The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Good Talk - The Passing of a Titan - The 90th Birthday of Another.

Episode Date: January 12, 2024

Ed Broadbent and Jean Chretien.  Two giants on the country's political landscape, but are they symbols of an era long past? Bruce and Chantal have their thoughts on that, plus how significant are the changes taking place in the prime minister's office? Also, does Canada have a position on genocide in the Middle East?

Are you ready for Good Talk? And good morning there. Peter Mansbridge here in Toronto. Bruce Anderson is in Ottawa. Chantal Hébert is in Montreal. So we're all in our normal spots. We have quite a bit to talk about on Good Talk today. We're going to start by talking, I think it's fair to say, a couple of titans on the political landscape in Canada, certainly over the last, well, basically the last half century, really. Because certain things, you know, passages in life happened in terms of both these gentlemen, as it turns out. First up is Ed Broadbent, who passed away yesterday at the age of 87. Terry Mosher, the great cartoonist Aislinn for the Montreal Gazette, sent me a note today.

And it's basically, he just sent along an article he'd seen overnight in Policy Options, the policy magazine, by Robin Sears, who was one of Ed Broadbent's closest advisors over many years. And I love the little anecdote that Robin starts off with about Ed Broadbent, because it gives that other side that, you know, in some cases many people never see. They hear about the politician. They hear about the person who dominated the headlines

for many years in Ottawa. Here it is. I'll read it. It's just a couple of sentences long. Years ago, near the end of a political mission to Havana about the raging civil wars in Central America, Ed Broadbent was miffed. Here was Ed, an avid cigar smoker, having just spent three hours in a bilateral with Fidel Castro

and still not a Cohiba or a Monte Cristo in sight. As we prepared for our early morning flight home, Broadbent railed at me. You swore we would get cigars. I bore my chagrin in silence, then noticed a large black Mercedes had pulled up in the driveway. Out came two large Cuban security guys. They were lugging a wooden box. Excuse me, turning the page.

A wooden box. Excuse me, turning the page. A wooden box. Well, of course, the other half of the article disappeared on me. Anyway, what it turned out was the wooden box, the size almost of a small coffin, was filled with cigars, which Broadbent then continued to carry or to keep in his office for years after that. In fact, I have a cigar that Ed Broadbent gave me back in the 80s somewhere. I never unwrapped it. I've kept it all that time. And I'm sure, I can't remember exactly, but I'm sure he said to me, Castro gave me this cigar.

Here's one for you. I like to believe that anyway. And that's, I guess, one of the reasons why I've kept it. But that was the other side of Ed Broadman, the side that, you know, people don't normally see or hear about. But his mark on the national political scene, and his mark in Ottawa especially, was quite something from the mid-70s through to the end of the 80s, and then he came back again. He had a little kind of renewal on the Ottawa political scene in the early 2000s. Talk about Ed Broadbent, the impact that he had and will always have had in Ottawa.

Chantal? I think both that Ed Broadbent is a past leader of the NDP, like David Lewis before him and Tommy Douglas, that will remain larger than life. And the imagination, the political imagination of many Canadians, in particular new but not exclusively new Democrats. He may also be the last of those larger than life NDP figures. There have been other leaders who have iconic places in the narrative of the NDP.

Jack Layton, obviously, Alexa McDonough went a long way to bring the party back after 1993. But it's a different category of memory that people have of those leaders. What that broadband did, it's interesting you should talk about cigars because I saw a picture from way back when where he was holding a pipe.

And I was thinking these days, you wouldn't catch a politician with cigars or pipes or even cigarettes. So it does show the error. But what that broadband did for the NDP, in a way, was to lay the groundwork for what came to be known years later as the Orange Wave in Quebec under Jack Clayton.

He was the first NDP leader who actually tried to focus the NDP on Quebec and to do so by making sure that he could communicate with Quebecers in French. He tried really hard. People liked him here. They didn't give him the votes he was hoping for. He recruited candidates who, to this day, are still on the airwaves, but who went on to become ministers in Patsykivikwa governments or other organizations. And when he saw that orange wave, I remember, because by accident, I had a conversation with him, not that long after

it happened, but after Jack Layton had passed away. And you could see that even as he welcomed the orange wave, he was a bit concerned that it would result in the party coming closer to the center. Quebecers are centrists. That's usually how they vote. They didn't vote for Jack Layton because they tilted left. They voted for Jack Layton because they had a connection with him. And he was a bit concerned about that.

And he did. He was never shy about saying what he thought. And he did tell New Democrats what he thought when he said that he was reluctant to see Thomas Mulcair become leader of the NDP because he felt Thomas Mulcair would turn the New Democrats, dilute the New Democratic Party into a quasi-liberal political force. He still wasn't shy a few months ago when he said that he believed that maybe the deal that

Jagmeet Singh struck with Justin Trudeau was a bit too long, that it shouldn't have stretched to the natural end of a majority government, which is the fall of 2025. So an interesting character who left quite a large mark, but also someone as the next person that we will talk about, from a very different era, an era when conservatives and new Democrats were not flip sides of a coin that can never be on the same side. When F. Broadbent retired, remember, it was Brian Mulroney who appointed him to rights and democracy, the federal think tank that was created by the Mulroney government. So yes, another era. It's worth reading his farewell speech to the House of Commons because he did talk a lot about the civility and the need to actually listen to other points of views.

And I think those words have been lost, possibly on new generations of politicians. Although I will note that the NDP to this day still steers pretty clear of those kind of personal attacks that have become a trademark of question period. Bruce, your thoughts on Ed Broadbent? Yeah, I'm glad we're talking about him. And we'll talk a little bit about Jean Chrétien as well, because I was reminded when I was looking back at some of the history of these individuals,

that for a lot of people, this is history. They may not know it. And so it's a good idea to spend a little bit of time talking about how different politics was then and how unusual these individuals were in terms of the contribution that they made to politics. They had some things in common, but they had some things that were quite different. So we're going to talk about Kretchey in a minute. But for me, in reading the various commentary pieces over the course of the last 18 hours or so, I was really struck by a few things. I liked Brian Mulroney's reference to Ed Broadbent knowing how to bring the thunder. I remember watching in the House of Commons,

and I used to go every day when I worked up on the Hill way back when, and Ed Broadbent was a performer in the House of Commons in the best sense of the word. He could bring the argument without notes, with great passion, with that sort of energy that, you know, these days, anybody who gets up and has energy, all of a sudden, the heckling just kind of drowns them out. But that didn't used to happen with Ed Broadbent and people of his stature and his capabilities there.

And there weren't that many of them, but there were some. Anyway, he used to be able to deliver an argument that people would pay attention to, even if it hurt while they were hearing it. He had a theory of the world, which I think is maybe a little bit different from Jean Chrétien, who was more a product of the bouncing around that happened in Canadian political life to him and to his party. I think Broadbent's theory of the world about the role of the working person and the need for a political formation that constantly pressed for more influence on the part of those workers. Obviously, he was NDP leader from Oshawa,

the seat of the auto industry in Canada, and he had a great and important relationship with the labor movement, which hasn't since him always been as consistently useful for the NDP or as consistent in its direction. The last thing that I'd say about him is that I remember at different points, as you know, you guys know, I did a little bit of volunteer work in support of progressive conservatives

and liberals. So when Ed Broadbent decided to come back to politics, I had a very good friend named Richard Mahoney, still a very good friend. He wanted to be the liberal candidate in Ottawa Centre and tried it a couple of times, was the liberal candidate in Ottawa Centre. Anyway, I'd done a little poll for him because he was a couple of times, was the liberal candidate in Ottawa Centre. Anyway, I'd done a little poll for him because he was a friend of mine before Ed Broadbent decided to come back to

politics. And I gave him the results and I said, you know, you're ahead by, I forget the number, but it was probably like 12 or 14 points that he was going to win that riding. And then Ed Broadbent announces that he's going to come back to politics. And I remember saying to Richard, maybe I better redo that poll. And I did. And he was behind by 12 or 14 points. So I don't think I've ever seen a name, an individual name. I mean, I'm sure it's happened, but I don't think I've seen it where the injection of one name can change a ballot outcome on a poll in a riding the way the Ed Broadbent name did in Ottawa Centre. And that says something about how he was seen by Canadians, including Canadians in a place that he

didn't run in previously. Right. It's funny you should say that, because I lived in Outremont when Thomas Mulcair suddenly appeared. And that's basically what happened also. And I'm not sure it happens to a liberal or a conservative candidate in the way that it happens to someone who is identified with the NDP. But overnight, this very, very liberal writing

became the NDP's to lose, as we saw over the years that followed. So there are people, to this day, it is still possible for someone to come out and gain a stature that has little to do with their title or the power that they have in the House of Commons. And yes, I know that Broadbent is from another era, but I think that part of politics is still doable.

It is still possible for someone to appear and just by being there, making a difference in the way people think about a party or an election. I agree with that. I just want to add, if I can, Peter, speak up on that point. I think that thing about him that really worked is that he did have this theory of the world and he was there to fight for the working person, the working family. And I think that's the through line. If we're looking for politicians who somehow find a way to beat the odds of their party situation or that sort of thing is that that generally is the,

is the songbook that's going to work the best. I don't think there's, there's much doubt about that. But he also, and Chantal referenced this point in terms of Broadbent's comment about Jagmeet Singh's arrangement with the liberals, Broadbent turned down Pierre Trudeau's proposal for a coalition government, as I understand. I think Lawrence Martin wrote about that. And he had a theory of the role of the NDP, which is that if we never think about power, what's the point of us? But if we think too much about power, then we lose our moral compass. I'm paraphrasing badly what he said, but we're going to switch to Jean Chrétien. I don't think he had the same sense of tension in terms of the role of the Liberal Party. Right.

Okay. Yeah, I remember that period in 1881 where they were toying with this idea. You know, there were a lot of things at play back then. There was the, you know, obviously the Quebec situation in the year after the Quebec referendum. There was the incoming energy crisis of the early 1980s. There were a lot of things, 1980s where there were a lot of things you know and the uh there were that were at play the um uh i do remember and just the last point on on broadband in 75 i was in winnipeg was one of the first kind of national assignments i

had covering the uh the leadership convention i was one of the floor reporters when Lloyd Robertson was an anchor at the CBC. And I was covering Rosemary Brown, who was kind of considered this kind of third or fourth place candidate. Turns out she took Ed Broadbent to the final ballot in that leadership convention. And there were a lot of people left that convention hall that weekend wondering, you know, we just had Tommy Douglas, and then we had David Lewis, and these were powerhouse figures, and how will this new guy actually turn out over time? And will it work, and will it keep the NDP in people's thoughts?

Well, in fact, it certainly did. There was a time in 88 when it looked 87, 88, where it even looked like, well, he was, he was leading in the polls ahead of both the liberals and the conservatives. And it looked like that was a possibility, an NDP government in Canada. So Ed Broadbent certainly earns the title, one of the titans of the political landscape over this kind of last half century. So let's move to Jean Chrétien, who turned 90 this week. You know, there's not a lot of former prime ministers who made it that far. John Turner did, after only having been prime minister for a couple of months.

But, you know, he was into his 90s. I was at his birthday party. So was Chrétien, two, you know, two guys who didn't have a lot of nice things to say about each other over time, but they certainly did that night on the birthday for Turner. And so I'll try hopefully a little more successfully in reading a couple of lines from a piece that Peter DiNolo, that Peter DiNolo, who was a former top aide to Jean Chrétien,

director of communications, wrote in the Globe and Mail about the 90th birthday. He starts off, he says, last week I phoned my old boss to wish him a happy new year. Peter, he said, I will call you back. I'm with my trainer. There he was, Jean Clétien at 90, with his trainer, focused on not just the present but the future, he's always been ready to talk to journalists and reporters, give them interviews, never shy about what he has to say. As he was never shy during his whole time as cabinet minister through the Pierre Trudeau days and then eventually as a leader himself

through the 90s and the early 2000s. Jean Chrétien hits 90 and he's still active and he's still talking and he's still ready with a line about whatever the situation may be. He makes the odd stumble. He's said a few things in the last couple of years he probably regrets having said, but he's still very much around at 90. Thoughts on Jean-Claude Chan? Why don't you start this time, Bruce? Well, you know, I think obviously he's one of the more effective leaders of the liberal party um i think that his you know i went back read through his long long career and man it was long

he went through a lot of different phases and he had a lot of skirmishes and i feel like the biggest contrast for me with ed broadbent and john k Chrétien is that Ed Broadbent was never in power. He had some influence, obviously, but Jean Chrétien was kind of immersed in powerful dynamics in Canadian politics. Sometimes he led those. Sometimes he was battered and bruised by them. I think that he participated in a huge number of really important issues. And, you know, in kind of reminding myself of where was he on the National Energy Program and how did he feel about Meech Lake and what was his role in keeping the country unified vis-a-vis Quebec? And, you know, what sort of apparatus did he leave the Liberal Party in afterwards? I think that the record is both impressive and strong in many respects,

but also a little bit checkered. I think that the, you know, his relationship with Quebec sovereigntists probably didn't make, didn't strengthen the unity of the country as much as he hoped that it might. Maybe he was too pugilistic about some

aspects of it. Others might argue the opposite. I don't think we're going to know really until we,

until another 20 years passes, how to do the overall balance sheet of Chrétien. But I think

that on the whole, he participated in a Liberal Party, the nature of which more Canadians liked than not. I think they probably would have appreciated or should appreciate his decision not to join the Iraq War. I think that he led a government that balanced the budget, which had been a source of considerable frustration for many Canadians and a black mark on the record of the Liberal Party as it preceded him. But he was also he presided over this sponsorship scandal, which was a pretty ugly episode in Canadian politics. You can look at it

now and say, well, was it really that big? But at the time, it was pretty big. And is it Chantal's birthday today? No, I don't have a clue what those balloons were. It's kind of... Peter, you're going to have to describe it for the podcast crowd, but I just about done anyway. I think John Crenshaw is a likable individual, defined as much by his storytelling and anecdote sharing skills as anything else. I think that we don't see very many like him who can convey a sense of who they are and what they care about in the stories that they tell and the way that they tell them and those remain legendary as does his general health and energy and fitness to your point i saw him at a golf course earlier this year and he uh he challenged me and another fellow to go out and play him and the other guy did i i was tied up but i i kind of wish i had now uh and uh i'll do it next year if i see him again. Just so the people who aren't watching on YouTube know, you know that some of those effects that happen in terms of your screen

when you're online, all these balloons started lifting off from behind. Chantelle looked quite funny, actually. And I wasn't touching anything. I was religiously listening to Bruce so that I could prick a few of those balloons that he was flying, one of those being the relationship between Jean-Claude Tse and Francophone Quebecers. It's not Quebec sovereignty. It's Francophone Quebecers. And it's based on actions and facts. One of those is the patriation of the Constitution without Quebec,

which was done in rather a typical Chrétien manner with this notion that it didn't matter because at some point Quebecers would just come outside and sign this thing and it didn't, you know, no big deal. There is a generation of Francophone Quebecers who to this day toil within the Conservative Party of Canada because the Constitution was patrioted by the Liberals without Quebec's participation in the final agreement.

And then there's the Meech Lake Accord, which was not a project for sovereigntists, but it was a project for federalists and which Jean Chrétien opposed to his benefit in no small part. I covered that leadership campaign that he won against Paul Martin and Sheila Cupps, both of whom supported the Meech Lake Accord. And, you know, one day to write a news story, I decided this is pre-cell phones, right?

Pre-internet. So I decided to call the president of every liberal writing association outside Quebec and to ask how the members in his or her writing felt about the candidates for the leadership. And the result was a story that basically illustrated what a wave of anti-Mietzsche, but also anti-Québec feeling Jean Chrétien was writing to the leadership of the Liberal Party. And yesterday, as people were doing what we're doing in French, this was front and center in every commentary. That being said, Jean Chrétien, notwithstanding the sponsorship scandal, the civil war that took place within the party, he was a key participant in 30 years of leadership politics in that party, undermining John Turner at every turn until he became

leader. And then last night explaining in a Francophone interview that he'd always meant to only do two terms, but because Alain was dismayed by the actions of the Martin plan, he didn't name, he said some people in the party didn't name Paul Martin. He decided to stay for a third term, which is basically, I'm serving a third term so that I can block someone and continue this civil war inside the party. But he was saved in that third term by the decision not to go to Iraq. For the first time since patriation, that's decades, suddenly, Jean Chrétien and the liberals, the federal liberals

were popular in Quebec, not just because Paul Martin was popular in Quebec, but because that particular move, which turned out to be a solid move. When Jean Chrétien decided not to go to Iraq, public opinion in this country was very, very divided over that call. It wasn't that the polls said a majority of Canadians do not want to go there. If you took Quebec out of the mix, a majority of Canadians outside Quebec believed that we should, for all kinds of reasons, join the war on Iraq. And over the course of the weeks and months that followed, even before it became obvious that it was a bad idea, public opinion rallied to Jean Chrétien's decision on this. And it is an interesting example of leadership in the fact that sometimes a political leader can build a consensus,

not just take one that exists and then ride with it. And I think that, up to a point, did salvage very much some of, or did make up for some of the things that, to this day, francophone Quebecers feel about Jean-Claude Saint's actions as a politician. All right. We're going to move on. Let me just say one last thing, because both of you kind of referred to it, about these two gentlemen, Broadbent and Chrétien, going through different passages in their life in this past few days. It represented a different era in Canadian politics.

And I hear that. I understand that. I did find it interesting to see how many of the past and present leaders of Canadian political parties have come out and said wonderful things about both these two gentlemen in the last few days. And I couldn't help but wonder how the current crop of leaders would refer to each other when this time comes for them. You know, I mean, let's say, for example, that Justin Trudeau chooses to depart the scene in the next year.

Canadian politics, you know, can you imagine Pierre Pelliev getting up in the House of Commons after having trashed Trudeau for the last couple of years, suddenly saying wonderful and nice things about him? I don't know. I mean, that would be the mark of whether we really are in a different era or not, I guess, in terms of the respect each has for the other.

And I'm not quite sure how that would play out. And maybe someday we'll have the opportunity to see that. Okay, we're going to take a quick break, and then we'll come back and we'll talk about something very current and very difficult for political parties, and especially the governing party at this time. So we'll be back right after this. And welcome back.

You're listening to Good Talk, the Friday episode of The Bridge, right here on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. Or you can watch us on our YouTube channel. And whatever platform you watch us on or listen to us on, we're happy to have you join us. Okay. The Liberals still seem split, the governing party,

on how to deal with the situation in the Middle East. And once again, it's sort of come up in terms of what do you really think about Israel's position? The International Human Rights Criminal Court in The Hague is trying to make a decision that is pushed by South Africa that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Canada's position on this is unclear. And part of the reason it's unclear is the Liberal Party is clearly still split on this issue, on how to deal with it. Your thoughts on where we are on that, Chantal, to start? I think we're going to see more of those crossroads that will be difficult to manage for the government over the course of what's happening in Palestine and Gaza and Israel's handling of that conflict. And it's not just, by the way, Canadians or liberals who are divided on this, that is also the case of voters in Israel who have contrary thoughts about how the Gaza situation

is being handled. But in this case, and this latest crossing of the road involves the South African decision to bring to the International Court of Justice an allegation that the actions of Israel in dealing with its response to Hamas amounts to a genocide of the people who live in Gaza. And then you have two camps, and those two camps are represented not only in Canada, but also within the Jewish community in Canada. The first says, like the United States and Great Britain, that the South African case is unfounded, that it amounts to using the International Court of Justice to instrumentalize a campaign against Israel on the international scene, and that on that basis, Canada should declare as much and say that it regrets that this case is being brought because it does not believe that it is founded in international law and that it is a manipulation of the international justice system to bring it to the court. On the other side of the debate, you have those who say, well, some say outright, A.V. Lewis, the grandson of David Lewis that we were talking about earlier, has been arguing in the Globe and Mail that Canada has a moral duty to support the South African cause and line up behind South Africa on this.

Then there's the middle road, and that's the road that Canada will have a hard time leaving. Canada is an architect of the international justice system, much more so than either Israel or the United States. And it is hard to imagine that as a longstanding architect of that system and a supporter, it can say anything other than we will abide by whatever the international court decides. That is not to say we support South Africa's argument, but I think it will or it would be very hard for Canada to say, even to satisfy a strong section of the Jewish community that the United States position is the right one, Israel's position is the right one, that there is no case there. But on the other hand, I don't believe that Justin Trudeau could come out and say, we think that the South African government is on to a good argument and

we will support it. I don't believe that if the liberal government did say that as a position, it could sustain the unity of its caucus. I think that the divisions that we've seen play out in public, which for that support, for the record, would probably bring caucus unity to a breaking point in all kinds of ways. point on difficult issues, you do need to remember your core principles. And one of the core principles of Canadian foreign policy has been support for the international justice system. So to cherry pick and say, this court has agreed to hear this, we don't believe, we're not going to believe that its decision on this has merit, but we support the system, kind of seems to be a relinquishing of principles that have guided Canadian foreign policy so far. And I'm kind of puzzled by how long it's taking for a candidate to find a way to not undermine the international justice system and preserve its political interest within its own caucus. Bruce? Yeah, I do think that it's understandable that these tensions exist.

And I think the only appropriate thing for the government at some level is to say, look, we don't see much point in participating in the posture taking by other governments or other organizations, we should describe very clearly what it is that matters to us. And our first principle should be saving civilian lives and looking for practical solutions that we can get behind that will do that. I think that obviously there has to be a clear statement that's consistent and repeated over and over again about what's right and what's wrong and that the government of canada has grave concerns that's understating it about hamas and hamas's stated intention to commit genocide against Israel and the evidence that they intend to kill the Israeli people. That's what triggered these horrific events right now. But I think that it's also well past time

for the Canadian government to declare that it's uncomfortable with the Netanyahu government and the way in which they're approaching the situation in Gaza. And, you know, well, that statement of how people feel and how Canada feels about Hamas and how we feel about Netanyahu as a good faith actor in search of ways to de-escalate this situation to save civilian lives. I don't find that all that complicated. I think what becomes complicated is when politicians feel that urge to empathize with one side on any given day or the other side on another given day. And then everybody ends up parsing the, the amount of empathy that expressed or the order of empathy that expressed. And I think that this, the, the, not just safer strategy. I think the strategy that allows people to understand that there's maybe a

path that will save more lives going forward is to be very clear and crystal clear about it, which is that there's right and there's wrong, and we've got to save lives, and we can't absolve Hamas for the way that they're approaching things. But we have to be at least as aggressive in criticizing the way in which the Netanyahu government is approaching things as Joe Biden is. And I don't think that that has been the position of Canada just yet. So that's where I come down on it. But I'm also, like Chantel, loathe to be considered an expert in this at all. Yeah, I don't think any one of us is. But I realize there are differences in the two immediate situations, but they're both caused by the same events of last October.

You did not see the Canadian government waffling this week or in the last 48 hours over the decision to take part in the military action against the Houthi rebels in Yemen who are taking shots at Western base, mainly American traffic going through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. You know, we were a minor player in this military action, but we're a player. We're in it. We've made a decision. We know what side we're on in terms of that particular fight.

The situation in the Hague, as I said, different, but all caused by the same issues. And we're kind of struggling to make a decision on which way to go on that. How that plays out over the next little while will, I assume, determine a lot of things, including the peace and calm inside the Liberal caucus. The Prime Minister spent some time this week trying to talk to those in both the Palestinian and the Jewish communities about the Canadian government's position. I'm not sure how successful that's been because the issue is still unresolved about exactly where we are on some of this. Okay, final break coming up,

and then we've got something else to talk about right after this. And welcome back. Final segment of Good Talk for this week. Chantelle's in Montreal, Bruce is in Ottawa, and Peter in Toronto. Okay, I guess over the last few months, we've talked more than a few times. Bruce, you've been especially pointed about it, in terms of the need for some kind of reorganization or change in attitude inside the Prime Minister's office about dealing with issues. And quietly and not so quietly, there have been a number of significant changes at the most senior levels inside his office. There's the new communications director,

who we should be seeing some sense of his work in the next, one assumes in the next little while, as they prepare for an election either later this year or next year. And then this week, the announcement of somebody who's familiar to all of us, because she's worked with us as a commentator, Supriya Dovedi, who's moving into the Prime Minister's office as a senior advisor to the Prime Minister. Now, Supriya, I think, wrote a piece in the Toronto Star this week explaining why. And if you haven't read it, it's part of my newsletter,

The Buzz, that comes out tomorrow. So please read it because I find it quite something. No matter where you may feel about her politics, she's been through an unbelievably difficult last year, last couple of years on a personal level. And some of the decisions she's made right now are related to that. So it's quite a powerful read. But I guess what I'm getting at to start with is, is this the beginning of a real reorganization in that office when you see those two figures? And these aren't junior players.

They don't at least appear to be given their titles. And whether as a result of these changes, we should expect to see some change in the way the government operates, how the prime minister operates. Chantal, you can start on this. Short answer is I don't know. I tend to think based on past experience that if you're going to really make big changes in the PMO, you have to start at the very, very top. It's titles of senior advisors can be very meaningful or they can mean very little. It all depends also on who's got access to the person leading the place, i.e. the prime minister. It's also very difficult to bring

new blood in a place that is very set in its ways. And this PMO is very set in its ways in the sense that it's basically been run by the same person. Something that didn't happen in the Chrétien era, for instance, or Brian Mulroney's era, since before Justin Trudeau came to power as prime minister. So from the official opposition office to today, basically the same people. And my personal thoughts on this, and it dates back to the time when Paul Martin was becoming prime minister, and remember that he also had a Niner circle

that had been with him throughout his efforts to become leader. And I remember being offered a place in that arrangement at a senior level, which I turned down within hours using family reasons, which is always good also for journalists. that it's really hard to be the newcomer in a tightly bound team that has already made its mold and has been in it for all this time. I had thought back then that the first person who would be thrown off the boat nicely, but thrown off the boat if things didn't work out, would be the person who took the job I was turning down, that's exactly what happened. This person didn't drown.

He was appointed to something nice. But still, the first person out was the newest person in. So I'm kind of curious to see what impact you can have in a place where the leadership is not being changed in any significant way. Bruce? Well, now I just want to know how many hours it took. Just long enough to be polite. Look, I think the answer to your question, Peter, is it's too early to say. We don't really know. I think the biggest challenge for both of these individuals i don't know the um i don't know the gentleman who's the new director of communications and i and i know uh supriya a little bit uh but

only by observing her commentary and reading what she writes and I have a huge regard for the way that she makes an argument and uses her voice. And obviously, like you, a huge appreciation for the idea that, or I don't want to put words in your mouth, I have a huge appreciation for the fact that despite the reasons that one might find not to go in and do this kind of public service that she's decided to do that. So these could both be extremely important hires for the prime minister and good for him for deciding that he needs to add some fresh talent, some fresh legs. It isn't, you know, in my view, automatically a criticism of who's there, who's already there, who their colleagues will be to have new people come in.

I think that every organization that has existed like this in politics over a period of time with all of the various issues that they've had to deal with should logically expect that they need that kind of fresh energy. What will tell the tale, I guess, of whether or not they get to make an important difference is whether the Liberals feel that they have a problem or whether this is just time playing out until they get a chance to beat Pierre Polyev like a rented mule in the next election. I mean, if I'm them, I don't see this as an easy election. I see this as a situation where 17 points behind, according to the latest polls, they're far more likely to lose than win unless they figure out a strategy to beat

this relative newcomer to most Canadians, Pierre Poliev. So do they think that they have a problem? If so, what do they think the problem is? I think sometimes the instinct in government is to say, well, we need to come up with 10 more policies that people haven't seen from us yet that will solve the frustration or the dissatisfaction that they have with us. And I don't think this is that. I think there are obviously some issues where, you know, if the cost of living comes down, if the inflation rate subsides,

if interest rates come down, those things will make it easier for the liberals to campaign. But otherwise, the liberals are battling time and fatigue with their brand and with their leader to some degree. They're not just battling another conservative leader. individuals in this role will depend to some degree, obviously, on their own skill set, but also on whether the attitude of the government is one where it comes to the conclusion that it has to change some things about the tone and the manner in which it presents itself. We've talked about this before. I think this idea that it kind of stands a little bit preachy to many people, that it feels like a government that's there to talk about how we should all think about our lives and live our lives,

whereas its main rival talks about how he wants to help you as an individual. I think that contrast is a huge problem for the liberals right now, and they need to work on it, and maybe these are people who will be quite helpful in that they also need uh and i don't know if those two people will be bringing that perspective inside the pmo but they they seem to me to be increasingly suffering from something that went a long way to to kill stephen harper's re-election chances. And that is the sense that the person they're running against is not a serious person. And so it will be, you know, when the time comes,

we are going to take this person down. If you are going to beat someone, you have to believe that they can beat you if you're going to bring your best to that battle. And I think there is a sense within liberal circles believe that they can beat you if you're going to bring your best to that battle. And I think there is a sense within liberal circles that, you know, in the end, Capo de Leva is just not fit to be prime minister and it's going to become obvious. I think that's a dangerous path, whether it's true or not.

He has not been prime minister, so how would I know? It is a bad place to start, to be in an echo chamber. And you've seen what happens on social media and what the liberal echo chamber comes up with. Rationalizations, false equations. How many times have I read this week that we should spend time on where Pierre Poilievre spent his Christmas holiday? Which misses the point completely. But if that's the mindset that they are into, then they will not be thinking of a fresh strategy. They will believe that they can just do whatever they normally do and preach whatever they usually preach, as Bruce talks about. And we will all come as voters to our senses.

And that is a really dangerous approach. You and I covered the Charlotte Town Accord referendum. And remember what the elites who were driving that accord said afterwards. Canadians just didn't get it. Well, if the assumption around Justin Trudeau and his team is that Canadians will get it about Pierre Poitier and then things will work out, if that's the mindset, then we will not see very many changes in the government's narrative over the next few months. And this is a crucial year, right, between now and summer. Something's got to get better in the optics that Canadians have on Justin Trudeau, or else I think they're going to run out of runway to be able to take off in an election campaign.

You know, I always marvel at how politicians can tie themselves into not saying, oh, this is just a temporary thing, and it'll become clear when one minds focus. It always reminds me of 1979 when Walter Baker, who was the House of Commons House Leader for the Conservative Party, in a poll came out in the late fall of 79 saying that the Liberals were up, whatever it was, 15 points in the polls against the new Conservative government of Joe Clark. And Walter Baker, standing there in 130S, which was the little room that they used to have

the after-question-period news conferences in, and Baker saying, listen, you know, you say it every month when the Gallup poll comes out that one out of 20 polls is bad, that it's a rogue poll. This is that one out of 20. And then, of course, a month later, the government fell. And two months later, the election showed whatever it was, 10 or 15 point lead for the liberals in the polls. And they were back in power.

How the liberals can't take seriously that they're getting hammered in poll after poll after poll right now that they think that it suddenly is all going to come back when people think more clearly. You know, I was reminded as we were thinking about Kretchen Broadbent in that era that something I've been kind of looking at in the numbers lately that most Canadians generally would rather have either a blue liberal government or a red conservative government, and they're not really offered those right now. And maybe that's a product of the individuals leading these parties. Maybe it's a product of the times and the degree to which social media kind of forces this sort of separation. But that's what people are looking for, I think. And if they get offered that by

the liberals or by the conservatives, that's what they are looking for, I think, and if they get offered that by the Liberals or by the Conservatives, that's what they'll gravitate towards. Okay, we're out of time. Another great conversation with Chantel and Bruce. I'll be back on Monday, another week of great episodes of The Bridge. And this weekend, if you have time, check out the newsletter. Go to nationalnewswatch.com and subscribe to The Buzz. You also have a link if you're just catching the tail end of this conversation

to hear it again. Anyway, thank you both. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Have a great weekend, all, and we'll see you next week. Take care, you guys.