I thought, well, yes, I understand the point. But the point that this person was making was that the base of the party is the Polyev base.

Those are the people who are going to turn out to vote, and they love him. And I think that is a, it's lift, for him. him going into that vote, but it's an anchor more broadly. It wasn't very long ago that every aspect of his campaign carried with it this kind of banner or sign that said peer for PM. Now, we all know enough about political campaigns to know you want to put your ballot question in front of people, the thing that you want people to be thinking about when they go and mark that balance. So you write it as a slogan and you put it everywhere you can. Now, if you were looking at that a year and a half ago, you would say, yeah, it's a pretty good, pretty good one. I mean,

the only better one might have been not Trudeau for PM in the sense of what was really motivating people, because even then, as he said before, Pierre Polyeb was not charming. It wasn't like people were saying, I need this person, except for the base Poliyev voter. However, today with him, either 20 points behind, 28 points behind Mark Carney in terms of personal favorability, the last sign you would put up is appear for PM. It's literally inviting people to evaluate the party on the basis of the weakest link in terms of the overall sales appeal. So this has been evident to him for some time.

It's a failure of his leadership not to redesign what he's doing, not to figure out a strategy that allows people to say he's being more constructive, he's being more serious, he's got ideas that we should pay attention to. Those have been really rare sightings. And the latest version of that is this stunt that in any other time people that happened this week where the conservatives said, this is genius, we're going to create a motion about the MOU and the pipeline that is going to be impossible for the liberals to know what to do with because it's going to be tempting for them to not want to vote for it

because they're divided a little bit about this, a set of issues. But, you know, the prime minister, their leader, said he was, you know, going in this direction. So this is just going to kind of drive a wedge through the liberal caucus and the rest of the country is going to see that played out. Well, it was like from a playbook of years ago where, yeah, maybe that could happen. But it seems so out of context for the way that people are thinking about politics today. And the idea that Canadians were at large would be dialing in to see how this vote was going to go. How many liberals were going to break ranks with their party?

It made no sense whatsoever. And he took a lot of criticism. including I saw in a number of media stories and columnists who are saying, even some who, you know, have sometimes been pretty laudatory about him. Lauren Gunter in Alberta. Yeah, Lauren Gunter, yeah. Yeah, basically just saying, this is silly.

These are silly games and people are not into silly games right now. And I think that's, you know, that should be something that he takes away over the holidays and thinks about carefully. Did you want to add something there, Shantel? Just a couple of points. And I'm not predicting that Pierre Pueleev will lose that leadership vote. But so we are clear, this isn't a show up and you get to say what you want kind of wide open event. It is a delegated convention.

The people who have a right to vote are people who are selected in every riding in the country. Of course, it is always more likely that people who are close to the event will actually show up to exercise their vote, while others may not get on the plane. That is totally possible. But I think if there is one threat to Mr. Poyev's expectations, is that he may suffer. Remember, we called it the Flora syndrome. And what was the Flora syndrome?

It was Flora McDonald running for the leadership of the Conservative Party. And being told by scores of people, oh, go, go, go a woman, I support this. But when they went to vote, that's not how they cast their ballot and in the end her results fell way below the expectations of her team well I know anecdotally of a number and they seem to be increasing of of writings where the MP or the association is saying yeah yeah yeah we're behind you Pierre but that is not how they're headed to the Calgary to vote so it's it's fraught with

danger and the fact that this Christmas break is happening, giving people a lot of time to think about those issues and where the party goes from here, it ends with the defection. There may be others. It's more fragile than it may look at first glance and the assumption of support. Yeah, probably, but not necessarily. Okay. Before we leave the floor across her story, it's important to note where that writing is that he comes from. It's one of those writings, we're talking about Michael Maher's writing here, one of those writings kind of outside of Toronto

but kind of rings around Toronto that the Liberals lost in the April election. And it's really one of those writings that may well have cost them the majority. So it now, at least temporarily, is back in the liberal fold. is a writing that classically goes back and forth, has done so. But it's an important writing in terms of the potential for a majority in the future.

Is you both, or at least Chantel has left me thinking that there's still the possibility of more. That writing is a special history when it comes to the last election, i.e. the incumbent for the liberals who was taken out of the mix for comments about delivering a candidate in another writing, a conservative candidate who was pro-anti, the regime in China, of delivering him to the consulate. And the furor that ensued, they had, the liberals had to replace their candidate in a hurry. It is, so it's impossible looking at the results in the last election to say, this is a writing, Pierre Pueleev actually won, and it could go back to the liberal fold

because that history makes it different. But yes, it is totally possible that in those areas around the GTA, and there are numbers that tend to suggest that, a lot of voters who did go to the conservatives are experiencing buyer's remorse. Okay. And let's take our break, and I'm going to come back. I want to kind of turn this conversation now a little bit into, you know, a reflection on the year, because this is our last shot at Chantel.

So before the year-end. Thank you. For year-end, exam, a week early, because you're leaving. Yeah, right. We'll get to it. But first of all, we'll be back right after this. And welcome back You're listening to Good Talk

right here on the bridge this Friday on Series XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks are on your favorite podcast platform or you're watching us on our YouTube channel. Glad to have you with us, no matter where you're joining us from. Okay, let's move off the story of the last night in Ottawa. And, you know, one thing I found interesting is the conservatives have lost three MPs, two of them to the liberals in the last month or so.

During a time where the liberals have only passed one piece of legislation into law since they've become in power, that may change a little bit over the next few days as some stuff moves to the Senate and could become law. I assume before the end of, you know, before the end of the week. But it is kind of a striking figure that the liberals have only managed one piece of legislation through. It's a reminder how difficult a minority government can be. And it's a reminder of how, as they inch closer to majority, how important that could be for them. Okay, here's your first question as we look back on the year. and when don't we get Bruce to start on this one. One of the things that Mark Carney had to achieve during the leadership campaign

that made him leader of the Liberal Party and eventually Prime Minister and then in the election campaign, which endorsed his position as Prime Minister, was to differentiate himself from Justin Trudeau. So when you look back now, what was the, if you could pick one thing that differentiates Mark Carney from Justin Trudeau, what would that be, Bruce? Well, I love that. You start with a general and then you go, but let me just say just the one thing and pick the one thing. And that's hard to do because they are extraordinarily different people, no disrespect intended to. to either of them, and certainly towards Mr. Trudeau.

If there is one thing, it is the focus on the economy. That is what Mark Carney said he was going to do, and that is what he has essentially been doing. And I think Justin Trudeau spent a lot of time and put a lot of energy into thinking about the economy, but relative to other things that he was preoccupied with on the social policy side, on the environmental policy side, the economy was in the mix, but it wasn't the dominant priority, which I think it has been under Mark Carney.

I think their personalities are quite different. I think the things that kind of motivate them in terms of what they're trying to get done for the country are quite different. But it's also difficult to compare them in one sense, which is the world of 2025, the Donald Trump 2.0 world, is really different from 2024. 20204 was essentially a domestic political conversation for the most part about conservatives or liberals.

And while the possibility existed until November of Donald Trump returning to office, it was just a possibility. Turn the calendar into January. And all of a sudden, the question on Canadian's mind is, oh, Donald Trump is back. How worrying will this be, this conversation that he started about the way that he's going to deal with the rest of the world? Can it include it and terrorists? And then it turned into a, what can we do to solve it? And then when it became a, we can't exactly solve it, nobody can.

Even Americans can't solve the problems that he's creating in their society and their economy. then the question becomes, what do we do about that? So if we think about 2026 is so different in terms of how people are thinking about the world, their future, Canada's place in it from 2024, that you can't just sort of, and let's say you were, Peter, I'm just saying one can't just go, let's assume that politics was essentially the same and just look at the two differences in these personalities and their priorities. but they are very different. And the economic focus of Mark Carney is certainly one.

It is probably the most important difference that I see. You want to take a run at that, Chantel? I'm going to go to the same place. Sometimes you're identified or you play on your strengths when you're a party leader. And in the case of Stephen Harper, for instance, was exactly in the right place, perceived as someone who had economic credentials at the time of the 2008 fiscal crisis. And Stefan Zion may have had many qualities. Maybe he could have become prime minister two years after the 1995 referendum, but his

issue was behind him, and no one would have said, oh, Mr. Zion is so good that managing the economy is going to steer us to a fiscal crisis. The same with Michael Ignatyev and Stephen. and Mark Carney, his style, but also what he brings to the job, is perfectly suited by comparison to Justin Trudeau to the Times. By 2015, people had it. We were no longer in an economic crisis, and Justin Trudeau looked like a great fit for the Times. And he became a prime minister and secured three terms. But if Paul Martin had only hit upon a Trump crisis or a fiscal crisis, he may have lasted longer because that also was

his 40, but by the time he got to office, it wasn't on the book. So I think what most people see when they see Mark Carney is someone who has the managerial skills on the economic front to do better than Justin Trudeau might have done. The other big difference that I think sometimes escapes the Carney team, though, is Justin Trudeau did have a relationship or a link with voters that was based on something more personal. And I don't believe that that link between voters and Mark Carney exists. I think he is the person you hired.

But there is no affection in your heart. When people are done with him, they're going to move on. And that is something he needs to keep in mind. There are voters who made the difference in the last election, who didn't do so because they fell in love with Mark Carney as voters and believed he had magic. There was a pragmatic decision, but it's a non-probation support. and at some point

he's going to have to make sure that he builds more of a rapport not only with voters I would say with a large large part of his cabinet than caucus well let's talk about the cabinet for a minute there have been a couple of little changes

in the cabinet and there are rumors that could be more early into the new year so here's the question who's the most influential member in that cabinet And in terms of influence, we're talking about influential and influence on the prime minister. You go first this time, Chantel.

Mark Kearney. Yeah, that was going to be my answer. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. This is very, very much more so than in other instances, more so than in Stephen Harper's case, who you could name Jim Flaherty, James Moore, people who had actual influence. That was also true of Justin Trudeau. And why do I say Mark Carney, all in part? Because he did not come up to the ranks, to the current position.

So he did not bring people along. This time last year, Mark Carney wasn't in politics. And then four months later, he was the prime minister. So I would say that there are probably our men. who have more influence than others, I would think Dominique LeBlain, possibly the energy minister Rajson, but that's more by virtue of their portfolio than by any sense that anybody has that he, that Mark Carney would call them for advice very often. That's a feature. It could become a flaw. It could be for now an asset, but I do think.

that it's far from clear that there are on those caucus benches, people who actually have a big inside track on the thinking of Mark Carney. See, what I wonder is, is there somebody who's influential enough, respected enough, powerful enough, from inside that cabinet, who could actually change Mark Carney's mind on something? Oh, yeah. No, I think that happens. I think the thing that sits alongside what Chantelle said, which is that this is somebody who believes that he's developed some clear ideas and he's got some, you know, he's got management skills in the sense of pushing through his ideas and organizing things around him

to support the agenda that he feels like he campaigned on and is hired to execute on. but alongside all of that is he is very curious about what he needs to know that he doesn't already know what is happening around him around the world that needs to be taken into account I heard somebody once referred to him as a bit of a learning machine and in my experience with him is he is somebody who doesn't get up in the morning thinking he knows everything that there's possible to know but rather wants to know more when he needs to in order to make the best decision. So the answer to the question of who around the cabinet table kind of plays that role

is I think more of a kind of a moving target and a work in progress, that there will be ministers who come to understand that his approach is there's a mandate letter, don't wait for more direction on what to do, come forward with ideas that embrace and add detail to that mandate letter and play a challenge function in the conversation sometime, but recognize that the point of the challenge function is to make the policy better, not to have a challenge function. And so there are some disciplines that are changing as part of what I think is a pace change, a bit of a culture change, and obviously a policy change across the range.

of portfolios and there's some there's some really talented people in the cabinet but it's a it's a situation where that is all still jellant and uh you know i thought it was very good news to see mark miller come back into cabinet he's somebody that i have a lot of respect for um i think there are others in the cabinet who are who are overperforming right now and um you know i'm sure that there'll be a moment where there's a there's a realignment but who knows when that'll be Overperforming, maybe, but there are many who are also underperforming. I let that open for you. I suspect that we could only get a real cabinet chuffle.

Remember, two of them have already taken place. Three, if you add, the two, though, one late last year. So there is a limit to how often you want to play musical chair. but I think it's not so much the chairs at this point. It's the people who would sit on them. This is that, you know, by-elections bringing in fresh blood would probably help get rid of some of the underperformers. And there's, you know, it's all a series of decisions

if you're going to have by-elections and then you change your cabinet or even appoint people to cabinet and then have by elections to get them elected, which has also been done by Jean-Cretzain rather successfully to name one in the past. Then you're probably foregoing the hidden threat that is disquieting the official opposition that maybe you're going to say this parliament doesn't really work as well as it should. The opposition is obstructing. So maybe I want to have an election, a general one. because getting a mandate to renegotiate Kuzma,

I can find excuses that justify elections. So you have to decide if you're foreclosing that option, then go back and have by elections, and then try to have the new cabinet. So that doesn't bring you. I also don't believe that at this point, the PMO, as my prime minister's office for Mark Carney, is gelled in the way that it needs to.

I think it remains a work in progress. And you're seeing some of those signs that sometimes it lacks the chance to be proactive. We saw that this week with, well, I don't know about Bruce. He may have paid more attention to this over the years or you, but it seems to me that you usually do not allow the name of someone who would be our envoy to Washington at a critical time to float around and to be taken shots out without denying or confirming the appointment. It, like, you throw a name out, Mark Weissman in this case, a bit. It felt from the outside not only like a trial balloon, but an invitation to take shots at the

possibility with, you know, Mr. Weisman's positions. I believe that's a valid argument against his appointment, that he has been. very vocal and opposing supply management. It's going to be very hard for the bloc Quevecois in particular, but Quebec also to believe that he's going to be a tough negotiator that will keep it off the table as committed. But there was also this runaround that some opposition parties and on social media had Mr. Weisman say we should have more immigrants go to 100 million Canadians, even if Quebec house. And that

was presented as a quote. And the reality is, and anyone who does work in the Prime Minister's office should have been able to respond. Great line, except it's the title to an Andrew Cohen column, not something that this guy ever said. And that never happened.

And do you think, you know, do you want to protect the person that it seems you may want to appoint as ambassador to Washington. And if so, why aren't you having us back on elementary stuff? And me, I looked at that. I don't know Mark Wiseman. And I do believe there are arguments against disappointment. Lack of political or diplomatic experience would be not far from the top of the

list. But I also find it, you know, if it were me, I would think, who are these people who or let my name go on Bloomberg and everywhere, and then do not have nothing to say to set the record straight on what I've said in the past and what I stand for. It told me that the PMO does not, at this point, do the proactive work that it should be doing. Do you want to, I've got to take a final break here, but Bruce, do you want to enter this Wiseman discussion at all?

No, well, okay, very briefly. I mean, I think that Chantal's point about is this PMO kind of under-managing situations like that. I sometimes look at it and go, well, they can be criticized sometimes for the lack of information about what they're doing, kind of over-managing the containment of information and sometimes under-managing the discussion about what they're maybe going to do. and I think that I think relative to at least the most recent past versions it is different whether or not it kind of rises to the level of its systemic and perpetual or materially worse or better I don't really have a strong view I'm kind of waiting to see how it evolves I did call it work in progress but the end result after this week is that

the widespread perception in Quebec is that Mark Carney is about to appoint an ambassador that is hostile to Quebec's interest, and I don't think that's a great outcome. Time will tell. What happens on that front? Okay, we're going to take a final break.

Come back. One other topic I want to get into on this matter of influence around the prime minister. Do that right after this. And welcome back, final segment of good talk for this, this week. And for this year for Chantelle, we will be back next week for our final show of the year. But this is Chantel's final one before she takes a break. And we'll be back in early January.

Okay, here's my final question about influence. When, you know, we were talking about Wiseman possibly being the next ambassador to the U.S., one. The current one resigned this week. She was a woman of great influence on the file with Canada and the U.S. Very smart person, well regarded by everyone. And was probably, it was often touted at least the way I heard it, as one of the most influential women around the prime minister. Up there with some of the key players.

in his office, clerk of the privy council, chief of staff, etc., all of whom are men. Mm-hmm. So the question that I have is, who is now the most influential woman in the inner circle of the prime minister? Ask Bruce. Well, I haven't thought about that question, Peter. I mean, I think there's, you know, obviously the industry minister is influential, the foreign affairs minister is influential. deputy chief of staff Andre Lina Halle is influential

there's so the most influential woman I don't I don't know I don't have an answer to you I think it would depend on what and what given day I do think that there's a lot of respect for Kirsten Hillman

for the job that she did and if you want to talk about that I mean I one of the things that I find about that is that job is always hard. It's because Washington, I spent time down there working on issues for clients over the years and understood the lobbying context. And it is a really, really difficult, difficult world.

It's dominated by corporate lobbyists, throwing lots of money at the political system. It's dominated by the relationships between Democrats and their funders and their activists and Republicans and their funders and their activists. And to get a word in edgewise from a foreign country standpoint is always really difficult. Add to it the disruptive effect of Donald Trump 2.0. And you've got a job that is so challenging. And I just admired the way Kirsten Hillman shouldered that challenge, especially through the last year,

as it would have been obvious to her how much Canadians were depending on some combination of individuals to find a better path with the Americans. And at the same time, it would have been obvious to her, to a degree maybe not for the rest of us. Just how challenging that was that America, you know, and we see a version of it in the way the U.S. ambassador talks when he's talking about Canada from his place in Rockliff Park here. So, kudos to her for the work that she did, and I'm not surprised that she decided it was

time to turn on page. Okay. I want to get back to the question I've asked, though, and Chantal seems eager to get into it as well, because, you know, I agree with it that some of the cabinet ministers in key portfolios who are women have influence. No question about that. I'm talking about the kind of influence that it's around every day

and close to the prime minister and I'm trying to figure out who the woman is there now or if there is a woman. Okay, so they're not, they don't have influence, they have important roles. That's a different proposition altogether.

You can have, what did Stefan Zion say when he left this Minister of Foreign Affairs for Justin Trudeau? Did he met the Prime Minister once? one-on-one. Other ministers have said the same. So your position makes you important. It doesn't give you influence. That's the reality of cabinet in the 21st century. As there been a loss of women's influence under Mark Carney versus the equivalent of Justin Trude. Of course, there's no

Katie Telford or Christia Freeland that bears that kind of influence around Mark Carney. There's a reason why the perception is out there. Well, founded, I think, when you look at the portrait gallery, that Mr. Carney basically relies on an old boys club. That's where he feels comfortable. The notion of the appointment of Mark Wiseman to Washington was kind of, of course, he will go back to his comfort zone and run this as if all his pals are around him.

There has always been a part of that in any prime minister. But I am not going to pretend that there is someone that fits the profile that you are actively looking for inside that government, because that is factually not the case. It may change, but at this point, no, I don't think Anita Anand and Melanie Jolie, because they have important portfolios are on par with Christian Freeland for most of the tenure of Justin Trudeau or Katie Telford. who was this Chief of Staff? Okay. That is something that I think will be watching over the next months to see whether anything develops there

or whether anything should develop there. What's missing if it doesn't develop, if anything. So we'll keep an eye on that. Okay, we want to get a couple of minutes left and the holiday season lines on us. Who's your, if you take Mark Carney out of the equation, because I think everybody will agree that he was the political person of the year. I don't think there's any question about that.

Who'd be next on the list? Okay, let me tell you a story that will frustrate you in looking for an answer. I have a total of two minutes. We do these year-enders. And this week, we did the equivalent of the CBC year-enders in French on liquid. list of power. And there is

always one question that says, Révelation of the year, which goes to your question.

The three of us do not compare notes. And we did explain our answer to viewers

this year. Our unanimous answer was a blank. I'm just so I'm not going to suddenly

manufacture a name when I could not come up, and my two colleagues who know a lot about politics, Quebec and federal, decided, and we all decided we are going to say this. And that's where we are.

Bruce, are you going to blank on this or what? Well, I didn't hear exactly what you were saying the question was, who's the most influential person in Canadian politics this year? No, no, no, no. Who was the kind of the, the, the, the, Canadian person of the year in politics outside of Mark Carney, because I think we all agree that he would be the person of the year. It looks like me when I'm looking for answers. Look, I mean, Pierre Polyiv has a claim on that.

Yeah, sure. It doesn't mean they have to have a good year. No, I mean, so does Jagmeet Singh. So does Danielle Sien. Smith, so does David Eby, so does Francoise go, so is Doug Ford. I think that there are so many ways to bury a question. Yeah.

I'm not trying to bury the question. I just... No, no, no. I hear you on your answers. I think Donald Trump is the story of the year every day almost, for me anyway. And so I can't when I think about Canadian politics,

I think about it so much more in the context of that. Okay. We're going to leave it at that. I thank you both for another great year of discussions and conversations about the Canadian political landscape. It's been a fascinating year. I'm sure next year it'll be just as good. Have a great holiday to travel safe, Chantelle.

And Bruce, we'll see you next week with Barbara. Bye for now. See you next week, Peter. Have a great trip, Chantelle. Thank you.