The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk -- The Liberal Race Begins With Trump Looming Large

Episode Date: January 17, 2025

This weekend the leadership race will be all set. Carney is in, Freeland should be in by Sunday. What are the impressions so far? 

Are you ready for good talk? And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here with Chantelle Hebert and Bruce Anderson. It has been another eventful week on a number of fronts. So there's lots to talk about and we're going to get right at it. But first of all, Bruce has something to say. Take it away, Mr. Anderson. All right. Thank you, Peter. I wanted to, as you and I and Chantal have discussed, over the 45 or so years that I've been hanging around politics, from time to time,

I've been involved in supporting people in politics. Not always, but people like Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark, Jean Charest, Paul Martin. And then there's stretches where I've not been involved and just enjoyed observing it and commenting on it. But I think now is going to be one of those times where I'm going to be involved. And so it's going to have an implication in terms of the conversations that we have every Friday in particular,

meaning that I won't be part of these conversations because I think the right thing for me to do is not bring even kind of what I think of as a soft partisanship into this conversation, has never really been about that. But I've come to know Mark Carney quite well over the last couple of years. He's a good friend of mine i admire and appreciate his uh desire his willingness to put his name forward and and uh run for office and so i'm not going to have a formal role in in his political campaign or anything like that but i am going to be supporting him and um and i just felt like i didn't want our conversations. I so value them. And I think the audience values them to, to feel compromised by that.

I'll be an active listener of, of good talk for the period of time, however long it is that I'm not part of it. And I'll definitely miss every Friday morning, having a chat with you and Sean. We've been doing this together for years, and it's one of the best things that I've ever had a chance to be involved in around politics. But I'm going to try and be a rational and reasonable partisan,

and we'll have a conversation, Peter, you and I, and maybe you'll talk about that a little bit later on. We'll do some version of a conversation about politics, and I'll try to stay close to you guys throughout this process. Okay, let me make a couple of quick points. I saw Chantal. Be reasonable. I can sense that you'll be listening thinking,

the media is doing a number on it again. Yes. Oh, the other thing that's been on my mind, and Chantal, you and I were talking about this a minute ago, is that I'm obviously part of the reason why I'm going to get involved a little bit more is I do think that there's some very important issues. People will have different points of view, and I respect that about what the best solutions to those are. But the Canada-US issue is something that's very important to me. And I've taken on a role being involved in a kind of a national initiative of labor and business organizations that are active on that. And so that's something that's occupying a lot of my time and energy as well,

and will be, I'm sure, for some time to come. Okay, a couple of quick points. As Bruce has suggested, this is for the length of the leadership campaign in the Liberal Party, and we'll make a decision at the end of that as to what happens. But the intention is that Bruce comes back to good talk once that is over. The other thing is, you know, as John Turner used to say, if you believe in democracy, you've got to participate. And Bruce has always believed in that as he ran through the list of former

conservative and former Liberal leaders and prime ministers that he's worked with over the years. He's never been shy about getting involved during certain campaigns. And I think we all applaud that on the part of anybody who participates in the democratic functions that we have. Okay, we'll keep Bruce for today anyway, so at least you know where he's coming from on some of these issues. But Chantel, why don't you start us first? Well, I want to start on what we've witnessed so far.

I mean, the three, you know, alleged heavyweights in the Liberal campaign will be getting in over the next couple of days. Carney was yesterday, Carina Gould and Christian Freeland over this weekend. So we really only have one to go on so far, and that was watching Carney's debut yesterday in Edmonton, a couple of days after he debuted, in effect, on the John Stewart Daily Show in the U.S. But what was your sense of yesterday,

which was the kind of official launch of the much-heralded, much-awaited Carney campaign? I think Mark Carney is going to need a few more pros like Bruce if he's going to succeed in this venture. What I saw yesterday, let me give you some context, nitty-gritty context. I wasn't in Edmonton, obviously. I was watching this on CPAC. And for a whole half hour before the event actually finally started,

what you got to see on CPAC was the making of what would be the background for the human background to Mr. Carney's speech. Some fair amount of confusion. At first, the people who I presume volunteered to serve as background, nobody seemed to have thought there are small things, but they matter. You need to sweat the details, especially in a short campaign. Nobody bothered to kind of tell them, please leave your coats here. And then there was a point I was sitting on a train

watching all this where I was thinking, which of these people will be the first to faint from having to stand there for an hour with a winter coat on and then that got rearranged it looked like a community television event that's a charitable way of putting the way the the this was organized then Then Mr. Carney came, a few remarks on that, and that doesn't go to substance but more to impressions. I guess the impression is to, was that the goal was to show that he's not terribly slick, because that was what came came out of the entire event. But if I were the people around him, I would strongly advise Mr. Carney

to never bring a text that is full sentences to a podium. And why is that? And I do a fair bit of public speaking. When you bring a text that is in full sentences, you will end up reading. And when you're reading, you are actually not connecting, not to the audience in the room and not to the audience that is watching on TV. There was nothing in what he had to say that required to be terribly careful about the wording

of anything. But he ended up reading those full sentences, and he only really came to life when he was off script. The news conference on that score was better than the actual presentation. So they need to free him from that. It's going to come up. So I listened to French radio this morning and what they had to say about what is in the Quebec media. There are people who asked me last night, does he get points for speaking French in Edmonton? The answer to that is very simple.

You lose points by not speaking French in Edmonton. You don't win them. It's a given you want to be prime minister. You should be able to say a few words in French anywhere in Canada. That's basically the first rule of Canadian politics. But as French, I think he should spend a bit more time speaking French to people on his team so that he gets more of the rest of it.

You can see his understanding is to the level. And he got, for this event, for what was played here in Quebec this morning, he got a pass and not a fail. But he didn't get a B plus or an A in any way, shape, or form. And he's going to have to work on, you know, his capacity to answer clearly in French because some of the answers yesterday, and journalists were asking them, were difficult to follow.

And on a debate for a podium, he's not going to get a second chance on those answers. When Yves-François Blanchet goes after him, as he will, in French, the answer has to come out crystal clear. So, you know, and I don't believe anything I saw yesterday is something that sets him back. But it does tell me that he does not, at this point, have the kind of organization that he would need in this very short campaign and in the circumstances to use the momentum that he does have going in to its maximum potential.

All right. You do wonder, you know, on a day one, whether some of it is day one nerves in either language, because I agree in the formal presentation, you know, it seemed to lack energy of a certain kind and he didn't look comfortable. And it may be because, you know, you know, we all, all three of us do speeches and we know that when you read them, it's a much more of a challenge than when you just sort of let yourself go. However, Bruce, do you want to rebut any of this or what's your sense? Well, no, I've learned through long experience.

I'm not going to rebut Chantal on that, but I will offer my own thoughts on it. Let's just not cast them as a rebuttal because then there might need to be a rebuttal to the rebuttal. Here's what I think. The, the reason that I'm supporting Mark is not that I think that he's the, the person in politics with the most honed political skills. It's almost precisely not that it is that this is a time where I feel that the substance of

the experience and the ideas that he has to offer are so important that for me, it isn't politics as usual. And that's a message that he delivered yesterday, or at least he said a number of times yesterday. These are unusual times and the usual politics may be what some people want, but I'm not that. And I think that I feel a little bit like watching the commentary about this, and it's not to challenge the observations at all. It's a little bit like, you know, the diving judges at Olympic events see a lot of things in dives that, that regular people don't see.

Does that mean that regular people don't get something out of watching diving? I don't know. It doesn't mean that the observations are incorrect. So I'm not saying that all I am saying is that it's normal for people in and around politics to look at these things that Chantal has raised and some others and to say, well, that could have been better. That could have been better. That could have been better. So from my standpoint, I see Mark Carney as somebody who knows what the substance is that he wants to run on.

And it is about a change in the direction of economic policy and particularly around spending and investing and that sort of thing. A real sense of experience at dealing with economic crises. And he's a serious person. He can have a sense that he has a sense of humor. And it was something that was on display a little bit during the, the interview that he did with Jon little bit during the, um, the interview that he did with Jon Stewart earlier in the week. But, you know, yesterday, the first time he's done, uh, something like that,

something just like that, uh, the stakes would have been high and it probably was a little bit of nervousness in there. Uh, so I also think that, and this is maybe from watching politicians over time, and maybe you guys see the same thing that the first time a politician gives I also think that, and this is maybe from watching politicians over time, and maybe you guys see the same thing, that the first time a politician gives a speech isn't going to be the best version of that speech. You sort of learn from how it goes and the reaction to it and that sort of thing. I did, however, find myself thinking that the Q&A after the speech was quite interesting

because it was, to Chantal's point, there was no script. There were questions, and he gave answers, and the answers were interesting from my standpoint and on point, and they showed not a pugilism, but at least a kind of a repartee that I think is part of what people like to see in politics. So overall, yeah, I mean, I think this is a campaign that's coming together in 10 minutes, and it's going to get smoother as the days go on. A few points.

A few rules of politics that Bruce knows really well. In politics, you need to manage expectations, i.e. in this case, and in most cases, especially in a competitive campaign, you need to beat expectations. I think, by and large, anyone who watched yesterday felt that it fell below expectations. And frontrunners have a problem with that because expectations are always high. So that, and the fact that the organization is coming together on a dime, fine, except that this is the shortest leadership campaign

the liberals have ever held. So there won't be a lot of time to pause. Second, I was listening to Bruce talking about, you know, people in the political bubble make observations, but not or everyday people. And I suddenly felt a sense of déjà vu twice. And that would be when John Turner first reappeared to run for the liberal leadership in 1984. And then when Kim Campbell ran in 1993 and did the first all candidates debate and was really not strong enough.

And it was noted on both occasions that one was very rusty and that the other wasn't quite as good as expected. And those things did matter because in the end, you saw them again and again and again in the election campaign that quickly followed, and it led to the disappearance of a strong lead at the beginning of a campaign and a result that was catastrophic by comparison to expectations. So, yes, I think it does matter that people who are

inside the Beltway see things on that first day, that if they're not really quickly corrected, will or have in the past been the first signs of things to come. And I remember being told back then that this was too harsh. I probably didn't like Kim Campbell, which was why I thought the party should be worried about how she came across. John Turner didn't really have a knack of interacting with female journalists because they weren't very much around in his first political incarnation. Still, I fast forward to the day when I'm covering John Turner and he's apologizing for giving a pat on the bottom of his female associates because that's his way of expressing appreciation. And I think there is no room in this campaign for second chances or excuses. And I am sure that Miss Freeland's organization and organizers, who are very seasoned, have taken note of all that they saw yesterday.

Well, let's talk about Freeland. Because, I mean, not taking anything away from Karina Gould, who's apparently going to jump into the race tomorrow, the two frontrunners are clearly Freeland and Carney. Assuming Freeland goes ahead and announces on Sunday, and there's no reason to believe she's not going to, but until she does, she hasn't. What are the expectations there?

Who wants to start that? I would say if Miss Freeland was having second thoughts, or if she is, I think yesterday's Carney event probably encouraged her to persist in running rather than the opposite. She has published today open letters in the Star and the DeVos about how to deal with Donald Trump. I can see that both Mark Carney and Christia Freeland agree on one thing, and that is not good for Carina Gould. And they agree on the fact that this campaign, they want this leadership campaign to be about

who can best manage the relationship with Donald Trump. Carina Gould has many qualities, but she does not bring a lot of trade and economic credentials to a leadership campaign. And that text in both papers, I have to say, was a strong text. I read the French version, and it was an interesting read. It was very combative. It didn't sound at all like a Justin Trudeau news conference when he talks about Canada-U.S. relations or the way it sounded before. still have to fight the fact that if you pull out pictures of Chrystia Freeland from her time in politics, Justin Trudeau is standing next to her and half or three quarters of those pictures. It's going to be really, really hard to uncouple that easily. And it's going to be hard to say

these fiscal decisions were not the right ones when you were the finance minister. At some point, does that mean you were just a yes person? And why didn't you quit earlier if you believed we were not taking the right direction? So there will be many questions asked of Chrystia Freeland. And I'm curious to see how her organization fares. Just from looking at the, and I know that people like Bruce are jumping in now to the Carnegie team, but, you know, the more seasoned organizers at the top of the pyramid seem to be on the freelance side. So I'm curious to see where that leads to on Sunday.

What do you mean by that? Well, the former campaign director, Bevan, who quit, told Trudeau, I can't run another campaign because I don't believe you can win, is working with her. So is Tom Allison, who is a fairly seasoned organizer. And when you look on the other side, there are lots of people involved with Canada 2020,

this think tank organization who are into Carney's organization. But organizing Canada 2020 events and running a leadership and a competitive election campaign are two different things. And whoever is leader is going to have to turn around on a dime to jump into an election campaign at this rate.

So it helps to have people who have actually organized national campaign on board in a full-time capacity, not in a sounding board capacity, which is a very different proposition than working full-time for a candidate. All right. Bruce? Well, where to start? Look, I think that the point I want to make about the judging the communications chops, pardon me, isn't that it doesn't matter. It's that I think that there is a reasonable chance that people will look

at this next period in politics and say, this is such an unusual time that we want to judge on different criteria. Because if communications chops are the only thing that matter or the most important thing, then I think it's fair to say that Pierre Palliev is a very effective communicator. And in that context, maybe he runs away with the election because when it comes to those skills, a kind of a backdrop that works, the accoutrement of an effective event. He's very good at it. I don't happen to agree with the substance of what he's got on offer,

and sometimes I don't see enough substance. So, you know, did Mark Carney's event yesterday kind of hit that level? No, it didn't. On the other hand, I'm kind of looking at this as, you know, Will, did Mark Carney's event yesterday kind of hit that level? No, it didn't. On the other hand, I'm kind of looking at this as, you know, from a personal standpoint, from the standpoint of I just want to know who has the best answers here. And I think that there will be voters for whom that is the way that they approach this.

So I wasn't trying to diminish the importance of analysis of those things, but I do think there's a counterargument there, and it's one that obviously matters to me. this. So I wasn't trying to diminish the importance of analysis of those things. But I do think there's a counter argument there. And it's one that obviously matters to me. When it comes to Chrystia Freeland, I do think Chantal's point is expectations have always been a crucial part of how regular campaigns and regular politicians get evaluated. And the expectations for Chrystia Freeland are she's not very good as a political communicator. She's a smart person. She's a likable person. She's got a huge wealth of knowledge and she's done things as a member of a cabinet that have developed an understanding of how to make government work.

So she brings a lot to the race. The thing I think she does not bring is a convincing argument that she can win the hearts and minds of Canadians. Not just because her communication skills aren't everything that she would want them to be, but maybe more particularly because if people are looking for a change in policy direction, it's going to be hard for her to deliver that sense of change. Not only was she standing beside Justin Trudeau, she was doing the things that Justin Trudeau and she presumably agreed should be done. So maybe she'll defend those things. But defending those things is not delivering a message of change. It's delivering a message of continuity. This will be, if she's

elected, might feel to some people like Justin Trudeau's fourth term. If I were thinking from the standpoint of what the Liberal Party needs, I don't think they need a campaign that feels like that. The second thing that I think is a question mark for her is she had an effective role in the first round of Trump versus Canada, but will she be the best person to deal with this second round? Trump has made some comments about her, but it doesn't necessarily matter.

But I think that people who are looking at this might just evaluate Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland on the basis of who do I think has the best skill set, knowledge, kind of fresh perspective to tackle that challenge. And I think that if she's going to beat him on that criteria, she's going to have some work to do because he's pretty effective at thinking about it and talking about it.

And the last point I would make is I was a little bit surprised by Chantal's comments about organizers. And I guess we'll see in time what the evidence is about the organizational strengths of the different campaigns, but it's probably a little too early to conclude. But that is not my perception as to where organizers are. Okay, we're going to take a break, Chantal, because we're well past our first segment point.

So let me do that. We can always come back to this. Be right back after this. And welcome back. You're listening to Good Talk for this Friday. John Talley-Bear, Bruce Anderson here. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform, or you're watching us on our very successful YouTube channel.

Glad to have you with us, whatever venue you are listening on. I want to move this conversation on a little bit here before we totally run out of time. A month ago, the conversation surrounding the election was this election campaign upcoming later this year would be about the carbon tax. And it had been framed that way, obviously, by Pierre Pelliev calling it the carbon tax election. If that was true then, and that's debatable, but if it was true then, it certainly appears now it's not going to be the case because the two leading candidates in the Liberal leadership campaign, one for sure and the other possibly, is going to water down the carbon tax,

either eliminate it or water it down somewhat to the point where it may not be the campaign issue. And quite likely the campaign issue will be something to do with Donald Trump. What kind of a box has this put Pierre Poliev in who, you know, looks confident as ever, but you've got to wonder whether they're getting a little edgy there, a little nervous, even with a 20, 25-point lead. Chantal, can you start us on this cycle? I think it's a box that he should send to recycling. The axe that attacks Justin Trudeau is bad,

and everybody else is Justin Trudeau by proxy. I don't think that's going to work. I think not because there are cases that Mr. Poitier could still prosecute on both fronts, but I believe the electorate is moving and has moved elsewhere. Yes, it seems clear from their comments or comments from people associated with them that both Ms. Freeland and Mr. Carney will distance themselves or perhaps get keep people like Stephen Gilboa or Catherine McKenna, who have been the flag bearers for, you know, the climate change policy of the government successively inside the tent and not outside the tent saying this is, you know, such a setback to the agenda that we can't support it anymore, because that would hurt the liberals objectively. I believe that's doable. And the fact that the Liberal Party is not about to turn this campaign into a plebiscite or a euphor against the carbon tax is probably good news.

That's the last thing they need to do, frankly. As for Justin Trudeau, even with Chrystia Freeland's close association to Justin Trudeau, he is gone. Voters are looking at a different option in the next election. They're not going to be forever watching videos videos of Justin Trudeau and trying to fit Mr. Carnegie or Miss Freeland in that box. The problem for Pierre Poiliev is not that he can't shift easily, but it is that he has to find a way to both be the official opposition leader and be in sync with the mood. And the mood is also shifted to, we would like to see our political class all pulling together in the face of Donald Trump, which makes it a lot harder to go after whatever the government is doing, especially when the government is now secured cover from all non-liberal premiers but one for its actions or its possible actions in response to

whatever Donald Trump throws the way of the government. So if you're the man who wants to be prime minister, you cannot be doing the friendly fire exercise and shooting in the back of the people who are fighting on the front line by virtue of where they are, that is in government. We saw another problem this week. Mr. Mr. Poirier's base is in Alberta, and the premier of Alberta has refused to sign on to the efforts that all of her colleagues have signed off on. But to make matters worse, the person at the center of this dynamic is not Justin Trudeau. It's the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford. You can keep your seats in Alberta, as the Conservatives know, forever and sit in

opposition forever. But Ontario voters, one, like the notion that the premier is going around saying country before party and country before province. But also, he is the leading conservative premier in the country, and you cannot win an election, especially if you're Pierre Poilievre, not doing so well well in Quebec without doing fairly well in Ontario. So he finds himself in a weird place, not the place that they would have ideally wanted to fight the election on. Does that mean that we're going to see a complete reversal in the polls?

I don't think so, but we could see it tightening up in the polls, and then it will become even more incumbent, I think, on Mr. Poitier to not only find a way to tweak his rhetoric in a way that sounds more constructive, but also to start showcasing people in his team that would make the team that would replace the current one. Because at this point, I don't think most Canadians know who would be his finance minister, for instance. Who's the leading person in caucus except for Palliev, who Canadians can look to to say, this is a strong person to help with these efforts.

Those people may exist, but they're not being showcased in any way, shape, or form at this point. Bruce? Yeah, the Conservative Party, I think, is a very, very well-funded, very well-organized political juggernaut by any reasonable observation, and it has only become stronger over the last number of years. I think that its ability to raise money, its ability to organize events, its ability to have a particular focus has been a bit of a master class

for other political participants. It's not to say that there aren't some problems that they run into from time to time. Everybody does. Politics is kind of built to find bumps in the road. But it's a very effective machine. And it has, I think, developed, had developed a pretty clear view as to what the ballot questions might be. Cost of living, Justin Trudeau, carbon tax. And for a while, it was Pierre for PM. Now, I've noticed that Pierre for PM doesn't seem to be as high on the hit list of things that conservatives are talking about.

I'm sure that it's still very high on Mr. Polyev's list of favorite themes. But it does feel like they've been focused pretty extensively on tax, the cost of living and Justin Trudeau. I don't like like Chantal, even if Chrystia Freeland and Mark Carney weren't, it appears likely to propose an alternative to the consumer carbon tax. I still don't think this would be an election where most people would go. It's going to be about the carbon tax for me. And Peter, I'm glad I'm taking my leave of this show because I know that just saying that will produce a mountain of comments on social media from people who don't think that climate change is that big a problem or the carbon tax is a good idea. But my view on the carbon tax policy is it's always been clear that about 75 or more, maybe 80%, depending on the question of Canadians want to

see some action, they want to see some policies that help fight climate change. Over time, many of those people have said, if there's another way, we'd like to look at it because we feel anxious about the consumer price impacts of the of the consumer carbon tax but i don't think it's going to be a centerpiece i don't think justin trudeau is going to be part of the conversation either and i think that's maybe the biggest awkwardness for the conservative campaign as it's been developed up till now. I think that it was so easy to rally frustration with Mr. Trudeau. And Mr. Trudeau was so visible all the time that they almost didn't have to do anything to kind of raise money and raise hackles in a way that was useful for the Conservative

Party. And I watched Mr. Trudeau's presser yesterday after the event that he did in Windsor. And I don't know how most people feel about it, but it did feel like it was watching something that wasn't particularly relevant to the mood of politics right now, even though obviously it's very relevant to the Canada-U.S. conversation. conversation um so what i see now with the conservative party is that they're throwing a bunch of different arguments uh in particular against mark carney but we'll see them against karina gould and christia freeland no doubt uh with mark carney they're saying he's a an insider he's just like justin he's carbon tax carney andrew sheer even went on this kind of musing about if he was a cat he he'd be an inside cat. And I struggled to kind of understand what he was saying there. And then there's this last, I don't know that any of that is really going to stick personally. One of the issues that I am interested in, though, is this idea of him as a globalist.

And a globalist as an idea or as a political argument kind of resonates with a certain core i think of the conservative base um who you know don't think that politicians from canada should go to the world economic forum my experience as a pollster is most people don't know what we're what politicians are talking about when they say, how can you be a globalist? How could you go to the World Economic Forum? That is not a conversation that a lot of regular voters have been involved in. And if it comes down to a question of whether or not Canada should engage with the rest of the world, go to meetings around the world to talk about economic issues and trade issues,

I think most Canadians will say, well, why wouldn't we do that, especially in a world that is as disrupted as this one appears to be? So that could be a key difference going forward between the Liberals and the Conservatives, is the degree to which we want to diversify our economic relationships and being part of a global conversation and revisiting our kind of trade and defense alliances is an important part of a global conversation and revisiting our kind of trade and defense alliances is an important part of the discussion. All right. We've got to weigh in on this inside-outside cat thing. And, you know, Good Talk does have a resident cat. And it appears almost weekly, trotting in the background of Chantal's shot.

Sadly, you will never see that cat again. Oh, no. It's gone. I'm sorry to hear that. It did not do well over the Christmas break. It was an elderly cat that has gone on to a better place. Well, we feel for you. It was a great cat.

You're going to get more emails It was the most popular image on our YouTube channel And she was an inside cat I don't know why it should be insulting She was a great cat And she loved politics for some reason What's wrong with an

inside cat that doesn't kill birds? Was it declawed as well? So it wouldn't claw your furniture? No, no, no. I don't do that. I'm not a couch lover to the point of doing that to a cat. Many things people do to cats. Before we take

our final break, is there anything you want to say on the more substantive end of this stuff? I would like to, after the break, maybe come back to the issue of how Canadians feel about election timing, because there were some really interesting numbers on that this week. And it does relate to a message to Mr. Poiliev. Tell me about it. Go ahead now. So it was a leisure poll,

and basically the question was simple. Do you want an election now? Do you want an election in the spring? Do you want an election in the fall? The numbers that I found really interesting, Canadians are split three ways. But the notion that there is this big push, let's have an election and get this resolved, that poll did not say that. It showed 29% wanted an election now, which is basically the conservative base.

So the issue of let's do this because Trump and Poiliev is ready to take over, it does not resonate very loudly. On the contrary, when you looked at the poll, it seemed to say we would like to have a chance to look at other options before we have to decide. So that was, I thought, a really interesting number. And then I looked at the number, about one third are saying we should wait till next fall, the natural end of the term. But when you broke down that number, 53% of people who identify with the NDP were of the, so the majority of the people who are saying, let's wait till fall are people who identify with the New Democrats. Interestingly enough, the next day, I have a hard time, and I've said it before,

following Mr. Singh's train of thoughts on election timing. A day later, I think he wrote to the Prime Minister to say Parliament should sit because of the Canada-US pile. And I was thinking, but this is the same person who said the second parliament sets, I want to bring down the government. So I'm not too sure where all that sets, but it does tell me that maybe a majority of the people who are inclined to look at the NDP as an option are saying, you guys are not doing well enough for us to want to rush with you to an election this spring. Bruce, you spend a lot of your day crunching numbers. Have you got 30 seconds on that?

Well, I just love hearing Chantal break down polling results and look at the subgroups and bring that forward. She's very good at it, and that's what i've been doing for a long time i think that's right i think that the essence of what she's saying is that the um is that the public would kind of look at this situation and say look things are urgent right now they're really important but do we need emergency surgery like tomorrow or do we need to kind of be careful and take the measure of the uh the way that events unfold and look for the best choices available. Well, who have Canadians always been? They have tended to always be,

give us some good choices, take the time necessary. And the difference between an election in February or May or October is not going to be material for many people. Even the people who, in the answer to that Leger question said sooner rather than later, my estimation is come March or April, they're as likely to say, well, what's wrong with October? October is when it was going to be and it's soon enough. So I think there's fluidity in public opinion there, except among the conservative base. And I think the reason why they're so anxious is partly because they see this opportunity to win right now. And they might be worried that it won't be as strong down the road.

All right. We're going to take our final break. Come back on the Trump question. We'll be back right after this. Welcome back. Final segment of Good Talk for this week. Chantel and Bruce are here. I'm Peter Mansbridge. So Monday, we're only literally hours away from Donald Trump officially taking power as president of the United States after the inauguration on Monday. I think it's at 12 noon and he's president as of that moment. as President of the United States, after the inauguration on Monday,

I think it's at 12 noon, and he's President as of that moment. The assumption is, through executive orders of some mechanism, that Trump is going to immediately put into place, among other things, tariffs that he's promised, the 25% tariffs that will impact Canada, Mexico, China. We'll see if he does. Also, supposedly that same day, the Trudeau government, Trudeau's still the prime minister, may have tariffs of their own to use against the United States

in some key areas, which will vault this issue to even yet another higher level, if it couldn't be any higher than it is already. Talk to me about Monday and how you think that's going to unfold and the impact that it's going to have. Bruce, you start this round. You know, it's not clear to me. I've just been recalling the first inaugural speech by Donald Trump, and the degree to which it was specific on anything was really limited. It was a very worrying speech about the world and the impact on the world because it was a very dark speech about America. And it turned out to be a reasonable foreshadowing for the kind of government that he ran.

And I say that in part because it seemed a bit meandering and shambolic and gloomy and unpredictable. And his government was quite unpredictable. This version of Trump's administration, I don't think will be quite as unpredictable. I think that there are more people with substantive experience that have been put into key places that will carry through on the stated intention to put tariffs in place, probably at a high level, to some degree with a view that these can be negotiated over time. But I think it remains a big question mark how much Donald Trump really does want to expand the territorial footprint of the United States. just as big a risk, I think, as the tariff conversation, because it signals an intention not just to collect money, to put in an external revenue service bank account and show American

taxpayers that this is being done. That's a big risk. But because it might be that Americans decide in significant numbers that they like the idea of the expansion of America's footprint and that they don't see the risks to it or the insult that's embedded in it. So I'm quite worried about it. side, not kind of show our cards, not necessarily kind of escalate our rhetoric to DEFCON 12 right away. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't push back. It does mean that we should be firm. And beyond that, I just don't know. I mean, I think Monday will be a little bit less detail and a little bit more thematic,

but it will be a major event in the life of the relationship between our two countries, I suspect. I think that 2017, January 2017 speech was written by Steve Bannon. I don't think he'll be writing this one. So it'll be interesting to compare the two. You're right on that. Chantelle, your thought. I'm going to focus on what the Canadian government and the Canadian side has in store or has prepared for on Monday and Tuesday. And it is clear that the government is, the federal government is totally ready to jump into the frame. Justin

Trudeau is not going to have one of those days where it says private meetings, no public event. There is a cabinet retreat. Part of the reason for the cabinet retreat is to have everyone on hand Monday and Tuesday to go to the microphones and articulate whatever response may be needed at that point, which is smart.

The last thing you need is for the sense that parliament isn't sitting and who knows, maybe they're all cross country skiing to bond together and they get to know hills. But he is also appointed. And that was announced yesterday, but it was something that had been a work in progress when Christia Freeland resigned a list of Canada trade council to advise the government and the cabinet on those issues. And it takes people from a variety of venues. So Jean Charest, the former Quebec premier, is on it.

But as is Rachel Notley, the former NDP premier of Alberta. Brian Tuck, who is an NDP strategist, is also on it, former premier of Nova Scotia. There's a long list. The former lead negotiator, the last time we renegotiated NAFTA. It's an interesting list. And these people certainly have something to contribute to the discussion. They also have ties into different political families or the labor movement, which is also one of the groups represented on this. But the thing I found interesting is there was such a mechanism last time. Ronna Ambrose, the former Harper minister who served as interim conservative leader,

was part of that effort. And I looked at the list and I noted that neither Ron Ambrose nor James Moore, the former heritage minister who is also participating in those efforts at another level, they were not on that list. And me, I thought, first, they must have been asked. They probably declined. It was a good idea if they did, because if Pierre Poiliev becomes prime minister, I think most of us would like to think that steady hands like those two

will be around to advise a Poiliev government on those issues. And by not signing up for this one, they make themselves more available in the case of a change in government. Because at some point, it's one thing to look at polls and say Pierre Poiliev, this and that. We all know what government change means. It means an upheaval in the senior civil service ranks. It means big changes in the diplomatic ranks. It means people untrained, because having never been in government, in charge of key portfolios, what you want is for some people to sit out

in case they are needed for the next installment, rather than all be in. And I'm not saying that Ronna Ambrose and James Moore will be shooting at the government from the sidelines, but I think it's wise for them to have taken a step back on this one. But it does give Justin Trudeau kind of a lot of cover, bipartisan cover. But the biggest person, I've said it before, that provides that cover is the Premier of Ontario.

You know, the two of you are painting quite the road ahead here. You're trying to compare it to other times in Canadian history that we've covered or in some cases even been a part of. Seems to fall short. I mean, the number of steps in this road, this path ahead to October, if it runs that long, are quite something. And the possibilities, the forks in the road, boy, they're unseen at this point. It's really unclear as to how this is going to play out. It's a combination of scary and to a degree exciting as well.

Cause I mean, it's going to be a heck of a story to tell whichever way, however this plays out. Okay. Time to, to thank Bruce for an incredible last three or four years and we'll miss him for the next couple of months, but we know he will be back at,

at some point to help us understand those forks in the road that we're, we're about to witness. So, Bruce, you take care of yourself, and we'll miss you on Good Talk, but he's going to pop up with, remember the old smoke mirrors and the truth? We're going to make that on Tuesdays with Bruce and Fred Delorey, a different kind of look at the political situation. We're looking forward to that. That should start as early as next week.

Rob Russo will be sitting in for Bruce as he's done on many occasions in the past over these next weeks of the Liberal leadership campaign. So thank you, Bruce. You take care of yourself. Yeah, you bet. It's been a lot of fun and I look forward to seeing you again on the other side of this and I'll be listening in to the diving judges critiques and paying attention to them because they're very worthwhile.

See, he's already in the dark. That move has been completed at least in his mind. Take care, you guys. We'll talk to you again. Yeah, you bet. Take care, you guys we'll talk to you again yeah you bet take care you guys bye bye